When referring to a large number, such as "2003," do you say "two
thousand
three" or "two thousand and three"?

If they're both correct, is one preferred in American English or by
certain groups such as the APA?

Hello,

Saying two thousand three would be the correct way to refer to the
year 2003. When saying two thousand and three, you are really saying
$2000.03 (the AND denoting a decimal point and unless you make it
clear that you are not talking about money, it would me .03 instead of
.3).

Many people use them interchangeably however, and in American English
as it is used today, there is not really a big difference between the
two.

In APA style, “the general APA rule is to use figures to express
numbers 10 and above, and use words to express numbers below 10.”
“APA Stye – Numbers”
http://www.uwsp.edu/education/Reference/apa%20style/APANumbers.htm

MLA: “If you are writing about literature or another subject that
involved infrequent use of numbers, you may spell out numbers written
in one or two words and represent other numbers by numerals […]”
Source: Joseph Gibaldi, MLA HANDBOOK FOR WRITERS OF RESEARCH PAPERS
(fifth edition). New York: The Modern Language Association of America,
2001.

So basically, all you have to remember is that “and” is usually
reserved for decimal places, and in most writing styles if the word
form is more than two words, you put the actual numerical number (not
the word form).

I hope that this has been helpful. If you need any clarifications,
please let me know and I will be happy to further assist you.

tisme-ga


Search Strategy:

APA numbers
://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=APA+numbers

---

Clarification of Answer by tisme-ga on 02 Jan 2003 21:07 PST

Hello again,

I wanted to follow up with an excellent link provided by a fellow
researcher, pinkfreud, that you might find useful. Apparently there is
disagreement over the usage of 'and' even by Math Professors and
PHD's.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57225.html

I do stand by my original answer however that in "proper" American
English the term and is used for decimal points (as do several but not
all the commentators in the above link).

tisme-ga

Don't forget national differences however, I live in the UK, and you
would almost always say 'two thousand and three'. A British person
would use 'and' up to 'two thousand and ninety-nine' and then say 'two
thousand one hundred'. The last two digits only are preceded by 'and',
so 2465 would be 'two thousand four hundred and sixty-five'.

Similarly, I can't think of when I've heard anyone here use 'and' to
denote a decimal number. Before sterling was decimalised 'two and six'
would mean two shillings and sixpence, but I still don't think you
would find people knew what you meant if you referred to 2000.3 as
'two thousand and three', or even to 2.3 as 'two and three'. In my
book that means five!

Hello jumpingjoe,

The person specifically asked for American English and that is what I
tried to focus the answer on.

The 2000.03 was really just for money and I was thinking more in terms
of two thousand dollars and three cents. If it was 2222.22, the proper
was to say it would be two thousand, two hundred twenty two dollars
and twenty two cents. Generally the term 'and' should only be used if
there is a decimal point, and it is not necessary to use 'and' if
there is no decimal point.

tisme-ga

Here's an interesting discussion of this subject:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/57225.html

Hello pinkfreud,

Thank you for the excellent link!

I never realized that there was such a controversy over this, and was
taught myself that 'and' was only used for decimal points.

tisme-ga

If, by 2003, one is referring to the year, there is also one other
method of pronunciation: "twenty oh three".

Witness: "nineteen hundred (1900)", "eighteen twelve (1812)",
"nineteen oh eight (1908)".

Following this logic, the year 2000 can also be referred to as "twenty
hundred" just as the year 1000 is referred to as "ten hundred".

The century we are living in is referred to alternatively as the
"twenty-first century" and the "twenty hundreds".


Search Strategy:

"nineteen oh"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22nineteen+oh%22&btnG=Google+Search

Dear Grammar_dilettante,

As Deniz remarks, there is another interesting question hidden behind
the one you ask.  You have clearly chosen 2003 as your example as the
name of the present year.  And I have to say it amazes me that most
people are still expressing these as if they are numbers rather than
year names; the rules for saying these are quite diferent.

When the need first arose, this year would have been called "the year
two thousand (and) three", as if it wasn't obvious that it was a year.
 (Do you say "the month January" or "the day Friday" or "the time
eight o'clock"?)  Sensibly, the "year" bit is now disappearing and
people are saying "two thousand (and) three".  But I would no more say
"two thousand (and) three" for the current year than I should have
said "one thousand, nine hundred (and) ninety-nine" for the one four
years ago.

If the year a century ago was called "nineteen oh three", surely this
year is called "twenty oh three"?  You may be tempted to think that
the rules are different for numbers in the two thousands than in the
nineteen-hundreds.  But just think of the Battle of Hastings: everyone
knows this was in "ten sixty-six", not "one thousand (and) sixty-six".
 Its millennial anniversary has to be in "twenty sixty-six", doesn't
it?  If we don't use this form now, when is the break point?

As I suggest, I'm surprised how few people use the "oh" form these
days, but I suspect it is just taking a time to catch on after the
admittedly exceptional case of 2000.  (I'm interested in Deniz's claim
that "the year 1000 is referred to as 'ten hundred'" as I wasn't aware
of this.  Although "twenty hundred" is perfectly justifiable, I use
"(the year) two thousand" for that case.)  Even professionals, who
might be expected to have thought this matter through, seem still to
use the "two thousand (and) three" style.  But I was pleasingly
startled over my muesli this morning to hear the BBC's wonderful
Charlotte Green - <http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/inside/presenters/newsreaders/news_green.shtml>
use the "oh" form in a news bulletin.  I can only guess that this was
her personal choice and not a BBC style change.

Just in case anyone mistakes my tone, I should point out that I'm not
preaching here, just relating my thoughts and observations.  Your
style is what it is.

Carnegie