Would you support these? Please, again, no recasts. I want to ensure that I have acquired a solid foundation with regard to spelled-out numbers used as compound modifiers. Fingers crossed! I hope that you support every example. Thank you! :)
1. The service manager reported a one hundred dollar cash shortage on register one and a two hundred fifty-five dollar cash shortage on register three.
2. a one hundred thirty-five to one hundred sixty thousand dollar a year business empire
3. a forty-five to fifty billion dollar a year increase in national spending
4. a fifty-five to sixty-five percent a year decrease in slip-and-fall accidents
5. a ten percent a year increase in taxes
6. a two hundred thousand dollar a year position with IBM
(Only the ordinals between twenty-one and ninety-nine are hyphenated; forget about the compound modifiers because we're dealing strictly with numbers, correct?)
The general guideline in fiction writing is to spell out numbers that can be expressed in two or fewer words, and use numerals when it would require three words or more. Correct examples: three hundred, 301, thirty thousand dollars, $31,000, thirty-one percent, etc. As opposed to AP Style in journalism where everything nine and below is spelled out, with 10 and above being numerals.
Thank you, Gordon. Here's where the problem lies. An editor told me that people speak in words, not numbers, so we are required to, at least in fictional dialogue, to spell everything out. Do you concur with this?
That being said, do you support the examples above in terms of punctuation, or lack thereof. This editor said to omit the hyphenation of compound modifiers and to just hyphenate the ordinals twenty-one to ninety-nine. Is this sound logic?
I don't agree with the first part. It took some getting used to for me (having used AP Style for so long in other pursuits), but now that I'm using the system I mentioned previously, it does feel the most natural to me as a reader. Too many words spelled out to express a number hurts my eyes and I have to think about it more than I want. Perhaps if you're writing a script for a narrator to read aloud, spelling everything out may provide the most clarity for how you want to hear it, but not for readers of fiction.
As for the ordinals, I don't know that rule, technically (because I don't spell them out like that), but if one were to do that, I could agree with the editor, yeah. Non-numerical compound modifiers, though, I always hyphenate, unless the first one ends in -ly, so you'd have "a well-appointed suite" or "richly textured food." (I only recently learned that last part, had always used hyphens before.)
Another one that trips people up is ages. Basically, when it's a compound modifier, you hyphenate the whole thing as usual, but also when the age itself is a noun: "eighteen-year-old scotch enjoyed by a forty-year-old." When it comes after the noun you're describing, you just say "The man is forty years old."
Funny that you mention AP style. I am quite familiar with it but was unable to get an answer from AP editor David Minthorn regarding liquid measurements under 10.
In AP style, most measurements (under 10) are written as numerals, including pounds, ounces, grams, etc.
For liquid measurements (non-recipe format), would you use the spelled-out versions of the numbers under 10, or strictly use numbers for the following? AP seems to be inconsistent with this.
• Mike bought 2 pints (or two pints) of ice cream.
• Martha bought a 2-liter (or two-liter) bottle of Pepsi.
• Jack spilled 1 gallon (or one gallon) of milk on the kitchen floor.
• Please get 3 quarts (or three quarts) of heavy cream.
In AP Style, is it "a nine-volt battery" or "a 9-volt battery"?
Thank you.
It's been so long, I had to look it up in my Style Guide. Most measurements use numerals, so that makes sense, yes, and I suppose 9-volt would be correct, as well.
Without recasting, in AP Style would you consider this monetary range to be written correctly?
This represented a $10 million-$20 million a year increase in revenues. (Look OK?)
The figures represented a 25-30 percent a year decrease in crime. (Look OK?)
I used a hyphen instead of the word "to" between the monetary ranges (instead of the clunky "... $10 million- to $20 million-a-year increase in revenues"). AP says there's no such thing as the en dash (strange!) per ANPA specifications. They use the underscore, which translates to a dash in their computer systems.
In AP, for ranges, you always use to, no dashes. "$10 million to $20 million per year." I would also use per year instead of a year.
Would we hyphenate the compound modifier as "a $10 million- to $20 million-per-year increase in revenues" or no hyphens in the modifier, as in "a $10 million to $20 million per year increase in revenues"? No recasts, please.
In AP Style, no hyphens at all are necessary in that example. To replaces the hyphen.
I see where this can be confusing, because a "hanging hyphen" is used when applying multiple compound modifiers to the same noun (such as "first- and second-time buyers"). The difference is, in your example above, while both numbers are indeed modifiers for increase, I think the fact that it's a range negates this in the interest of clarity. If it were not expressing a range, a different example like "$10- or $20-million-dollar increases" would be correct usage. In AP Style you would always repeat the million, though that's not how most people speak. And my AP is admittedly rusty.
But why would we write "$20-million-dollar increases"? It seems redundant to me because we have the $ symbol before "20" and the word "dollar" after "million." I may be wrong, but wouldn't it be a $10 million or $20 million increase?
So, a $10 million to $20 million per year increase is correct, then, right?
Thanks again.
Sorry, yes, dollar is redundant. Oops. And that last example is correct.
Although it's not AP Style, could this pass muster in terms of punctuation and concision?
Is it clear or ambiguous? No recasts, please.
a $65–70 million per year increase in funding
a 40–45% per year increase in revenues
(A $ symbol before "65" but not "70." The en dash shows the relationship between the two ranges; thus the second $ symbol is unneeded. No % symbol after "40" because it's not really needed, either. The symbol after "45" says it all.)
Do you agree with the way the two examples are written and punctuated?
In a book or short story, yes, I'd have no problem with those.
And … what the hell does "no recasts" mean? You keep saying that.
Oftentimes a responder to a post will suggest a rewording of a sentence to avert a punctuational conundrum. I love facing these challenges head-on. You, however, answer the questions directly, without suggesting "a recast." Or should it be "a recast". ? Anyway, thanks for all of your help thus far — appreciated.
Best,
gg
Ah, got it. Makes sense.
In America, we keep the punctuation inside the quotation mark. That's one of the first giveaways that I'm reading Brit-lit, when they go outside.
