When writing out 2:32, which form do you use? Two-thirty-two, two thirty-two, or two: thirty-two? Despite spelling things out in literature, I've never run into this before.
When writing out 2:32, which form do you use? Two-thirty-two, two thirty-two, or two: thirty-two? Despite spelling things out in literature, I've never run into this before.
Twenty eight minutes to three.
Just after half past two.
Zero two thirty two hours.
Fourteen thirty two hundred hours.
2:32 isn't actually correct. It should be 2:32am or 2:32pm or 02:32 or 14:32
Twenty eight minutes to three.
Just after half past two.
Zero two thirty two hours.
Fourteen thirty two hundred hours.
So, no punctuation of any kind, in which case, what distinguishes it as a time, rather than a random number?
2:32 isn't actually correct. It should be 2:32am or 2:32pm or 02:32 or 14:32
Let's just assume that I'm using military time (i.e. Zero two thirty-two hours).
Let's just assume
Let's not. After all, are you not looking for better clarity and accuracy?
After all, are you not looking for better clarity and accuracy?
Unfortunately, just as I wrote the basic scene before doubling back to add nuance, and then again to edit for clarity, my writing for messages are generally not as thought out as my fiction writing (it's more a matter of non-extensive editing, when I'm trying to figure out how to express a single line).
Why are you looking to write it out in words? Is it going to be in dialog?
In my experience most of the time, most people are not that precise when speaking about time.
Even if they give numbers, it would be two, two fifteen, two thirty, two forty-five, they wouldn't get more precise than that with out having a specific reason for precision.
"The 2:32 from Little Snodgrass to London Euston is now arriving at platform 1a."
;-)
AJ
"The 2:32 from Little Snodgrass to London Euston is now arriving at platform 1a."
That contains a reason for greater precision. Even then, I know a lot of people who would just say the "2:30...".
The OP gave no context, so no way to know if that level of precision with spoken times is warranted.
Why are you looking to write it out in words? Is it going to be in dialog?
Yes, but it's a computer reading a specific time to someone asking for a semi-specific time (i.e. including seconds but not hundredths of seconds).
Again, I assumed that you'd use a colon simply to inform readers that you are referring to a time, rather than talking about two, thirty and another two pieces of luggage! But then again, maybe that's why no one ever spells out times in fiction! ::)
But actually, the usage was:
Rolling over, he glanced at his bedside lamp.
Two-thirty three. That didn't seem right.
Where I didn't want a sentence of nothing but "2:32".
So, is it safe to assume that there are literally NO literary references to spelled-out times, despite the standard 'spell out ALL numbers less than 100 in dialogue?
despite the standard 'spell out ALL numbers less than 100 in dialogue?
It's not something I would find particularly memorable from reading, one way or the other.
Personally:
I would spell out any number in dialog, but even for large numbers, unless there was a specific need for precision they would get reduced to round numbers (one thousand rather than 1002).
In narrative, I would probably use numerals even for small numbers.
For a digital clock display, or for a computer voice spoken time, it should have the AM/PM.
I would spell out any number in dialog, but even for large numbers, unless there was a specific need for precision they would get reduced to round numbers (one thousand rather than 1002).
That's assumed.
In narrative, I would probably use numerals even for small numbers.
Yes, that's standard (though my example was wrong.
For a digital clock display, or for a computer voice spoken time, it should have the AM/PM.
That too is standard, but not always necessary. In my example, the narrator (the protagonist) had already established that it was early morning (pre-dawn). But getting to my earlier point, specifying A.M. (or rather, 5a.m.) would clarify that it's a time
However, I've never heard that there's a definitive time exemption to the 'spell out words in dialogue under 100' guideline. But I guess I'd better check GrammarGirl to be sure.
. In my example, the narrator (the protagonist) had already established that it was early morning (pre-dawn).
Not really, at least not in what you provided in your comment.
I can name a few people I know who might be getting out of bed at 2:30PM.
I can name a few people I know who might be getting out of bed at 2:30PM.
When I worked overnights, that was about the latest I would be getting to bed.
Not really, at least not in what you provided in your comment.
Sorry, but I was referring to the scene in my story, rather than the two short lines I included in my post.
Sorry, but I was referring to the scene in my story, rather than the two short lines I included in my post.
Yes, but the two short lines that you included in your post are all that most of the rest of us can comment on.
So, is it safe to assume that there are literally NO literary references to spelled-out times, despite the standard 'spell out ALL numbers less than 100 in dialogue?
From the Chicago Manual of Style:
Q. In a work of fiction, should all numbers be spelled out in dialogue?
A. Spell out numbers in dialogue whenever it can be done without awkwardness. Years, for example, are better rendered as numerals. For more guidance, see CMOS 13.44.
When writing out 2:32, which form do you use? Two-thirty-two, two thirty-two, or two: thirty-two? Despite spelling things out in literature, I've never run into this before.
I always put it as numbers. 3:30 for example, as most times it is obvious if something happens at day or night. If military, then just 1500, as am and pm is not needed.
In general it is often suggested to use words and not numbers, but for dates and time the reverse is generally suggested. That lets the reader know that it in fact is not just a "number", but something specific such as a time or year.
In fact, even to this day I still write dates as I was taught almost 40 years ago as the Navy and Marines use them in all documents and correspondence. day month year, so today is 22 December 2021.
Is easily recognizable in any country in the world, without any of the confusion if month or day comes first when only numbers are used. And no extra punctuation like commas are needed.
The only time I write out a time is if a character says something like "Meet us at a quarter after two."
that it in fact is not just a "number", but something specific
I had a friend years ago who learned Spanish to spend part of the year in Mexico. I don't remember if it was a hotel room number or an apartment number that she was looking for. Let's say Room 201.
She asked someone in Spanish, "Where is room two hundred and one?" He had no idea what she was asking. Rooms are stated as floor/room. It should have been, "Where is room two oh one?" In a story, I would write that as, "Where is Room 201?" Some numbers are better written as the actual number.
You say it to be clear what you mean. You write it to make it clear to the reader.
In a story, I would write that as, "Where is Room 201?" Some numbers are better written as the actual number.
That's a bit more clear cut, since you're trying to appeal to non-American/English readers rather than sticking to recognized standards. I'd probably use that form too, although time standards are pretty standard, even when used in a variety of different languages.
day month year, so today is 22 December 2021.
Is easily recognizable in any country in the world, without any of the confusion if month or day comes first when only numbers are used.
While I learned day.month.year(all numbers) I now prefer the newer norm of YYYY-MM-DD.
As a consulter and freelance programmer I've seen too many dates stored any which way causing problems with sorting etc.
The stupidest argument they told me for storing the date as string was conserving storage space. But 3 two-byte integers for 4-digit-year, month and day can't be beaten by storing a date as string.
The new yyyy-mm-dd format will sort correctly even as string and after stripping the hyphens can easily be converted into a 4-byte integer for storage and further processing.
HM.
Typo edited.
The new yyyy-mm-dd format
ISO 8601 first published 1988 is new? I'd met the Japanese date format, which is also yyyy-mm-dd, a few years before and enthusiastically adopted it (I wrote it into a couple of internal documentation standards) for the reasons you gave and the avoidance of ambiguity.
ETA:
3 two-byte integers for 4-digit-year, month and day can't be beaten by storing a date as string.
...but it can be beaten by packed BCD, which would take only 4 bytes and still be readable in a memory dump. When you're scrabbling for storage, every little helps - I once had to find two bits to store a state in, in an embedded system.
ISO 8601 first published 1988 is new?
At least here in Germany you'll find the old dd.mm.yyyy or the older d. m. yy still widely in use.
The 'new' effect wears off with usage and I just checked some invoices I received in the last few month: none of them used ISO 8601.
HM.
The stupidest argument they told me for storing the date as string was conserving storage space. But 3 two-byte integers for 4-digit-year, month and day can't be beaten by storing a date as string.
Then again, most of us recall the widespread confusion resulting from switching from double word (16-bit) to quad word (32-bit storage).
The stupidest argument they told me for storing the date as string was conserving storage space. But 3 two-byte integers for 4-digit-year, month and day can't be beaten by storing a date as string.
This also dates back to the earliest days of computers.
I am old enough to remember when years were always two digits. Most computers and operating systems were written that way, and many could not even recognize a "4 digit year". And that is simply because of when this was happening.
In the 1970's and early 1980's, memory was still incredibly expensive, and there was really no need to include that capability. Some programmers did see the need, but that was a minority at the time. Plus, most simply expected the computers and programs they were using to be long retired before it became an issue.
Most computers and operating systems were written that way, and many could not even recognize a "4 digit year".
Not sure about that. I believe the internal date had a 4-digit year.
But when we stored dates in files (before databases) we used a 2-digit year because tape and especially disk was expensive. Those 2 bytes saved for every year stored added up.
And not only the media storage. Core (before memory) was extremely expensive and the data was kept in buffers (I guess what's now cache) in core along with the program and operating system. The first mainframe I worked on had 64k of total core (that's thousand, not million). And it was IBM's largest 360 computer.
I am old enough to remember when years were always two digits. Most computers and operating systems were written that way, and many could not even recognize a "4 digit year"
I started programming in 1976 on a HP 9815S programmable calculator used to control the weighing system in our dyehouse and to store our dye recipes. I know how precious memory was back then.
But even a date with a 2 digit year uses 6 bytes for storing the 6 ASCII characters, assuming the separating / were stripped from the date for storage, which wasn't always done, resulting is 8 bytes for storage as string.
3 2-byte integers could hold day, month and 4-digit year (6 byte total). You could even save 2 bytes by creating a 4-byte integer containing mmddyyyy or ddmmyyyy or better yyyymmdd so you could sort by date. For today the 4-byte integer would be 12242021(mmddyyyy) or 24122021(ddmmyyyy) or 20211224(yyyymmdd).
HM.
But even a date with a 2 digit year uses 6 bytes for storing the 6 ASCII characters
For media storage (tape/disk) on the mainframe computers I worked on in the early 1970s, the date was stored in 3 fields. A 2-byte year field, a 2-byte month field, and a 2-byte day field. Without the "19" for the year, that was 6 bytes total. If the year field had the "19", that would be 2 more bytes everywhere the year was stored. It would also take 2 more bytes in core for any occurrence of the date in a buffer. The disk was expensive. The core was limited.
ETA: And it used EPCDIC not ASCII. EPCDIC was 8-bits per byte and I believe was derived from the punched card. Programmers coded their programs on coding sheets and either punched them on cards or handed it over to a keypunch operator to punch them. The program (now on a stack of cards) was fed into the computer via a card reader. I don't remember how we got the data onto tape/disk. Probably punched cards.
it used EPCDIC not ASCII
I think you mean EBCDIC. It was a bear to work with because the collation order was screwed up by the codes for letters being non-contiguous. Nearly as bad as Baudot.
I always put it as numbers. 3:30 for example, as most times it is obvious if something happens at day or night. If military, then just 1500, as am and pm is not needed.
I had to doublecheck, but yeah, in literature (fiction novels), the emphasis is clearly on spelling out times, rather than using the numeric forms (ex: "quarter till noon" rather than "11:45am"). Of course, what's 'accepted' on SOL is far from what is considered acceptable in literary circles. Matter of using time in novels. That said, the recommendations are not well documented (i.e. how you'd phrase "5:34am" in words).
Matter of using time in novels.
"seven A.M., ten P.M." (from the article) look so wrong to me.
I am confused, are you referring to "Zero-Two-Thirty-Two Hours" or "Fourteen-Thirty-Two Hours"?
I am confused, are you referring to "Zero-Two-Thirty-Two Hours" or "Fourteen-Thirty-Two Hours"?
Actually, without the leading zero the presumption would be a reference to a 12 hour clock time, not a 24 hour clock time so the answer is neither.
I am confused, are you referring to "Zero-Two-Thirty-Two Hours" or "Fourteen-Thirty-Two Hours"?
Zero-Two-Thirty-Two Hours, though the only reason I left off the "am" designation is because the story previously established that it was early morning (the character was up all night worrying about events, so then got up to exercise rather than staying in bed worrying incessantly, though the passage I included didn't specify that).