Numbers

[sweet_sparrow]

Hi, all. My first post here, though I've lurked a bit in the comments and tried to help people out.

My question regarding numbers is: Spell them out or write them all numerically?

Please note, I'm not asking this because I need help deciding. Rather, I'm curious where you all stand on the matter and hope to spark an interesting discussion. My experiences have taught me that this is a choice dependent on the writer in question with no right or wrong answer, per se. (Of course it's different if you're writing for a publishing house with its own style guide.)

For my part, I was taught that smaller/easy numbers should be spelled out (e.g. "fifty-five") and longer/complicated numbers (such as '1,999') be written numerically and I like it that way. But I have an irrational fear of numbers (outside date notation in the headers and page number notation and the like. I can deal with those), so the less numerical writing I have to do in-story, the better for my general health.

There's also the group that holds that numbers above 20/100 should be numerical, but everything below should be spelled out. And there's the question of placement and meaning, so for the sake of the argument let's suppose that we're talking about numbers used in dialogue or narrative. Say, a house number or a monetary amount a shopkeeper is quoting. How would you reflect that number in the text and why?

I hope that that's all clear. (I'm not exactly known for clarity, I'm afraid.)

Comments

[ar]

The way I generally tend to roll:

Write out the numbers for sure if it's dialogue. Probably write them out in narration, too, with the main exception being if it's a very complicated number (1,987,432 or something). Or, if the character is looking at / writing out numbers in a ledger or something, numerals kind of make sense there? In general, I find numerals distracting, so I try to avoid them.

As far as non-fiction goes, I was taught to write out one through ten and use numerals after that.

[melannen]

I would generally go with the write out smaller numbers/use numerals for larger numbers rule. Unless it's in dialogue, in which case I'd almost always spell it out, depending on context. (Really, very few people are going to say - in dialogue - one hundred and fifty-four thousand, three hundred eighty-seven - they'd more likely say "about a hundred-fifty-thousand" or "one-five-four-three-eight-seven". And if they did say it out the long way, there's probably a reason.

[paganpaul]

Yup. I'd go this route also.

[pd_singer]

Oddly enough, this very topic came up on a site I administer, and I had to go hunt the answer there, so will share what I found.

Per Diana Hacker (Writer's Reference, third edition), do it like so:

Spell out numbers of one or two words or those that begin a sentence.

Use figures for for numbers that require more than two words to spell out (though there are exceptions for business and technical writing, which use more numerals).

Figures are acceptable for dates, addresses, percentages, fractions, decimals, scores, statistics and other numerical results, exact amounts of money, divisions of books and plays, pages, identification numbers, and the time.

Put a hyphen into compound numbers from twenty-one to ninety-nine.

Hacker makes no mention of dialog or not.

[ex_pippin880]

I tend to write out all numbers, even the ridiculously long and complicates ones -- unless narrating what's printed on a price/distance sign, or it's a numeric read-out from a computer, etc. -- because otherwise it throws off my aesthetic groove.

Writing out long numbers is extra character voice, anyway! Will it be "two thousand, two hundred two" or "twenty-two thousand and two"? :o

[sweet_sparrow]

I'm a bit surprised by how much consensus there seems to be. It's so different from what I remember from previous discussions...

That said, I hadn't thought about the voice before, but you're right! It does add a little something to a character's voice. ^-^

[lea_hazel]

I usually write out numbers. I don't go by the size of the number, but by the size of the word. "Twenty two" doesn't seem like unreasonably long to read, to me, and numerals look awkward unless they're dates or such.

For long numbers, though, I'd only write them out if I need the specific impact of how big a number it is, otherwise the reader can just gloss it over as a stream of digits without grasping the scope. If I need to say 1,562 dead soldiers, then it's one thousand, five hundred and sixty two dead soldiers. Unless there's a point to the numeric notation, such as to characterize the speaker/narrator as distant or utilitarian.

[ex_pippin880]

To me, "1,562" seems to be a larger amount than "one thousand, five hundred and sixty two".

[lea_hazel]

That's interesting. I guess I'm just used to measuring things by how long they take to read.

[ex_pippin880]

I think it's because I think of numbers in numerals, so if I see them written out, I have to convert them to a string of numbers before I can get the gist of them, and usually I'm too lazy to do that so the number is just a blur.

So would "one thousand, five hundred and sixty two" be mentally larger than "three thousand and five"?

[lea_hazel]

So would "one thousand, five hundred and sixty two" be mentally larger than "three thousand and five"?

No, I don't think so. Actually, I think it's the same effect you mentioned, it just goes in the opposite direction.

[magycmyste]

::grin:: Did my little slip-up bring this up?

Like Lea, I think it's better to judge by the size of the word rather than the size of the number. After all, a thousand is a big number, but in most cases (dates and other numerical necessities aside), it's still easier for me to read "a thousand" than "1,000" in regular text - especially in dialogue (why is my browser telling me dialogue is spelled wrong?) and narrative.

I do have to say that in non-fiction, I'd probably have less of a problem with the numerical form - science and legal reports, for example, tend to use numerals a lot. Science and math is probably self-explanatory - I think legal documents tend to treat it more as shorthand for the numbers (which is probably why I'm starting to slip up in this rule).

But for fiction, written words definitely work better for me. Except for dates (which, in dialogue, are still said as words), I can't think of a good reason to use numbers. I have even seen big numbers spelled out in dialogue and narrative, and not had a problem with them (though, as mentioned above, there was probably a reason for them).

"There are five hundred twenty-three million, two hundred fifty-six thousand, eight hundred and forty-nine stars in the sky."

Ok, that might be a bit much, but assuming you have a scientific character who's willing to give you an exact number of the stars in the sky (ok, I've actually read a tale where a character did this), that's probably how they'd say it.

[sweet_sparrow]

It did. I'm curious like that. I'm actually surprised by the general consensus there seems to be, though. Way I remember it were so many people set in their own ways going "But this is right!" "No, this!" and here/now most people seem to agree (with small discrepancies where larger numbers/placement is concerned). 'course that leaves me at a bit of a loss how to answer everyone (and say new things at the same time).

(Because your browser uses American-somewhere spelling and thinks it should be 'dialog'? *doesn't know*) I always spell out numbers (and avoid the big ones as much as I possibly can). The whole story reminds me of a friend who wrote about someone who had a number for a name, though.

[magycmyste]

dialog. Guess you're right - there's no wavy line there. But I believe I've been using "dialogue" my entire life - I personally didn't think that was different between American and European English.

[sweet_sparrow]

It might actually be an idiom/meaning difference rather than a spelling difference, but I'm not convinced of that.

(I've known Americans who've used British spelling all their lives, if it helps. A matter of preference and what you've been taught.)

[ex_pippin880]

I'm pretty sure it's just a spelling difference, a simplification along the lines of "color" and "thru".

[pd_singer]

"Thru"? AGH!!! Throws rocks at "thru".

[ex_pippin880]

What about "tho"? *grin*