On a Point of Order

TFK
1

Wasn’t sure what thread to post this in.
I’ve appreciated a recent trend on TFK, generally among the more refined and intelligent posters (I believe it was started by @Bandage ) of placing the numeric alongside the written version of a number eg: Three (3), so as to avoid confusion and assist some of our forumites who have yet to answer how many points they got in the Leaving Certificate (cc @Brimmer_Bradley ) .

However, a related question.

Should the numeric appear first, or after the written version of the number? What is the correct format as per the following examples:
a) three (3)
b) 3 (three)

Personally, I feel it is option a), though I stand to be corrected by those with a keener knowledge of the vagaries of form in the English language.

I feel it is attention to details such as this that sets TFK apart and would appreciate feedback on this matter.

Kind Regards,
Fitzy.

1 Like
2

Generally, the rule is that for a single figure number, you should spell the word, not write the numeral itself.

So “three”, not “3”.

But for numbers of 10 (ten) or above, you write the numeral, not the spelling.

This rule is relaxed when writing, say the scoreline of a match, so you would write “1-0”, not “one-nil”, unless quoting the late David Coleman.

But this is an obscure INTERNET forum, so nobody gives a shit.

3

I give a shit Sidney.

4

I believe the following should clear this little conundrum up;

image.jpg1366×768 308 KB

3 Likes
5

I had to do a double take there, again.

6

I’ve given you the answer in my answer.

The convention comes from the BBC Grandstand vidiprinter in the late 1980s (Nineteen-Eighties) when Arbroath or some Scottish Division 3 (Three) team or other would knock in an unusually high number of goals in a match.

Had the convention been in use in 1950 (Nineteen-Fifty) it would have saved the English press from reporting that England had beaten the USA 10-1 (Ten-One) in their World Cup match, rather than losing 1-0 (One-Nil).

It actually did, as that story is a myth.

7

Look, this may be an obscure little forum but can we at least keep the few little anomalies /oddities that define TFK. I’ve only seen one poster recently use option (b) and suspect it may have been an attempt at rebelliousness, which obviously isn’t to be encouraged, either that or just being thick.

In short, it’s a nice little tradition of ours.

1 Like
8

If the forum’s premier useless cunt can live with it, the rest of us may carry on.

2 Likes
9

This isn’t a thread for people with a reading age of 7 or below and a line in attempted barbs worthy pal of a similar age, so you’d be best advised to to stay off it, mate.

10

Small numbers are written as a word, large numbers in digits. This ‘three (3)’ shite is for illiterates.

11

That’s the 3rd (Turd) time this has been explained in here.

1 Like
12

I just thought it was a really weak joke of @Bandage’s that he decided to persist with and no one thought was funny.

1 Like
13

Hello Fitzy.

@Sidney has pretty answered this in post 6 (six) on this thread.

I do it as a nod to the BBC vidi-printer which always confirmed an unusually large number of goals scored by spelling it out in brackets.

1 Like
14

A nod to the BBC. The post-colonial West Brit is strong in you. How ironic.

15

A strange and unnecessary insult. Really no need for it.

16

I like my pretend IRA men to have none of the West Brit in them. I’m fierce disappointed in you mate.

17

@Bandage never fired a bren gun in anger in his life.

18

Was he more of a semtex man?

19

Spandex, mate — spandex.

2 Likes