Writing numbers

Question

What are the current guidelines on sriting numbers in formal (or, let me say, sholarly) writing? A few specific questions prompted this query:

* Is it alright to say "18th century" or should one spell out "eighteenth century"?
* Is it fine to say "in this 1,600-year interval" for "in this sixteen-hundred-year interval"?
* "chapter 13" vs "chapter thirteen" vs "13th chapter" vs "thirteenth chapter"
Ashok

Usenet · Accepted Answer

Ashok wrote on 24 Aug 2004:
[nq:1]What are the current guidelines on sriting numbers in formal (or, let me say, sholarly) writing? A few specific questions ... this 1,600-year interval" for "in this sixteen-hundred-year interval"? * "chapter 13" vs "chapter thirteen" vs "13th chapter" vs "thirteenth chapter"[/nq]
The general rule for numbers in formal writing is that you must spell out numbers smaller than 10 or smaller than 100 (depends on the style manual used), although some style manuals for specific publishers and journals, for example allow Arabic numerals for all numbers. The BMJ (British Medical Journal) even allows sentences to begin with Arabic numerals. You can write, for example "25 of the patients died."

All scholarly fields have their own rules for numerals in scholarly articles. They range from liberal to broomstick-up-the-*** pedantic. Most style guides will allow Arabic numerals for all measurements, eg "4 cm" or "3 months" (abbreviations are another nitpicky issue), but not all style guides are this liberal.
You have to check the style manual for the field or the particular publisher.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]What are the current guidelines on sriting numbers in formal (or, let me say, sholarly) writing? A few specific questions prompted this query: * Is it alright to say "18th century" or should one spell out "eighteenth century"?[/nq]
Anyone who is concerned with the propriety of "18th century" would not use "alright."
It is true that some style books, for example, the 1969 Twelfth Edition of Chicago's A Manual of Style pick this nit:

8.15 /Centuries and decades./ Spell out (in lowercase letters)references to particular centuries and decades:
twentieth century during the sixties and seventies /but:/ the 1930s
But the editors of that edition of that style manual would never use "alright."
Similarly, the 1974 third edition of Words into Type had "In referring to centuries, words are preferred to numerals: /nineteenth century, twelfth century, twenty-first century/. (p. 128) and
"alright for /all right/ not accepted. (p. 416)

But Burfield, in his rewriting of Fowler, begins the entry for "century" with "Each century as ordinally named (the 5th, the 16th, etc., century) ... ". But his position on "alright" is essentially sociological (and under "all right".)
[nq:1]* Is it fine to say "in this 1,600-year interval" for "in this sixteen-hundred-year interval"?[/nq]
Specific numbers over one hundred are usually set in numerals. (WiT3 p.125)
[nq:1]* "chapter 13" vs "chapter thirteen" vs "13th chapter" vs "thirteenth chapter"[/nq]
Numbers of major divisions (parts, chapters, paragraphs, sections, rules) are usually set in numerals, either arabic or roman ... For example, the sixth chapter may be designated Chapter 6, Chapter Six, or Chapter VI. (WiT3 p.131)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]What are the current guidelines on sriting numbers in formal ... say "18th century" or should one spell out "eighteenth century"?[/nq]
[nq:1]Anyone who is concerned with the propriety of "18th century" would not use "alright."[/nq]
You're making me cringe here, Martin. It should
be obvious English is not Ashok's native tongue.
We shouldn't be harsh, even a little, with those
who wish to learn, IMHO.

dg

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Anyone who is concerned with the propriety of "18th century" would not use "alright."[/nq]
[nq:1]You're making me cringe here, Martin. It should be obvious English is not Ashok's native tongue. We shouldn't be harsh, even a little, with those who wish to learn, IMHO.[/nq]
I share your view, FWIW.
Martin's an OK bloke though, in spite of some minor wrinkles.

Usenet · Answer

In our last episode,
(Email Removed),
the lovely and talented Ashok
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
[nq:1]What are the current guidelines on sriting numbers in formal (or, let me say, sholarly) writing?[/nq]
These issues of style vary from institution to institution and from discipline to discipline. If you are writing a paper for academic credit you must consult your instructor, committee, or department head to learn which style guide is used. If you are writing for a scholarly journal, you should consult the editor.

Lars Eighner ~~finger for geek code~~ (Email Removed) http://www.io.com/~eighner/ "The very essence of the creative is its novelty, and hence we have no standard by which to judge it." Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]You're making me cringe here, Martin. It should be obvious ... even a little, with those who wish to learn, IMHO.[/nq]
[nq:1]I share your view, FWIW. Martin's an OK bloke though, in spite of some minor wrinkles.[/nq]
I kinda figured that. I hope it's taken as only a minor rebuke as it was meant.

dg

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Anyone who is concerned with the propriety of "18th century" would not use "alright."[/nq]
[nq:1]You're making me cringe here, Martin. It should be obvious English is not Ashok's native tongue. We shouldn't be harsh, even a little, with those who wish to learn, IMHO. dg[/nq]
If I was the cringing type, I'd cringe at your condescension also. What is the relevance of anyone's native tongue here? Yes, I'm here to learn, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of dealing with self-important prigs.
.

Source: Merriam-Webster
Ashok

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]You're making me cringe here, Martin. It should be obvious ... little, with those who wish to learn, IMHO. dg[/nq]
[nq:1]If I was the cringing type, I'd cringe at your condescension also. What is the relevance of anyone's native tongue here? Yes, I'm here to learn, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of dealing with self-important prigs.[/nq]
I don't believe that my post indicated in any way that I am a "self-important prig." Rather, it shows that those "authorities" that would require spelling out "eighteenth century" would object to "alright." It suggested no judgment on my part that "alright" was wrong. Your quotations from the FAQ and from MW are a complete waste, showing only that you are a "self-important prig" deciding to educate those of us who have been here long enough to see the silly discussions of "alright" come and go more times than you can imagine.

Bite me.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1] Bite me.[/nq]
Martin, is this a first usage for you?

Maria Conlon

Usenet · Answer

}
}>
}
}> Bite me.
}
} Martin, is this a first usage for you?
}
}
Brother Martin is to be paid attention to and owes rarely to be provoked.

R. J. Valentine

Writing numbers

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions