Inch / Inches /-inch with scientific notation

Hello Anon

You would say "inches", e.g. 0.256 inches.

MrP

I am inclined to say "inch" for any length less than or equal to 1 inch.
-1.1 inches
-0.98 inch

Dear MrPedantic-

I was very glad to see this thread because I have been debating this very issue with a colleaugue. I also believe that the correct answer here would be inches, but I'm not sure this site will provide enough documentation for her to accept my answer. Can you cite a rule or reference that I can look up to "prove" this to her? Thanks in advance.

Hello Anon

I don't know of an authority for "inches", but will continue to look. (There may also be a difference in US/UK usage.)

Danyoo's reply reminds me of another format:

0.876 of an inch

I'm afraid the (London) Times Style Guide reproaches me for my earlier "ins", by the way:

"The abbreviation takes no point and no “

(Though you are looking for more than opinions, that's all I've got for now): with a decimal construction, I'm more familiar with 'inches', no matter what the value is.

LATER: Google gives a drastically different picture, however. On '0.050', its 23,000 on 'inch', and a handful (755) on 'inches'.

"The abbreviation takes no point and no “s” in the plural, eg, 14km, not 14kms."

MrP,
Another interesting point to note is the International System of Units uses this convention where prefixes meaning greater than 1 are written with a capital letter (60 Mbit memory) whereas prefixes meaning less than 1 are written with a small letter (89 nm). With

Thanks for that, Danyoo!

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that my own usage wouldn't bear close scrutiny.

MrP

0Here is another option: Any number less than ten should be written out.0-

I think you mean any integer less than or equal to ten and greater than or equal to negative ten.