0.5 hectares

No, it isn't an error, Ms Tan. It's simply the convention in English to say it this way.

If we say it as a fraction then we don't use an 's'.

half a hectare / three fifths of a hectare / one sixth of an acre

Thanks, JTT.

Correct English usage is sometimes illogical and this is one such example.

Quite interesting, that.

We also write 0.561 m, or 0.561 metres, (or 561 mm/ 561 millimetres.)

But verbally, we would say "naught point five six one of a metre".

In the US we say "half a hectare" (The word "of" after half is assumed).Since we dont deal in areas defined by the metric system, we certainly do use the singular form . Our principal land area is divisable by The ACRE, not HECTARE.

Thanks to all of you.

And when the "of a" is deleted, McTag, how is it said?

Putting aside the system used for a moment, FM, when an area is described by a decimal, as in, .35, the plural form of the measuring word is used, is it not?

.35 acres / .76 inches / .21 feet / .89 yards / ...

farmerman is a loony.

That's as maybe, but we'd write "nought point five six one of a metre".

If you read out 0.5 ha, you would read it as

"zero point five hectares " (or "point five hectares" - the zero is implied)

It sounds wrong to say 'zero point five hectare', with no s. Try it.

If you add the 'of a', or just 'a' with the of implied, then the 'a' is 1, and hence you are talking about a singular noun, and thus have no s

"point five of a hectare"

"a hectare" is singular.


You can also say it as

" a half hectare"

Here, 'of a' is implied, the full phrase being "a half of a hectare". So again, it's singular.

With the phrase "point five hectares", there is no implied 'of a', hence the plural.

Note that 25.5 hectares would be pronounced as

"Twenty five point 5 hectares" or "Twenty five and a half hectares"

and never "twenty five and a half of a hectare", which is just plain wrong. The 'of a' is only for fractions in their own right.


(confused? Welcome to the English language! ;-) )


T.

Welcome to a 5 month old thread.

contrex is a douche bag.

farmerman has unlawful carnal knowledge with kine.

But if contrex has some redeeming value, no matter how slight, would he be 0.99 douche bags or 0.99 douche bag?

Depends if I am a standard size douche bag or a supersize. Anyhow, at least a douche bag has occasional contact with lady's punanis than farmerman, who has none, except in his feverish dreams.

I don't know why this seemed to be a problem.

A hectare is an area 100 m square, or 10,000 square metres.

So 0.5 ha is 5,000 sq m

You could omit it if you like without changing the meaning, but my version is the more elegant.

Really?

Say not the battle naught availeth

Probably makes you wish that you'd kept your mouth shut, eh, Contrex?

[Now don't get your knickers in a twist, it's just some good natured ribbin']