Language desk
< August 30	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	September 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 31

Antiquated Superlatives for Victorian-style poster.

Sorry - this is going to be a rather vague request - but you guys have done well for me in the past, so here we go!

I'm trying to compose a poster of the kind that were around in Victorian times where a product was ridiculously over-hyped using flowery words and a dozen different fonts.

I'm having a hard time finding enough superlatives and other similar words that feel sufficiently outdated for modern speakers - yet are still comprehensible to those who are reasonably literate. So I have phrases like "Replete with sundry alchemical substances" and "An avuncular event with luminaries and sages of all kinds"...but I'm running dry on similar sounding stuff.

I guess I'm really looking for a pile of those dusty and overly flowery words to play with. Whatever you have would be good!

TIA SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help at all? -Jayron 32 16:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The electric corset looks interesting. It might be an early attempt at a Sauna Belt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of old-fashioned compliments [1] that might work for products. the Language of flowers might also have some inspiration, either in visually including certain flowers or just using their names. The posters for Medicine_shows and patent medicine seem especially ripe for mining, e.g. [2]. Girl Genius [3] often uses this kind of language, but it might take a while to find the appropriate pages, and you wouldn't want to directly plagiarize. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling an event 'avuncular' doesn't sound right to me. Unless it's some kind of uncle-centric society. :) 64.235.97.146 (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary offers two meanings:

In the manner of an uncle, pertaining to an uncle.
(by extension) Kind, genial, benevolent, or tolerant.

...I kinda meant the second one...but I guess you're right. This is why I need help! SteveBaker (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might help http://www.sensationpress.com/victorianadvertising.htm http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/selling-the-victorians/ Hotclaws (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to write a numerical expression in words

I would like to know exactly how to write a numerical expression in words. As an example, let's use the number 542,879 for illustration. I know that there is, obviously, "five hundred forty two thousand" and "eight hundred seventy nine". My question is in the details. Where do hyphens go (if at all); where do commas go (if at all), where does the word "and" go (if at all). Stuff like that. Also, capitalization versus lower case letters. This is if it were to be written in a formal paper, where the words (not numerals) are required. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be "five hundred and forty-two thousand, eight hundred and seventy-nine" in British English, and "five hundred forty-two thousand, eight hundred seventy-nine" in American English. Dbfirs 20:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add a couple of additional points. (1) There would be no capitals, unless beginning a sentence or proper noun. (1a) I'm American. In writing a check/cheque/draft on my account, I will normally capitalize the first letter of the amount on the check itself. (2) In the United States, you will often hear the ands in speech. But they are not "standard" in US English, so one would not write them. (3) Truthfully, in Standard English, at least in the US, most style guides will tell you that only numbers through "ten" are written out as words. So while I presume you have some reason to want to write this out in words, in normal standard written copy you should use numerals for a number like that. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, I am American. So, I am concerned with the USA way of doing things. The purpose is to write them in a formal paper, in the following manner, as an example. This is to verify that twelve (12) widgets were received by the client last Wednesday. For example, when one has to write out the actual words and also numerals in parentheses. That type of thing. Back to the question (and the reply above by Dbfirs). Why are some numbers (e.g., forty-two thousand; also, seventy-nine) hyphenated, and some (e.g., five hundred; also, eight hundred) not? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the numbers from 21 to 99 (twenty-one to ninety-nine) are hyphenated, and no others (obviously, this includes the "twenty-one" in "twenty-one thousand" or "twenty-one million" as well.) Why? I have no idea. That's the rule, though. --Ashenai (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90. —Tamfang (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason but a difference: forty-two is addition, five hundred is multiplication. Five hundred bottles is five times {hundred bottles}, and I imagine that in some languages it's analyzed that way: five hundred-batches of bottles. (In French this is true of millions.) But forty-two bottles is not forty times {two bottles}; the forty and the two belong to the same level of structure. —Tamfang (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

What's the correct way to write a decimal point number in words? Let's say that 5.8 is the number. I recently saw "five point eight". But, that just doesn't seem right. Before that, I had never seen the word "point" as part of the verbal expression of a numeral. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Five point eight" is how I would write it, if for some reason I couldn't use numbers. I suppose if you wanted to describe something heard over the phone you might write it out that way. "Five and eight tenths" would be another way, or even "five and four fifths", if you wanted to simplify the fraction. StuRat (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five point eight is the most common way, but in cases where intelligibility is crucial, such as in military or aeronautical communications by radio, 'five decimal eight' is usually mandated. Akld guy (talk) 05:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which country is Joseph in? "Five point eight" is the only way of saying "5.8" in Britain. I don't know how the continentals would say it, because it's written "5,8" there. On the other hand, they don't use the comma to separate digits - 1,000 is 1 000. Germans use the full stop more than we do - "6. Yahrhundert" for "sixth century" or "6th century", "6. Januar" for "6 January" or "6th January". Indians count in something called a crore - this is why you see constructions such as "20,00,000". 92.25.66.96 (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the USA. I had mentioned this above, in an earlier post. I have never in my life seen "five point eight", which is why I had asked about it. I had only seen something along the lines of "five and eight tenths", or such. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've never heard about body temperature being "98 point 6 degrees", or a "clean that's real as Ivory, 99 point 44 percent pure"? ... Or have you just not seen it written? As to not being written, it may be that writing things out in words tends to be more "formal", while using "point" is more colloquial. For that reason, in writing "ninety-eight and six tenths degrees" or "ninety-nine and forty-four hundredths percent pure" might be more common, as if you're bothering to write it out, you might as well be hi-falutin' about it. -- 160.129.138.186 (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have (obviously) heard it in spoken English. I have never seen it in written English. Hence, my question. And, as my question stated, this is for a formal (written) paper. Again, hence, the question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In French we write 5,8 and in words "cinq virgule huit", just like in English you would write 5.8 "five point eight". One convenient way to see how it's written anywhere in the world, is to explore your computer's keyboard and language settings. Akseli9 (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note though, I was taught to say 2,34 in French as deux virgule trente-quatre (thirty-four) rather than deux virgule trois quatre (three four). —Tamfang (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really say "two point three four" in English? And for 2,345 "two point three four five"? I didn't know that, thank you for this knowledge. If so, well French doesn't work like English after all, since in French it is "deux virgule trente-quatre" and 2,345 is "deux virgule trois-cent quarante-cinq". Akseli9 (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment prononcez-vous ‘2.051’? —Tamfang (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2,051 is "deux zéro cinquante-et-un". If the person doesn't know what it is about and you want to make sure they will get it correctly it is "deux virgule zéro cinquante-et-un". Akseli9 (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not to say "five and eight tenth"?[4]--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it would be "five and eight tenths in American English. --Jayron 32 14:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a step back here ...

First, to answer Joseph's specific question for US, and leaving out the question of reducing fractions to lowest terms:

In general settings, trying for Standard English, if the number is truly by itself, it would be "five and eight tenths". But if the number is counting something (like 5.8 gallons of gasoline), then I'm pretty sure the final fraction will get hyphenated as an attributive: "five and eight-tenths gallons". If the number is only the fraction, and not a mixed number, then you're more likely to see a construction like "eight tenths of a gallon" (not hyphenated). "Five point eight" is not Standard English.
For money, it would always be "five dollars [,/and] eighty cents". The fraction is always converted, when using words, into a whole number of cents. If it's a currency where you don't know the name of the fractional currency unit, you'd probably go with "five euros [,/and] eighty". (I know what it is, that's just an example if one doesn't know.)

Writing a check, the fraction is written out as xx/00 or xx/100, even in the "words" section.

Second, that period is used as the ordinal in German.

StevenJ81 (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Exactly correct when you say that: "Five point eight" is not Standard English. I understand that money and dollar values would use the "xx/100" notation. So I might be referring to a formal document that says the following, for example. This is to verify that twelve (12) widgets were received by the client last Wednesday. So, what do we do if the client received 5.8 widgets? This is to verify that __________ (5.8) widgets were received by the client last Wednesday. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with "five and eight-tenths (5.8) widgets". If the fraction is 0.5, I would unquestionably use "... and one-half". I'd probably simplify on fourths, also, though I'll leave it to others whether "fourth" or "quarter" is better.

I'll be honest with you, though: if your decimal is any more complicated than tenths, I'd probably shift to a numerical approach anyway. If your client received _____________ (5.73) widgets, "five and seventy-three [one-]hundredths widgets" is just going to be too complicated for most people to follow. In that case, unless you can prove to me that there is a very good reason to stick with a pure word approach, I'd probably stay with "five and 73/100 widgets". StevenJ81 (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Once again, I need an "approach" that has both (a) words in written format; (b) with the same exact value in parenthetical with numerals. (As in my examples with widgets.) Practically speaking, I doubt the decimals would go much further than one or two points after the decimal. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understand that. Use the example above, even for 5.73, if you absolutely must. I'm just saying that unless this is a pure exercise, doing this at two decimal places in most any kind of document, even a legal one, is going to be awkward, and at three decimals ("five and four hundred seventy-three one-thousandths [5.473]") almost incomprehensible. There is a real reason that Standard English allows/encourages/requires such to be written as numerals rather than words. StevenJ81 (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful replies. Some points I'd like to add, however. (1) A legal document and standard English are certainly two different things, I am sure you would agree. (2) You stated: "... doing this at two decimal places in most any kind of document, even a legal one, is going to be awkward ...". Legal documents are filled with all sorts of awkward language, no? Hence, the need for a lawyer (and/or judge) to parse them. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. (Smile) StevenJ81 (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just picking an Act of Parliament at random, I came on this: [5]. 80.42.79.200 (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, because I understand that you are only interested in US answers. I don't believe I have ever heard or seen "five and seventy-three hundredths" or even "six and three tenths" from a British source, and I would be surprised to encounter it. I also think that many British people would not realise that these were the same numbers as "5.73" and "6.3". I've also never encountered the "xx/100" notation for money in Britain. --ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of those examples that you cite are extremely common in American English (the USA). Everyday occurrences, in fact. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ColinFine is right - British people would never talk that way. "6.3" is pronounced "six point three" here. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US people don't usually talk that way, either. We were focusing more on writing. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Break (slight veer)

Following starts discussing partly how people say things. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does this work with telephone numbers on the continent? Suppose the number was 020-7000 2051 we would probably say '0'-two-'0'-seven-thousand-two-'0'-five-one. I agree the French would use "zero" rather than '0' but apart from that how would they say the last four digits? And if it were a bus route, say 251, we would say two-five-one. Would the French express it differently? 78.145.16.226 (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In France we group phone number digits by couples. For 020-7000 2051 we say "zéro vingt, soixante-dix, zéro zéro, vingt, cinquante-et-un" (zero twenty, seventy, zero zero, twenty, fifty-one). When there is a foreign phone number with exotic digit grouping, like for example 020-345 6789, we say "zéro vingt, trois-cent quarante-cinq" (zero twenty, three hundred and forty-five) for the three-digit grouping, then we say "soixante-sept quatre-vingt-neuf" (sixty-seven, eighty-nine) for the rest. For the bus route 251, we say "deux-cent cinquante-et-un" (two hundred and fifty-one). Akseli9 (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving onto dates, 1973 for example would be "nineteen seventy-three". The Portuguese would spell it out: mil e novecentos e setente e tres. What about France? We don't have any firm rule - some people would call the present year "two thousand and fifteen". Others would say "twenty fifteen". How does that compare with American usage? 78.145.16.226 (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I was in France they would have said 2051 as "deux mille cinquante-et-un", but that was a long time ago. I don't know whether it is more common to say each figure separately now. Dbfirs 14:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I started learning French (in the US) in the 1970s, we learned "dix-neuf cents ...". I later came to understand there might be some regional/national differences in usage, though, and that some might have used "mille neuf cents". I don't remember ever discussing 2000+.

In the US, except in written-out dialogue, nobody writes out telephone numbers in words-of-numerals. Ever. As far as I know. (This is different from the practice of assigning letters to each number, and writing the exchange [first three digits] in those terms. [Example: "555" = "KL5" = "KLinger 5".] But that's a completely different discussion.)
For year numbers in the US? Interesting question. Certainly numerals are more common. That said ...

Pre-2000, definitely "nineteen ..." and the like, except in extremely formal documents (e.g., "Done in the City of Washington, this fourth day of July in the year [of our Lord] one thousand nine hundred seventy-six, and of the Independence of the United States the two-hundredth"). (Note AD year is cardinal, but independence year ordinal. I think.) 2000 itself, definitely "two thousand", and perhaps because of the book/movie 2001:A Space Odyssey, 2001 was pretty universally "two thousand [and] one".
Beyond that, I'm not sure I've seen it written out enough to know. One started hearing "twenty ...", at least a little bit, in the early-to-mid decade starting in 2000. Charles Osgood was an early adapter of that. I think that started picking up a lot in 2010, once we got past "twenty-oh-..." (or "twenty-aught-..."). I think coverage of the most recent two presidental elections usually used "two-thousand [and] eight", but "twenty-twelve", in speech. But in writing, with words? I'm not sure I've even seen it in writing enough to have an opinion, especially for years looking forward. (Anyone have a style guide to quote?) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Very interesting discussion. Thank you, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]