 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / October 2008How do you pronounce fractions in British English?
Hello, I am looking for the right pronunciation of fractions in British English. Every style guide I find is very clear about thirds, quarters and fifths, but then they stop. How do you pronounce fractions like "4000 / 563" in English? Is it "Four thousand five hundred sixty thirds"? How do you differentiate that from "4500 / 63" which would be pronounced the very same way? I am familiar with "4000 over 563" in American English. Is this correct in British English, too? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Regards, P. Papaspyrou > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I am familiar with "4000 over 563" in American English. Is this > correct in British English, too? Yes, it is. Regards, Einde O'Callaghan >Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I am familiar with "4000 over 563" in American English. Is this >correct in British English, too? That is correct in British English. >Any help would be greatly appreciated. > >Regards, >P. Papaspyrou  SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in uk.culture.language.english) In article <gca2bc$nbh$02$3@news.t-online.com>, Panayotis Papaspyrou <panayotis.papaspyrou.lostintheweb@gmx.net> writes: >I am familiar with "4000 over 563" in American English. Is this >correct in British English, too? Yes. At any rate that is how I would say it, so I hope it's correct. SignatureJohn Hall "If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980) > In article <gca2bc$nbh$02$3@news.t-online.com>, > Panayotis Papaspyrou <panayotis.papaspyrou.lostintheweb@gmx.net> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes. At any rate that is how I would say it, so I hope it's correct. I think I would regard it as an Americanism. SignatureJohn Briggs >> In article <gca2bc$nbh$02$3@news.t-online.com>, >> Panayotis Papaspyrou <panayotis.papaspyrou.lostintheweb@gmx.net> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I think I would regard it as an Americanism. It's what I was taught in Maths class in Ireland over 40 years ago. If it's an Americanism, I would think it has become "nativised" by now. So how would you day it? "Four thousand five-hundred-and-sixty-thirds"? Regards, Einde O'Callaghan > So how would you day it? "Four thousand five-hundred-and-sixty-thirds"? And what would that be? 4560/3 or 4500/63 or 4/1563? Regards, P. Papaspyrou At 20:18:41 on Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Panayotis Papaspyrou <panayotis.papaspyrou.lostintheweb@gmx.net> wrote in <gcb0e1$jod$02$1@news.t-online.com>: >> So how would you day it? "Four thousand five-hundred-and-sixty-thirds"? > >And what would that be? 4560/3 Possibly > or 4500/63 No, the "and" makes that impossible > or 4/1563? No, that would be "four one-thousand-five-hundred-and-sixty-thirds". A possibility you have overlooked is 4000/563. (But I would always say xxx over yyy, once either numerator or denominator is more than two digits) SignatureMolly Mockford They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin (My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) > (But I would always say xxx over yyy, once either numerator or > denominator is more than two digits) What about 'A was only seven hundredths of a second away from breaking the record', or 'The coating is only twenty-five thousandths of an inch thick'? Or even 'Two millionths of a second after the Big Bang...'. SignatureNoel >> (But I would always say xxx over yyy, once either numerator or >>denominator is more than two digits) > >What about 'A was only seven hundredths of a second away from breaking >the record', or 'The coating is only twenty-five thousandths of an inch >thick'? Or even 'Two millionths of a second after the Big Bang...'. I would say "seven one hundredths" to avoid any possible ambiguity. However I think that it would be over-pedantic to do something similar with your other two examples. SignatureJohn Hall "If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980) >> (But I would always say xxx over yyy, once either numerator or >> denominator is more than two digits) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >thousandths of an inch thick'? Or even 'Two millionths of a second >after the Big Bang...'. We certainly use that system in uncomplicated circumstances - "thou", with an unvoiced "th", was/is often used an abbreviation for "thousandths" by those frequently using fine measurements . But it would be hopeless for complex fractions. Every version of English must have hit the problem so I can't see any reason to assume that using "x over y" is of any particular origin - it seems an "obvious" way to express it succinctly. Multiplication, incidentally, seems to have spawned various terms. I don't like the use of "times" as a verb - "Think of a number then times it by 6..." It sounds a bit "primary school" to my ear. SignaturePhil C. >>> (But I would always say xxx over yyy, once either numerator or >>> denominator is more than two digits) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >using "x over y" is of any particular origin - it seems an "obvious" >way to express it succinctly. Just to clarify: "over" in "4000 over 563" comes from the traditional way of writing a fraction as, for instance: 4000 ---- 563 Where "----" represents an unbroken line and 4000 is literally positioned over 563 on the page. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in uk.culture.language.english) >>> (But I would always say xxx over yyy, once either numerator or >>> denominator is more than two digits) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > with an unvoiced "th", was/is often used an abbreviation for > "thousandths" by those frequently using fine measurements . ... I was really just having a go at Molly, but with hindsight, I suppose the examples I gave do only exhibit two digits - 0 and 1. So her 'I would always say' still holds some of its water. > Multiplication, incidentally, seems to have spawned various terms. > I > don't like the use of "times" as a verb - "Think of a number then > times it by 6..." It sounds a bit "primary school" to my ear. I always thought of it as 'secondary modern' ... SignatureNoel >> In article <gca2bc$nbh$02$3@news.t-online.com>, >> Panayotis Papaspyrou <panayotis.papaspyrou.lostintheweb@gmx.net> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I think I would regard it as an Americanism. It's what I was taught in Maths class in Ireland over 40 years ago. If it's an Americanism, I would think it has become "nativised" by now. So how would you day it? "Four thousand five-hundred-and-sixty-thirds"? Regards, Einde O'Callaghan >>> In article <gca2bc$nbh$02$3@news.t-online.com>, >>> Panayotis Papaspyrou <panayotis.papaspyrou.lostintheweb@gmx.net> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > So how would you day it? "Four thousand five-hundred-and-sixty-thirds"? Sorry for the multiple posts - I'm testing a new newsgroup provider and I haven't got the settings right yet. Regards, Einde O'Calalghan >> In article <gca2bc$nbh$02$3@news.t-online.com>, >> Panayotis Papaspyrou <panayotis.papaspyrou.lostintheweb@gmx.net> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I think I would regard it as an Americanism. It's what I was taught in Maths class in Ireland over 40 years ago. If it's an Americanism, I would think it has become "nativised" by now. So how would you day it? "Four thousand five-hundred-and-sixty-thirds"? Regards, Einde O'Callaghan In uk.culture.language.english, Panayotis Papaspyrou wrote: >I am looking for the right pronunciation of fractions in British >English. Every style guide I find is very clear about thirds, >quarters and fifths, but then they stop. > >How do you pronounce fractions like "4000 / 563" in English? Is it >"Four thousand five hundred sixty thirds"? No, "four thousand five hundred *and* sixty thirds. Which is also how I'd say 4560/3. >[...] > >I am familiar with "4000 over 563" in American English. Is this >correct in British English, too? Yes. I think it's fair to say that Americans use fractions a great deal more than the British (or anyone else) does. But even they'd be most unlikely to come across the sort of fractions you're talking about, except in a technical context in which the "4000 over 563" form would come more naturally. SignatureMike Barnes > I think it's fair to say that Americans use fractions a great deal more > than the British (or anyone else) does. But even they'd be most unlikely > to come across the sort of fractions you're talking about, except in a > technical context in which the "4000 over 563" form would come more > naturally. Hello again, The context I am dealing with is in fact technical/mathematical. Here the likeliness to come across such fractions is great - in calculus you need them quite often. Series and sums have a tendency to give you such denominators. Regads, P. Papaspyrou |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.