To the amount of, in the amount of, for the amount of

Question

Using financial vernacular, banks, etc., sometimes write, "We acknowledge your transfer in the amount of £5000". Others write: "to the amount of £5000" and some of us lesser mortals sometimes write "for the amount of £5000".
The first two don't sound right to me, grammatically, so I'd be interested to hear some justification for these expressions.

I don't understand why they simply write "We acknowledge your transfer of £5000". Perhaps it just doesn't sound fancy enough...

TIA,
JimD

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Using financial vernacular, banks, etc., sometimes write, "We acknowledge your transfer in the amount of =A35000". Others write: "to the ... I don't understand why they simply write "We acknowledge your transfer of =A35000". Perhaps it just doesn't sound fancy enough...[/nq]
The fact that they "don't sound right" to you "grammatically" suggests that your understanding of grammar and usage is incomplete.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Using financial vernacular, banks, etc., sometimes write, "We acknowledge your transfer in the amount of £5000". Others write: "to the ... I don't understand why they simply write "We acknowledge your transfer of £5000". Perhaps it just doesn't sound fancy enough...[/nq]
Every field, including each person's personal life, has standard terminolgy. Even though its not obligatory and there are other forms that could be used, your TIA on the next line is an example of that.
[nq:1]TIA, JimD[/nq]
You didn't say, but the pound sign pretty clearly hinted, that you're looking for British usage. So I won't say anything more.

Posters should say where they live, and for which
area they are asking questions. I have lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 10 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]The fact that they "don't sound right" to you "grammatically" suggests that your understanding of grammar and usage is incomplete.[/nq]
If it was complete, I wouldn't have neede to post the question. Pompous twit!
JakeD

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]You didn't say, but the pound sign pretty clearly hinted, that you're looking for British usage. So I won't say anything more.[/nq]
I'm located in Southern England, but my question was prompted after reading my American stock broker acknowledge a "transfer in the amount of". I more often hear: "to the amount of" or "for the amount of". Logically, I would have thought "of the amount of" would be grammatically preferable, yet I almost never see or hear that version used.
JimD
aka JakeD

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]You didn't say, but the pound sign pretty clearly hinted, that you're looking for British usage. So I won't say anything more.[/nq]
[nq:1]I'm located in Southern England, but my question was prompted after reading my American stock broker acknowledge a "transfer in ... have thought "of the amount of" would be grammatically preferable, yet I almost never see or hear that version used.[/nq]
Your choices just change which preposition is used, so grammatically they are all the same.
I think the word to be used here is idiomatically or maybe syntactically. ??
To me, an American, "to" is wrong. "In" is right and "of Z dollars" would be right (without "the amount of")**. "In" is the word that is used in the financial world, which everyone gets some exposure to when watching the news or occasionally when talking to someone at their bank.
**I've noticed that some people put in what some think are extra words, a transfer of the amount of. In some cases, so many years old (instead of "so old".) Or it's a big ranch, so many miles wide, insted of so wide. (Yes I know there could be a good reason to include miles here. I can't think of a really good example.) After all, if you are old, you are old in years or months or hours. If the ranch is wide, it's wide in kilometers or miles.
A check could be written to the amount of z dollars. But "in" would probably be more common there too. Or "for" woudl be good. That's common. I guess my feeling on that depends on who I've been hanging out with lately.
Not too organized but I'm cold and I have to put a shirt on.
[nq:1]JimD aka JakeD[/nq]
Posters should say where they live, and for which
area they are asking questions. I have lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 10 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I'm located in Southern England, but my question was prompted ... yet I almost never see or hear that version used.[/nq]
[nq:1]Your choices just change which preposition is used, so grammatically they are all the same. I think the word to ... I've been hanging out with lately. Not too organized but I'm cold and I have to put a shirt on.[/nq]
OK - thanks for the input.
I'll happily talk about sending a check/cheque "to" Fred Bloggs, the payee, but writing a check to an amount just seems to me like wrong usage of the word "to".
Likewise, I will happily "write a check/cheque in the bank" or "in the kitchen", but writing a check/cheque "in the amount of" seems to me like very peculiar use of the word "in".
I'm puzzled as to how these phrases ever became standard, when these uses of "to" and "in" seem so wrong (to me, at least). I'm surprised they haven't gone the way of such phrases as "verily, I say unto thee". Perhaps it is because the financial professions have some esoteric reason to retain archaic jargon, the same way the legal profession does (in Britain, at least).
JimD

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I'm puzzled as to how these phrases ever became standard, when these uses of "to" and "in" seem so wrong (to me, at least). I'm surprised[/nq]
Sometimes the prepositions come from foreign languages. That is, when furriner learn English they translate the preposition they would use in their own language and use that one. One often hears an immigrant using the wrong preposition (more than other parts of speech) and if there are enough of the same kind of immigrants in the same area, I think that can establish the use of specific prepositions in specific regions.
This is all my assumption based only on living in the US. If I ever read something like this in a book, it's long ago and I don't remember doing so.
And in the US we had loads of immigrants from loads of places.
[nq:1]they haven't gone the way of such phrases as "verily, I say unto thee". Perhaps it is because the financial professions have some esoteric reason to retain archaic jargon, the same way the legal profession does (in Britain, at least).[/nq]
I think one big reason is that new employees do their best to talk like the old employees.
[nq:1]JimD[/nq]
Posters should say where they live, and for which
area they are asking questions. I have lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 10 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I'm puzzled as to how these phrases ever became standard, ... "in" seem so wrong (to me, at least). I'm surprised[/nq]
[nq:1]Sometimes the prepositions come from foreign languages. That is, when furriner learn English they translate the preposition they would use ... kind of immigrants in the same area, I think that can establish the use of specific prepositions in specific regions.[/nq]
That might explain it. I had never considered that.
[nq:1]This is all my assumption based only on living in the US. If I ever read something like this in a book, it's long ago and I don't remember doing so. And in the US we had loads of immigrants from loads of places.[/nq]
[nq:2]they haven't gone the way of such phrases as "verily, ... same way the legal profession does (in Britain, at least).[/nq]
[nq:1]I think one big reason is that new employees do their best to talk like the old employees.[/nq]
Maybe. I always assumed it was purely a method of distinguishing the pros from the non-pros. For example, if a pro is talking to a stranger and the stranger mentions some point of law or the workings of some financial instrument without using the traditional antiquated prefessional jargon, he exposes himself as an amateur, con-man, or whatever.
JimD

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I think one big reason is that new employees do their best to talk like the old employees.[/nq]
[nq:1]Maybe. I always assumed it was purely a method of distinguishing the pros from the non-pros. For example, if a ... of some financial instrument without using the traditional antiquated prefessional jargon, he exposes himself as an amateur, con-man, or whatever.[/nq]
Maybe.
I was thinking about when an old employee and a new employee were talking to each other, not a customer.
[nq:1]JimD[/nq]
Posters should say where they live, and for which
area they are asking questions. I have lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 10 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Using financial vernacular, banks, etc., sometimes write, "We acknowledge your transfer in the amount of =EF=BF=BD5000". Others write: ="to the ... understand why they simply write "We acknowledge your transfer of =EF=BF=BD5000". Perhaps it just doesn't sound fancy enough... TIA, JimD[/nq]
I believe that it would be "to the amount of =EF=BF=BD5000."

To the amount of, in the amount of, for the amount of

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions