For numbers between 1000 and 9999 is it proper English for the word "hundred" to be used? For example is it necessarily wrong to say "eleven hundred" when referring to 1100?
Asked
Active
Viewed 9.0k times
11
-
1The eleven hundreds came before the twelve hundreds but after the 10th century. – Dan D. Jan 12 '14 at 07:59
-
I would never say "twenty hundred" though for numbers after "two thousand = 2,000". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_numerals – Mari-Lou A Jan 12 '14 at 10:30
-
5@Mari-LouA Yeah, numbers where the hundreds digit is zero are almost always pronounced simply as "x thousand." However, for numbers where the hundreds digit is not zero, it's perfectly normal to use hundreds. For instance, "twenty-four hundred" is perfectly normal, but "ten hundred" or "twenty hundred" is not. – reirab Dec 27 '14 at 09:15
-
The "xx hundred" expression is much more common in American English than British English. The address of the White House (1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) is idiomatically "Sixteen Hundred" – John Feltz Dec 06 '16 at 12:56
-
If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand thousand times, eleven hundred is fine! – CWill Jun 30 '17 at 14:45
-
1But you can't read 117 as eleventy-seven. – fixer1234 Jul 20 '17 at 06:04
-
With proper math and using place value, no! – MathCubes Oct 27 '19 at 19:37
-
I’m voting to close this question because it lacks context. – Greybeard Aug 02 '20 at 08:34
-
6Does this answer your question? Is it proper grammar to refer to four digit number in hundreds? – BCLC Jan 25 '21 at 08:19
-
@BCLC I haven't a clue as to why this obvious duplicate (there are threads discussing enunciation of military time as well as pure numbers) should be reopened. Try CVing again. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 29 '21 at 13:58
-
@EdwinAshworth by 'reopened' do you mean 'allowed to remain open' instead? this was 7 months ago so i kinda forgot this already – BCLC Aug 29 '21 at 16:09
-
There are apparently 5 close votes. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 29 '21 at 16:35
6 Answers
14
You can say:
eleven hundred
OR
one thousand, one hundred.
Both are correct.
-
1I would say "eleven hundred" for "1100" and "one thousand, one hundred" for "1,100." – MissMonicaE Jun 30 '17 at 14:28
-
In the US, both are OK. Exception: when writing a check, write "one thousand one hundred" – GEdgar Oct 27 '19 at 22:44
-
Could you add references supporting these assertions, please, davidgo? – Edwin Ashworth Aug 29 '21 at 13:54
4
The number "1100" may, depending upon context, most reasonably be read as "eleven hundred", "one thousand one hundred", "one one zero zero", depending upon what it represents. Some things are typically counted in groups of 100 (e.g. years), and some things that appear to be a single number actually represent the concatenation of two numbers [e.g. street addresses in the US combine a block number with two digits that identify an address within a block] or four numbers [e.g. digits of a "telephone number"].
If a four-digit number is written with a comma between the hundreds and thousands place, it should almost generally be read by describing the number of thousands, and the number of things beyond that [e.g. 1,234 is one thousand, two hundred, and thirty four], except as noted below. For numbers without commas, I would suggest the following [N is 1-9, X and Y are 0-9; HH are 11-99; excluding multiples of ten, and II are 10-99]
0000 -- zerozero, zerozero
000N -- triple-zero N
00N0 -- double-oh-N-zero
00NX -- double-oh-N-X
N000 -- N thousand
N00M -- N thousand M
N0II -- N thousand II or ten/twenty/thirty/etc. II
HH00 -- HH hundred
HH0N -- HH oh N
HHII -- HH II
Note that leading zeroes generally only make sense for things like phone numbers. The other formulations are applicable to years and addresses as well, and the N000 and HH00 are suitable for use when counting things whose counts multiples of 100.
For numbers that represent counts of things (but do not represent calendar years like 1980 or 2014), it is reasonable to use the two-digits-plus "hundreds" form of counts if all other counts with which it might logically compared are only expressed to two significant figures. If bins have 450, 1,100, 2,000, and 5,700 items, they might be read as "four hundred fifty, eleven hundred, two thousand, and fifty-seven hundred". If, however, the quantities had been 453, 1,100, 2,017, and 5,706, then they should be read as "four hundred fifty-three, one thousand one hundred, two thousand seventeen, and five thousand seven hundred and six". Even though the second number happens to be a multiple of 100, it should be expressed in the same form as the others.
supercat
- 1,121
4
Both are fine if you remain consistent, if not you will discover:
eleven thousand eleven hundred eleven = twelve thousand one hundred eleven
user 85795
- 917
-
well i guess you can't say X thousand and Y hundred and if your Y exceeds 9? – BCLC Aug 30 '21 at 15:52
2
British English doesn't go above 1999 for the "hundreds" format. You can say nineteen-hundred, but not "twenty-one-hundred".
Years are different, and I'd expect the year 2147 to be said as "twenty-one forty-seven". But the number 2147 would never be said that way: it's always "two thousand one hundred and forty-seven" (and note the and there; that's never omitted in BrE). Even with years, it's still not entirely settled whether to pronounce a year like 2010 as thousands or hundreds.
The CBS production The 4400 is currently showing on British TV. It's pronounced "forty-four hundred" and that phrase is used extensively in dialogue to the extent that it's unimaginable to say anything else. But in a British sentence like "There are 4400 Smarties in the jar" it would definitely be thousands, not hundreds.
Andrew Leach
- 101,901
1
Context matters, and seems missing from the question. I’d suggest that “hundreds” flows from years pronounced this way. 1776, the year, is pronounced “seventeen seventy six” and 1800 would follow the same pattern, going with “eighteen hundred” and not “one thousand eight hundred”. Even for a box of 1,235 buttons, I’d imagine a student using the ‘year’ pronunciation and saying “twelve hundred.....”.
The truth (to me) is that as long as the listener understands what you mean, either way is fine.
-1
Note that military time never uses thousands.
Regular Time / Military Time / Military Pronunciation
8:00 p.m. / 2000 or 2000 hours / "Twenty hundred hours"
11:00 p.m. / 2300 or 2300 hours / "Twenty-three hundred hours" Google.
Military usage, as agreed between the United States and allied English-speaking military forces, differs in some respects from other twenty-four-hour time systems:
...
Hours are always "hundred", never "thousand"; 1000 is "ten hundred" not "one thousand"; 2000 is "twenty hundred" not "two thousand". Wiki
2300 is pronounced as: "twenty-three hundred hours" or "twenty-three hundred hours" or "two-three-zero-zero hours" or "two-three-oh-oh hours" time.unitarium
I believe there is a typo in the last explanation, since the first two are identical. One should be probably be "twenty-three-zero-zero hour" (singular):
That evening I was scheduled for a twenty two thirty take-off and twenty three hundred hour rendezvous with the Thunder Six One flight. Jud McLester; Thru a Pilot's Eye
“Ma'am I will have my men check on things and get back to you, say around twenty three hundred hour at the ranch? K. Brockwell; *Have You Seen Charlie?.
DjinTonic
- 21,299