7
   

Rude or Not?

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 12:23 pm
@engineer,
People who tout this rule always seem to be very insistent. They even bring up arguments that unless you do it this particular way, it's wrong, it will lead to confusion, and other not yet thought out reasons.

Being a regional variant, or maybe [more likely ??] a prescriptive grammar variant, it doesn't make much sense to state that it would be confusing done in another fashion.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 02:19 pm
@engineer,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

I dissent.
I say: "one thousand two hundred AND thirty four."
Having lived in New York, Arizona and California
I 've always heard everyone express it that way.
engineer wrote:
I hear that often as well and the grammar gods haven't struck anyone down for it
(but that doesn't make it correct unless correct is defined by common usage).
Qua correctness, I am guided by the logic underlying and justifying a rule of grammar. By THAT reasoning,
I reject and refuse compliance with the rule against splitting infinitive verbs, whose (alleged) justification is that in Latin,
it is one word, not 2. I don t give a damn. I 'm not speaking Latin.







engineer wrote:
How do you write it on your checks?

Do you write "one thousand two hundred and thirty four and 00/100"?
When you have the fraction with it you can see how awkward it becomes with two ands in there.
If there r no pennies on the check, then I 'd write:
"one thousand two hundred and thirty four " and sign it,
after writing out the numerals. (My checks have pre-printed: "dollars".)

If there are cents in the number,
then: "one thousand two hundred and thirty four and 7/100".

If there were insufficient space on the check,
then I 'd feel comfortable omitting the last "and", thusly:
"one thousand two hundred and thirty four 7/100"





David





engineer
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 02:32 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Qua correctness, I am guided by the logic underlying and justifying a rule of grammar.

OK, from a logic point of view, why would you insert "and" in the middle of a whole number? If you are going to do that, then why not use JTT's usage and say thousands AND hundreds AND tens AND fractions? Isn't that logic consistent? Smile
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 02:36 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

People who tout this rule always seem to be very insistent. They even bring up arguments that unless you do it this particular way, it's wrong, it will lead to confusion, and other not yet thought out reasons.

I don't think it is confusing to add extra ands, but it does seem a little awkward to have more than one and in a number. It certainly doesn't distract the listener from the meaning of the sentence and that is the usual problem I have with bad grammar. All that said and continuing my poll, h0w do you say "1,234 3/4"?
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 02:46 pm
@ehBeth,
Ditto out here... always with the 'and'.

There are two hundred and fifty horses in the corral... etc.

Cheques the same.

Engineer: how do you say 250? Do you say two hundred fifty?

The movie is 'a hundred and one dalmations', isn't it?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 03:02 pm
@engineer,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Qua correctness, I am guided by the logic underlying and justifying a rule of grammar.
engineer wrote:
OK, from a logic point of view, why would you insert "and" in the middle of a whole number?
If you are going to do that, then why not use JTT's usage and say thousands AND hundreds AND tens AND fractions?
Isn't that logic consistent? Smile
Adroitly and skillfully done, Engineer!!
It looks like u cawt me in an inconsistency of logic.

I simply accepted (uncritically) common usage; (I don 't always do that).

U deserve a GOLD STAR; (not a real one; that coud prove dis-astrous, with the heat n GRAVITY).





David
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 03:09 pm
@Mame,
Yep, two hundred fifty.

Since there is so much variation and I'm in the minority, I decided to do a search to see what the grammar police think. I'm going to read the top five and post the answers. (I haven't looked yet.)

Number 1 from grammarbook.com ("Your number one source for grammar and punctuation):
Quote:
Rule 7. With numbers that have decimal points, use a comma only when the number has five or more digits before the decimal point. Place the comma in front of the third digit to the left of the decimal point. When writing out such numbers, use the comma where it would appear in the figure format. Use the word and where the decimal point appears in the figure format.

Examples:

$15,768.13: Fifteen thousand, seven hundred sixty-eight dollars and thirteen cents

$1054.21: One thousand fifty-four dollars and twenty-one cents

Note: If the number has no decimal point, authorities disagree on whether to begin using the comma with four-digit numbers or to begin using the comma with five-digit numbers. When writing out these numbers, I recommend using the comma where it appears in the numerical form.

1,054 schools OR 1054 schools: one thousand, fifty-four schools OR one thousand fifty-four schools

12,154 schools: twelve thousand, one hundred fifty-four schools

OK, no specific comment, but no and in the example.

Number two is ehow.com:
Quote:
Hundreds, Thousdands, and More

Use spaces to separate higher digits from lower digits. For example: one hundred thirty-two, five thousand one hundred twelve, one million five hundred seventy-five thousand one hundred twelve. Do not use "and" when spelling out whole numbers because "and" denotes that every number following it is a decimal. For example: five hundred and three (tenths).

OK, that one is pretty clear.

Next up is mathcats.com (looks like a kids' site where you enter a number and it shows you how to write it.) I'm going to enter 1,234 and 1,234.75.
Quote:
one thousand,
two hundred thirty-four

It couldn't handle the fraction.

Number 4 is from dailywritingtips.com. I couldn't find a rule about big number usage.

Number 5 is from homeworktips.about.com. No specific rule, but there was an example saying
Quote:
Always spell out numbers that begin sentences:

* Four hundred fifty people attended the birthday party.

So no "and" again.

OK, so I'm feeling better now. Anyone up to checking the next five?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 03:14 pm
@engineer,
E, I suspect you've misrepresented what I said to point up the flaws in Om's logic.

That really isn't necessary. All one has to do is note OmSigDAVID wrote and they know that there's little likelihood that they are going to encounter logic of any sort.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 03:16 pm
Well, the grammar police have spoken Smile but I will continue to use 'and' since it sounds and feels more natural to me Smile
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 03:42 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
Since there is so much variation and I'm in the minority,


I don't know that you're in the minority at all, E, but I think that if you note your own words, underlined above, you can see that there isn't really a right way. There is no logic [save for a cultural one] that compels us to do it in either fashion.

There is no logic, save for a cultural one, that has us counting in multiples of thousands instead of multiples of ten thousand as the Japanese and Chinese do.

'cultural/dialectal' are the operative words.

A little by the by:

Here's a little background on the author of E's first source, The Blue Book of Grammar.


Quote:
Jane Straus, Author/Publisher

Back in 1975, Jane was a 21-year-old undergraduate at the University of California looking for a job as a waitress. However, the Universe had other plans for her. One day, she got a call from someone at the State Personnel Board. "Jane, according to one of your professors, you can write well. Can you teach a one-day class in English to state employees?" Too naïve to decline, Jane jumped at the chance to go from Jane Straus, Aspiring Waitress, to Jane Straus, Training Consultant.

Scouring the library for a book that conveyed the rules of English in, well, plain English, Jane got frustrated. With little time to spare, she wrote the rules her way, made up some exercises, ran off some copies, clipped them together, and showed up for class. Little did she realize that she was creating The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, which, thanks to the Internet 22 years later, has become a perennial bestseller on Amazon.


First search I did on her site, 'that/which' and this is the advice I get:

Rule 1. Who refers to people. That and which refer to groups or things.

Wrong.

Rule 2. That introduces essential clauses while which introduces nonessential clauses.

Wrong.

Rule 3. If this, that, these, or those has already introduced an essential clause, you may use which to introduce the next clause, whether it is essential or nonessential.

A non-rule. Of course you can. Why? Because rule number 2 is incomplete and inaccurate.

After these "rules", she asks, "Are you ready for the quiz"?

This is what teachers who don't know English grammar from a light standard do all the time. It is precisely these issues I have been trying to discuss with Pom and Gargamel in the "Do you remember English 101" thread.

No doubt about it, teachers can and do help their students to learn to write. But little has to do with teaching them English grammar because as we can see from a quick search of the Net, even the "pros" don't know much about English grammar.

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 03:46 pm
@Mame,
Mame uses, and will continue to use the language that is natural to her.

I can't quite get my head wrapped around the profundity of that idea.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 04:36 pm
@JTT,
'Fess up JTT: And or no and?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 04:40 pm
@engineer,
Both, E, and I suspect that there are others who do the same, depending upon circumstances.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 04:42 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

I can't quite get my head wrapped around the profundity of that idea.


that's okay, just give it some time.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 04:47 pm
@Mame,
**************

Smile

[Don't be put off by the asterisks - the hamsters, or those new dumb people hires the hamsters took on, wouldn't let me just post an emoticon]
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Apr, 2011 06:21 pm
@Mame,
I've got it, Mame.

It's nice to see that your views on language have matured so.
0 Replies
 
DrSurname
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Dec, 2011 08:30 am
@presynaras,
Actually, it is extremely rude to call anyone by first name until asked to do so. As an adult, I can tell you the quickest way to a poor first impression is to use my first name.
0 Replies
 
DrSurname
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Dec, 2011 08:37 am
@OmSigDAVID,
The use of "Mr.", "Miss" or "Mrs." is not putting anyone in a position of inferiority. It creates an atmosphere of mutual respect. Children who are close to my wife and I call us "Mr. FirstName" and "Miss FirstName" which is perfectly fine with us. However, just using our first names would offensive.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Dec, 2011 09:13 am
@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:
When I was young, you called an adult, Mr. or Mrs...................... Over the years, this has changed a bit,
with children calling adults by their first name.

Personally, unless the adult has specifically said that he wanted to be addressed by his first name, that it IS rude.

Well, it creates a false sense of class distinction, based on age.
I had that come up not long ago, when my friend, Don, told his 11
or 12 year old daughter to call me: "Uncle David". I am not related
to her by blood, nor marriage. I corrected him, saying: "just 'David' ".
Don disputed this and I persisted in my objection.
I do not wanna be set up as any AUTHORITY figure.
( His daughter is prevailing, calling me by my first name.)

As I write this, I remember my blood aunt trying to order me around
when I returned to NY from Arizona, at age 13. I found it necessary
to put her in her place by explicitly telling her that I do not take orders from her,
tho I 'll be glad to consider her advice.

In that sense, calling adults by their first names (i.e., treating them
the same as anyone else) is defensive for the children who do so.
When an adult called me by MY first name, when I was a kid,
reciprocally, I called him by HIS first name, the same as in my elderly years.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Dec, 2011 09:38 am
@DrSurname,
DrSurname wrote:
The use of "Mr.", "Miss" or "Mrs." is not putting anyone in a position of inferiority. It creates an atmosphere of mutual respect. Children who are close to my wife and I call us "Mr. FirstName" and "Miss FirstName" which is perfectly fine with us. However, just using our first names would offensive.
That will be OK IF u address the children as "Mr." or "Miss", etc.
If u fail to do that,
then you are elevating yourself up into a higher position
above the children, implying that the children are inferior to you.
That is an insult against the children and it makes the demandant look foolish.

Just speaking for myself: I 'd not be guilty of that.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Rude or Not?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 09:34:22