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

Panayotis Papaspyrou wrote:
> 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?
> 
Yes, it is.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> Yes, it is.

Thank you very much. You have made my life easier.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:45:19 +0200, Panayotis Papaspyrou
 wrote:

>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?
>
That is correct in British English.

>Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Regards,
>P. Papaspyrou

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

In article <gca2bc$nbh$02$3@news.t-online.com>,
 Panayotis Papaspyrou 
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.
-- 
John Hall
          "If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
           sit next to me."
                                 Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)

John Hall wrote:
> In article <gca2bc$nbh$02$3@news.t-online.com>,
> Panayotis Papaspyrou 
> 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.

I think I would regard it as an Americanism.
-- 
John Briggs

John Briggs wrote:
> John Hall wrote:
>> In article <gca2bc$nbh$02$3@news.t-online.com>,
>> Panayotis Papaspyrou 
>> 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.
> 
> 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

John Briggs wrote:
> John Hall wrote:
>> In article <gca2bc$nbh$02$3@news.t-online.com>,
>> Panayotis Papaspyrou 
>> 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.
> 
> 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

John Briggs wrote:
> John Hall wrote:
>> In article <gca2bc$nbh$02$3@news.t-online.com>,
>> Panayotis Papaspyrou 
>> 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.
> 
> 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

Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
> John Briggs wrote:
>> John Hall wrote:
>>> In article <gca2bc$nbh$02$3@news.t-online.com>,
>>> Panayotis Papaspyrou 
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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"?
> 
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

> 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 
 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)
-- 
Molly 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.)

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.

-- 
Mike Barnes

"Molly Mockford"  wrote in message 
news:hk+uAugneR6IFwdz@molly.mockford...
> (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...'.
-- 
Noel

In article <gcb771$4lg$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
 Ildhund  writes:
>"Molly Mockford"  wrote in message
>news:hk+uAugneR6IFwdz@molly.mockford...
>> (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.
-- 
John Hall
          "If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
           sit next to me."
                                 Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)

> 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

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:13:50 +0100, "Ildhund" 
wrote:

>"Molly Mockford"  wrote in message 
>news:hk+uAugneR6IFwdz@molly.mockford...
>> (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...'.

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.
-- 
Phil C.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:46:38 +0100, Phil C.  wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:13:50 +0100, "Ildhund" 
>wrote:
>
>>"Molly Mockford"  wrote in message 
>>news:hk+uAugneR6IFwdz@molly.mockford...
>>> (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...'.
>
>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.
>
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.


-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"Phil C."  wrote in message 
news:0atje4lt8nrbfd1fg53o79sn82hq1nc9o8@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:13:50 +0100, "Ildhund" 
> wrote:
>
>>"Molly Mockford"  wrote in 
>>message
>>news:hk+uAugneR6IFwdz@molly.mockford...
>>> (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...'.
>
> 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 . ...

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' ...
-- 
Noel