Numbers or Numerals

[PennLady]

I don't see where being e-text has anything to do with how you render numbers. There probably isn't any other departure from norm in style that intrudes my reading of a short story than nonconventional use of numbers. Stops me right in my tracks. And it makes no difference at all to me that it was on the computer screen.

Of course, as in most things, your mileage may vary.

Yep, me too. I'll be reading along and then someone will write "The 2 of us went out" or "I had to wait 10 minutes to see him" and it just jerks me to a stop and I have to read over a little to see if I missed something.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Yep, me too. I'll be reading along and then someone will write "The 2 of us went out" or "I had to wait 10 minutes to see him" and it just jerks me to a stop and I have to read over a little to see if I missed something.

Almost all of my professional journals require that numbers only be expressed as Arabic numerals. I find it ridiculous that one has to write such things as "the 2 of us interviewed the 3rd witness." In my own writing, I use numerals mostly where the number is a precise one. This may include dates, but that depends on context. Otherwise, I write out the number.

 

[oggbashan]

Yep, me too. I'll be reading along and then someone will write "The 2 of us went out" or "I had to wait 10 minutes to see him" and it just jerks me to a stop and I have to read over a little to see if I missed something.

Probably that's because you are used to the Chicago Manual.

I would be slightly jarred by "The 2 of us went out" but unbothered by "I had to wait 10 minutes to see him". The first would appear to be wrong in British English but the second seems reasonable, although marginally unacceptable.

In my working career I had to write to many different standards of style.

The prescribed style might be minimal, just suggesting what words should start with a capital letter, when italics should be used, and whether quotes should be single or double.

My employer published a large volume explaining what was expected in communications with the general public; what was acceptable between fellow employees e.g. use of acroynms and technical terms; and the guidelines were very strict for instructions and user manuals.

Writing draft answers for questions in the Houses of Parliament had a different set of rules and a long list of banned words. Writing Green and White Papers had another set of criteria.

Writing for academic journals was a minefield. A style that was acceptable for one organisation wasn't for another. That has changed over decades and most academic institutions now have a single acceptable style.

Press Releases were the worst. They had to be in multiple styles to convey the same information, from almost academic for The Times and other quality papers, to populist and eye-catching for the popular media. The journalists for the popular media were quite capable of understanding and using Press Releases aimed at the quality press but they preferred the catchy versions because they could use much of them verbatim.

IF the CMS was acceptable in British English, as it is when a Brit is writing for publication in the US, a Brit author's life might be easier. But the CMS does not reflect British usage, especially not for fiction.

 

[PennLady]

Probably that's because you are used to the Chicago Manual.

Quite possibly, and I was generalizing. Certain uses of numbers wouldn't bother me at all depending on how the story was going along.

Whether I'm used to the CMS or not, I can't really say. I probably am, but I've read all kinds of books by all kinds of authors, so it seems to me that across the board I'm simply used to numbers being written out for the most part, with the various exceptions we've mentioned on the thread.

 

[sr71plt]

You gave the correct and definitive US advice in post #2, and the CMS should be followed by US-based writers.

We Brits don't have the CMS, nor an equivalent that has the same authority. The Oxford books are recommendations, not definite rules.

When writing British English, or any other variety of English except US, authors have to decide for themselves what is 'correct'. If the work is to be published for money, either as an e-text or a printed book, then the publisher's preferences are important. Otherwise? We Brits are reduced to our own idea of what seems 'right'.

To quote Kipling:

And he told me in a vision of the night: —
"There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
"And every single one of them is right!"

The CMS is recommendations too. It's just the publishers want to have a rule book, even if they make some exceptions to it, and so they use the CMS. I imagine that a lot of UK publishers do the same with Oxford. Who wants to have each publisher inventing their one rules and releasing that cacophony of chaos on readers? Not the publishers. They want readers returning to buy their books.

 

[sr71plt]

Almost all of my professional journals require that numbers only be expressed as Arabic numerals. I find it ridiculous that one has to write such things as "the 2 of us interviewed the 3rd witness." In my own writing, I use numerals mostly where the number is a precise one. This may include dates, but that depends on context. Otherwise, I write out the number.

And what are your professional journals? Scientific ones, I'll bet (otherwise I don't really believe you. I work in this business).

Do you realize that we are writing fiction here, not science, and that they are two different worlds?

 

[oggbashan]

The CMS is recommendations too. It's just the publishers want to have a rule book, even if they make some exceptions to it, and so they use the CMS. I imagine that a lot of UK publishers do the same with Oxford. Who wants to have each publisher inventing their one rules and releasing that cacophony of chaos on readers? Not the publishers. They want readers returning to buy their books.

Until the 1970s UK publishers did all have their own rules for writing. They also had specific formats for their books, typefaces, cover design and colour. They were proud of their individuality. If you wrote for one publisher and they rejected your work, you would have to rewrite it before trying another. That was expensive and time-consuming before wordprocessors.

Since the 1970s the number of independent UK publishers has reduced until now there are only a handful owned by international corporations. They may have different imprints but they are all part of larger groups.

Even those publishers who remained independent for a longer period started converging on their interpretation of acceptable grammar. But popular authors with many books could and did get away with almost anything. I won't name names but there were several authors in the 1960s and 70s whose grammar was individual.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

And what are your professional journals? Scientific ones, I'll bet (otherwise I don't really believe you. I work in this business).

Do you realize that we are writing fiction here, not science, and that they are two different worlds?

Yes, pilot, they are scientific ones, and, amazingly enough, I know that. I also know that we are writing fiction here (Imagine that!) And they are two mostly different, somewhat overlapping worlds.

You seem to have missed my point. I was proposing that the journals are overmuch in using numerals for every number, as if every number was a scientific datum. The articles in the journals are written in languages, in fact, in the same languages as our fiction. Surprise! There is overlap! As such, I see nothing wrong with using words for numbers that are part of common discourse and not data.

We teach our students not to take calculations beyond the reasonable: to say the average height, for example of my sample population is 174.23258750934 cm is "false accuracy." even if that's the result your computer gave you, if the heights were measured to 10ths of a centimeter. We generally don't accept calculations more "precise" than 1 decimal place beyond the actual measurement. Likewise, I'd argue, to say "1 day as I was observing..." is also "false accuracy," it has nothing to do with the precise number of days I was making observations.

In a wider vein, pilot, I would note that I generally take a more sympathetic view of you than do most others here. I would also note that your absurd inferences about my understanding of what I and the rest of us are doing, in your domain or others, has sorely tested my sympathy, and your inability to understand the point I was actually making has threatened it with a failing grade on that test. At best, I can hope your response was some knee-jerk reaction based on a quick scan, and not a reflection of any serious thought on your part.

 

[PayDay]

You gave the correct and definitive US advice in post #2, and the CMS should be followed by US-based writers.

We Brits don't have the CMS, nor an equivalent that has the same authority. The Oxford books are recommendations, not definite rules.

When writing British English, or any other variety of English except US, authors have to decide for themselves what is 'correct'. If the work is to be published for money, either as an e-text or a printed book, then the publisher's preferences are important. Otherwise? We Brits are reduced to our own idea of what seems 'right'.

To quote Kipling:

And he told me in a vision of the night: —
"There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
"And every single one of them is right!"

I think I love you, no homo.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, pilot, they are scientific ones, and, amazingly enough, I know that. I also know that we are writing fiction here (Imagine that!) And they are two mostly different, somewhat overlapping worlds.

Sorry, I think then you were being irrelevant and confusing on the point of this thread. The OP was trying to find out what to use with fiction, and there's been a whole lot of misinformation flak thrown up in the air on that question here. Including, in this journal issue, by you now.

(There are humanities journals too, you know. They aren't all scientific.)

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Sorry, I think then you were being irrelevant and confusing on the point of this thread. The OP was trying to find out what to use with fiction, and there's been a whole lot of misinformation flak thrown up in the air on that question here. Including, in this journal issue, by you now.

(There are humanities journals too, you know. They aren't all scientific.)

Oh, Pilot. Obviously. I read those as well. And social sciences. I'm an Anthropologist, you know; we do all three and more.

Irrelevant and confusing?

My first comment was a direct response to PennLady's complaint about a disconcerting use of numerals. Seems relevant to me, and hardly confusing: clearly, I agreed with her.

And my second was directly to the point of style. I didn't cite any authority, I'm afraid; I only consider those in the same way our English friends do - as recommendations, not laws. The publishers make the laws. I did, however, offer what I do in my own writing as a suggestion to resolve the concern when there are no publisher's requirements:

"In my own writing, I use numerals mostly where the number is a precise one. This may include dates, but that depends on context. Otherwise, I write out the number."

I fail to see how this is either irrelevant or confusing.

My vision may be limited here, but I can only see two possible explanations for your reactions to my posts. Either you didn't read or understand what I wrote, or anything that isn't in direct agreement with your view of the issue is irrelevant and confusing. I suspect that many here would accept the second as the appropriate explanation, though I would lean towards the likelihood that both are at play.

 

[sr71plt]

My reaction is the same as is to all of these threads simply asking for best practice rendering of this or that in fiction for Literotica which then is met with a whole bunch of posts giving irrelevant or totally wrong information by posters who don't know the hell what they're talking about.

 

[MSTarot]

A story I'm working on for NaNo has a lot of numbers in both dialog and in narrative, but then they are part of the titles of things.

He was flying a P-38 Lightning.

He pulled his 9mm. Luger and placed the pistol to his head. The barrel felt so cold on his skin, he shivered.

The F4U Corsair had to bank hard to make the turn around the race pylon.


I think I'm right in using them this way as spelling them out changes the "familiarity" of the name. I guess that's how I'm trying to describe it.

It's been a long week and I'm out of creamer for my coffee till my pay check clears.

 

[sr71plt]

Yep, Arabic numbers are what's used for those examples.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

My reaction is the same as is to all of these threads simply asking for best practice rendering of this or that in fiction for Literotica which then is met with a whole bunch of posts giving irrelevant or totally wrong information by posters who don't know the hell what they're talking about.

It would seem, then, that my supposition is correct.

 

[sr71plt]

It would seem, then, that my supposition is correct.

I don't give a crap for your--or anyone else's--suppositions about me or attacks on me--and I didn't read yours--and I've never attacked your personality on this forum. So, sorry that I won't be playing that game with you on this thread.

I'll continue to respond to the content of threads as they come up and leave the Internet chat room games and personal attacks to others.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I don't give a crap for your--or anyone else's--suppositions about me or attacks on me--and I didn't read yours--and I've never attacked your personality on this forum. So, sorry that I won't be playing that game with you on this thread.

I'll continue to respond to the content of threads as they come up and leave the Internet chat room games and personal attacks to others.

Try reading the posts, Pilot; I offered comments in keeping with the question. It was you who decided to attack me, groundlessly and foolishly, for those comments. Apparently, if you would like to stay away from "games and personal attacks," you had best avoid any thread you post on.

 

[sr71plt]

Perhaps YOU should be the one to read your journal post from the perspective of the OP trying to figure out how she should render numbers in a Lit. short story. Your post was irrelevant to the thread and would confuse her if she thought you were being relevant to her post. It had a lot of company in this vein among the other posts.

fini.

And, look, I haven't even gone to telling you what's wrong with your personality. I've somehow managed to remain focused on the issue of the thread.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

Perhaps YOU should be the one to read your journal post from the perspective of the OP trying to figure out how she should render numbers in a Lit. short story. Your post was irrelevant to the thread and would confuse her if she thought you were being relevant to her post. It had a lot of company in this vein among the other posts.

fini.

And, look, I haven't even gone to telling you what's wrong with your personality. I've somehow managed to remain focused on the issue of the thread.

OK...

1. You don't seem to know the difference between "personal" and "personality."

2. You still seem to be labouring under the delusion that I was proposing that the OP use a scientific style of presenting numbers in her fiction.

3. You apparently, in your previous post, are under the impression that all who responded to her, save yourself, were wrong.

As for my two suppositions, then, QED.

Now, we have hijacked too much of this thread for your attacks and my counters; this will be my last post here. If you wish to blather on, feel free to have the last word.

 

[oggbashan]

The proper and definitive answer was given in post #2.

The CMS is the authority to consult for writing for the US. The thread could have ended at post #2.

I see nothing wrong, once the OP has been answered competently, in widening the thread to include discussion of what is, or is not, acceptable for writing other than US fiction.

Scientific or technical writing has different conventions.

UK publishers used to be idiosyncratic about their grammar and other rules for fiction they would publish. Most had a printout of their requirements that authors were expected to follow.

Writing in British English since 1945 has been much freer in style than before WW2. In the late 1950s and 1960s almost any ungrammatical work might be accepted for publication. The only real test was 'Will it sell and make a profit for the publisher?'.

In extremis, 1960s British writers irritated by publishers' conventions could and did set up their own imprint - not quite vanity publishing but a real financial risk for the author. Some of those imprints gathered similar authors and grew until they became profitable enough for mainstream publishers to buy them out.

What is correct for the US is not a world standard for writing in English.

There are many varieties of English used throughout the world. Literotica is a US based site. Most of the authors write what they think is correct US English even if the grammar of some stories would make the compilers of the CMS shudder.

What should be important to authors is that they know the rules of grammar, and when they break them, they do so intentionally and for a reason.

 

[Handley_Page]

To read this thread, one might suspect that the CMS has a similar influence as the 'Acadamie Francaise' in controlling the conduct of the written language within its borders.
The UK has printing decisions going back to Caxton, about 1490.
Once an organization has the bit between its teeth, it ain't going to give it up for the sake of some berk in an office.

Oxford Uni has a very long tradition and guards it with care; those who wish to work in the fields of participating organizations are wise to subscribe to that method.

But I ain't buying a copy of CMS just so I can write the odd story for Lit, however much I like it. I may translate the odd English phrase for a more "world-wide" readership, but you'll get it in what I was taught as "English".

 

[elfin_odalisque]

I guess breast sizes will still remain 36NNN rather than described in words.

 

[oggbashan]

I guess breast sizes will still remain 36NNN rather than described in words.

But a picture of those breasts would be more impressive than the mere numbers...

http://i.imgur.com/6klggIt.jpg

 

[PayDay]

What is correct for the US is not a world standard for writing in English.*

There are many varieties of English used throughout the world. Literotica is a US based site. Most of the authors write what they think is correct US English even if the grammar of some stories would make the compilers of the CMS shudder.

What should be important to authors is that they know the rules of grammar, and when they break them, they do so intentionally and for a reason.

This-------^

 

[sr71plt]

To read this thread, one might suspect that the CMS has a similar influence as the 'Acadamie Francaise' in controlling the conduct of the written language within its borders.
The UK has printing decisions going back to Caxton, about 1490.
Once an organization has the bit between its teeth, it ain't going to give it up for the sake of some berk in an office.

Oxford Uni has a very long tradition and guards it with care; those who wish to work in the fields of participating organizations are wise to subscribe to that method.

But I ain't buying a copy of CMS just so I can write the odd story for Lit, however much I like it. I may translate the odd English phrase for a more "world-wide" readership, but you'll get it in what I was taught as "English".

Hmmm. I haven't seen anything on this thread saying that those writing in British style (who should, nonetheless steel themselves to misunderstanding comments on this American-style Web site) shouldn't use Oxford (which ain't cheap either) rather than the CMS. The point has been to use something standardizing the technical aspect of the fiction read as much as possible other than misguided imagination or what you thought your tenth-grade English teacher told you twenty years ago.