I haven't been this confused when writing a report before...but help!

I am writing a rather technical report with lots of statistics and research findings. A proof reader, whom I don't really trust because she told me never to use contractions in a formal paper, said that I need to write out the numbers. I know about the 1-10 rule (writing them out), but what if the range is 8-14? And don't you use numerals, not written numbers when reporting research results like, "Of those 11 reports, 2 addressed disciplinary data and 1 reported on adverse incidents." Now it doesn't look full of numbers there, but when I added the sources, it looks like, "Of those 11 reports (6, 12, 16, 17, 23, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38), 2 addressed disciplinary data (12, 23) and 1 reported on adverse incidents (34). See the point? My proof readers say there are too many numbers. Then I changed them back to written numbers, except for the references, but it doesn't seem right.

What about a 6-month period? Is it six-month? The stupid report is due really soon, and my numbers are way off now. Half are in numerals and half are written out. And I've wasted an inordinate amount of time on this stupid problem!

Kalleh, will your report be judged on style?

The rules for writing out numbers depend upon which stylebook you are following. Most style guides say to spell out numerals from one to nine, and start writing them as numbers at 10. If you have a sentence or a phrase mentioning one number under 10 and the others at 10 or above, it is OK to make them both words or both numerals. If you start a sentence with a number, you should always write it out.

Some numbers are never written out, like ages, grades in school, street addresses (well sometimes they are, but only by people at frou-frou addresses!) Of course, numbers in a chart would always be expressed as numbers.

I would think that all statistics should be expressed as numerals in a formal accounting of all the stats, but if you are writing about them anecdotally in the main body of the text, the one-to-nine rule might apply. Here's a question: does your style guide say to spell out "percent" or use the symbol? You might write "one percent," but you would never write "one%." If you are to use the percent sign, the percentage should always be a numeral.

That's how the stylebooks I work with put it. But yours may be different.

Bottom line, if this is just for your board to read, probably nobody will be judging you on your adherence to the Chicago Manual of Style or whatever, so just try to keep it consistent within the report and don't worry that there are too many numbers. If it's a board report, there are always too many numbers.

BTW, the New Yorker is the only publication I know of off hand that writes out every number: one million, two hundred and eighty-three thousand, four hundred and twenty-three dollars and twenty-five cents. Looks pretty ridiculous, and I always find it harder to comprehend how much they are talking about. If a number is written numerically, you can see and understand its size instantly--so I definitely agree with the one-nine rule.

Wordmatic

Here's an extract from our house style guide on writing reports:

quote:

75. Write numbers from one to nine in words and use numerals for 10 and above. Exceptions are:
 mathematical/statistical data
 Key Stage 1, Key Stage 2
 Year 1, Year 2
 Level 1, Level 2
 sets 1, 2, 3
 chapter headings/page numbers
 abbreviations in footnotes (for example: ‘2nd edition’).
76. Use a comma to separate thousands in numbers: 1,000; 10,000; 100,000.
77. Avoid using a number to start a sentence. When it is necessary to begin a sentence with a number, write it as a word rather than as a numeral. If the figure is a percentage, write out ‘per cent’ rather than using the ‘%’ sign.
78. Express decimals in numbers and fractions in words, for example: 0.75; three quarters. Do not hyphenate fractions unless used adjectivally, for example: ‘two thirds’; ‘a two-thirds majority’.
79. Use only numbers in tables, charts and graphs.
80. Use numbers before abbreviations: for example, ‘5kg’, ‘6%’; remember that abbreviated units of measurement have no full stops and do not take ‘s’ in the plural. There should be no space between the number and the unit of measurement.
81. Use the ‘%’ sign throughout (it is short and easily visible), unless a sentence begins with a percentage, when ‘per cent’ should be written out to match the number (for instance, ‘Ten per cent...). Percentages are proportions, not exact numbers.
82. Avoid mixing numbers, fractions and decimals and percentages in the same sentence or paragraph. Avoid using percentages when expressing numbers below 100; use the exact numbers instead. For example: ‘in 15 of the 79 providers that were inspected…’
83. Use first, second, third (not firstly, secondly, thirdly).

I'd imagine your own house style will be similar.

Yes, I use our APA, and I will read it then. I just have been so busy, and I thought there were some easy rules. I don't think our organization would really care which manual we used, as long as it's consistent.

Since I am citing my sources with numbers, I wanted to write out the numerals as much as possible (though normally I like the numerals whenever possible). Then I had problems with something like, "7 of the 44 subjects had 10 whatevers." I left all the numerals, but it seemed inconsistent when in the next sentence I wrote out "five," for example. Yet, you'd not write out 44, would you?

Strange about the New Yorker!

quote:

"7 of the 44 subjects had 10 whatevers."

I'd write, "Seven of the 44 subjects had 10 whatevers."

Really? I thought if you cited from a list, they all had to be numerals or written out. In the end, though, arnie, I did just that. I thought it was wrong, though.

I am sure I'll hear about the numbers fiasco from our "editors" at our place, some of whom have been English teachers; I find the latter to be the most prescriptive of the prescriptives. I am sure whatever I decide to do with those numbers will be considered wrong.

In this instance, I would keep them all numerals unless "7" is the first word of the sentence. Then I'd do it Bob's way.

Speaking of proofreading, and to help you put your proofreaders into perspective, the following is part of an exchange that was forwarded to me by a co-worker. It is from the CUE-List (college and university editors' Listserv) regarding the difference between proofreading and editing:

quote:

Proofing is like taking the gonads off a wolverine with a butter knife while blindfolded and forced to listen to John Denver. Editing is not like that.
--Tom Griffin, U of Washington Magazine
_________________________
** Proofing is make-up; editing is a make-over.

** I remember reading that a well-regarded writer said (and I
paraphrase) he got out of the editing business early on, because he saw no advantage in it. When everything was right, people said, "what a great photo!" and when something was wrong, they came after the editor with a shotgun.
--Meredith Holmes, Communications Writer, Case Western Reserve University

Wordmatic

quote:

Originally posted by wordmatic:
In this instance, I would keep them all numerals unless "7" is the first word of the sentence. Then I'd do it Bob's way.

People do seem to keep mistaking me for someone else just lately.

Bob hasn't yet said what his way is.
(Confuse the buggers - use roman numerals throughout)

Sorry--your accents are so similar?


wordm

I suppose the descriptivists here won't think this quite as funny as I do, but you might!

So, my editors are at it. Definitely I was criticized for my numerals vs. writing them out. But how do you like this change?

I had "She writes that student education at its best..."

She changed it to "She writes that student education at it's best..."

Can you get why I become "hopelessly confused" when I write reports/papers here?

I trust you insisted that she change it back.

That isn't simply a question of style or preference; that's a question of ignorance. How ever did these people get a job for which they are clearly not competent?

And you can quote me!

quote:

I trust you insisted that she change it back.

Oh, of course. And I agree that it's not a question of style. It's just that's the kind of people I'm dealing with!

I assume she just messed up. I do that sometimes.

I do that sometimes.

Everybody does, give or take somebody.

quote:

Everybody does, give or take somebody.

Can I quote you on that?

Well, this takes the cake. The person reviewing my reports had Lynne Truss's "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" on her desk, so of course I asked about it. It's her "style guide." What?! I told her that we use the CMS. She finds Truss "quite helpful" and if everyone wrote like that, "it would be a better world."

I can't wait for her to tell me it should be "which" and not "that."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Lynne Truss's "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" on her desk

Well that explains it then. (Ask her to identify the punctuation "error" in the book's title.)

It seemed to me that she hadn't even heard of the CMS. I think I will be venting a lot on Wordcraft!

quote:

It's her "style guide."

Truss's book is very good for what it is. A popular work aimed at those whose knowledge of English grammar is poor. It is deliberately written in a light-hearted populist style and it has, rightly I think, been a huge success.

But it was never intended to be a style guide or even an especially scholarly linguistic work.

Why don't you suggest that this person gets a proper style guide? I don't know how much the Chicago Manual of Style costs, or how magisterial a work it is - but if it's anything like my preferred manual - "The Times Style Guide" - it will be relatively small and relatively cheap - only about the same size and cost as "Eats, shoots and leaves" over here.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Truss's book is very good for what it is. A popular work aimed at those whose knowledge of English grammar is poor. It is deliberately written in a light-hearted populist style and it has, rightly I think, been a huge success.

quote:

No matter that you have a PhD and have read all of Henry James twice. If you still persist in writing, “Good food at it’s best,” you deserve to be struck by lightning, hacked up on the spot, and buried in an unmarked grave.

quote:

If you still persist in writing, “Good food at it’s best,” you deserve to be struck by lightning, hacked up on the spot, and buried in an unmarked grave.

At the very least.

Point well made, Goofy.

quote:

Why don't you suggest that this person gets a proper style guide?

Richard, as I had said, we have a CMS here in our offices. It's our official style guide. This person is just not following it and seems to think that Truss has written a style guide. For now I'll leave it alone because she hasn't suggested anything to me that's off the wall (it was another editor who wanted me to add the mistaken apostrophe). However, if she gives me flack about "that" or "which" or says that some comma is "essential" or some other stupid prescriptive advice, I will be asking on Wordcraft for the snarkiest of snarky articles about Lynne Truss. I presume Language Log or Mr. Verb or maybe even one of your Blogs would help me out on that. But until that happens, she can fall asleep every night with Lynne Truss's prescriptive tales, as far as I'm concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
... I will be asking on Wordcraft for the snarkiest of snarky articles about Lynne Truss.

Yes, character assassination always works.

character assassination always works

It definitely works for Truss, Fiske, and their ilk.

quote:

for the snarkiest of snarky articles about Lynne Truss

Although I would agree that her book is not the finest, nor the most comprehensive, grammar textbook ever written, I didn't think it had too many faults, or that it was over-prescriptive. As I have written previously, I believe that for what it is it does a good job.

What it isn't is a style guide and it does a rotten job as that!

Why not appeal to her patriotism? After all, the CMS is the Chicago Manual of Style whereas Lynne Truss is British. Should she be following a Brit's say-so instead of the all-American, home city CMS?

Or if she is especially pro-British, suggest that she uses "The Times Style and Usage Guide". My favourite.

quote:

However, if she gives me flack about "that" or "which" or says that some comma is "essential" or some other stupid prescriptive advice, I will be asking on Wordcraft for the snarkiest of snarky articles about Lynne Truss. I presume Language Log or Mr. Verb or maybe even one of your Blogs would help me out on that.

The time has come. I need the snarkiest of snarky articles (anti-prescriptive) that I can refer my colleague to...or maybe shove down her little throat.

Suggestions?

I'm not sure what you want - are you saying that you want comments that criticise Lynn Truss's work? If so, I feel that might not achieve your objective which is, I assume, to make her consider some other reference source.

People's usual reaction, when their choice is criticised, is to find reasons why they are right so as to justify that choice - and she will certainly find as many complimentary items about Lynn Truss as you could find derogatory ones. After all, admitting that their choice is wrong is admitting that THEY are wrong - and few people like that.

Better would it be, I suggest, to find other, more worthy, reference sources and then find reasons why she should use those in preference to Truss. Then you might simply say that, according to the CMS or the Times Style Guide, this is the preferred construction - regardless of what Lynn Truss might suggest. She will then have a "get-out" by saying that she had not previously had access to this or that guide and in the light of this further information she agrees with you.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Suggestions?

how about this

Yes. That seems to put it in a nutshell.

Incidentally, I had never heard of a copy-editor prior to reading about them on this board. Are they an American invention? Proof-readers I know about and use extensively; all of my books are proofed independently at least thrice. But proof-readers do not tell me I have to change my grammar or style - unless there is a very clear and indisputable error. At the very worst one might suggest an alternative construction - which suggestions I often accept.

quote:

are you saying that you want comments that criticise Lynn Truss's work?

No, Richard. Prescriptivism in general. This is not against Truss personally, but against prescriptivism. However, she, along with Strunk and White and many others, is a prescriptivist.

Thanks, Goofy. I am going to wait a few days because we had a pretty intense meeting about this stuff. But I do intend to send it.

Richard, "copy-editors" are common here. I don't know how they differ from proof readers; I don't tend to hear that term "proof reader" a lot.