3 ms·
Yes but at least they are consistent with the pattern word of numeral, which is often a good rule to use if not employing a specific styleguide. For example, u
by Jiocus 5y ago
Yes but at least they are consistent with the pattern word of numeral, which is often a good rule to use if not employing a specific styleguide.
For example, using the APA guide[1] for numbers (thanks @OJFord for pointing out my error): “Six to 15”, “12 of 18”, Six of 24”.
Edit: As @temp8964 correctly pointed out, there are situations where words are recommended[2].
–
[1]: https://apastyle.apa.org/ https://apastyle.apa.org/
[2]: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/numbers/words https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/numbers/wo...
- OJFord 5y agoDon't you have that backwards? I'm not familiar with APA style guide but I was taught at school (UK) to use words below ten (at least, and to be consistent, i.e. saying 'ten' just then is fine as long as I don't now start saying '10' or '11') - I'd be surprised if APA advocated exactly the opposite, based on your example.
- Jiocus 5y agoHah! You're right, of course. My mind must have been elsewhere when writing the example, considering that I was literally reading the APA guide and thinking of the rule you laid out while at it.
- mattkrause 5y agoSwitching within a phrase, like “six to 15”, strikes me as pointless hobgobblin-ey consistency, especially when the numbers are close to the cutoff. I find it so much more jarring than either “six to fifteen” or “6–15.”