In Chicago’s default style for numbers, whole numbers under 101 are usually spelled out, as in three or ninety-three. Chicago’s alternative rule spells out numbers up to and including nine. But some expressions always call for numerals (July 2, page 9), and in scientific and technical contexts, numerals (also called digits) are the norm.
When we think about writing numbers, we tend to think of research papers, financial reports, sports columns, and other quantity-laden nonfiction settings. But novelists and playwrights and poets also puzzle over how to style numbers.
This year isn’t over just yet, but when it does finally come to an end, the current decade will end with it. In other words, we will soon be leaving the 2010s and entering the 2020s.
This month’s workout, “Numerals versus Words,” is taken from CMOS 17, paragraphs 9.2–7. Advanced editors might tackle the questions cold; learners can study that section of the Manual before answering the questions.
Abbreviating number ranges according to The Chicago Manual of Style (per section 9.61 in the 17th ed.) is easy if you can remember these three rules:
Do you know Chicago style for number ranges? Is it 142–3, 142–43, or 142–143? This month’s workout, “Inclusive Numbers,” covers paragraphs 9.60–64 in CMOS 17.
CMOS 9.4. Hundreds, thousands, and hundred thousands: “Any of the whole numbers mentioned in 9.2 followed by hundred, thousand, or hundred thousand are usually spelled out (except in the sciences)—whether used exactly or as approximations.” This section causes some readers befuddlement because . . .
