I know that the day is written as a cardinal number (1, 2, 3) and not an ordinal number (1st, 2nd, 3rd) in the day-month-year and the month-day formats. But was there ever a time when ordinal numbers were used instead? I remember writing April 2nd, 2019, etc. and I'm curious what happened.
Learn English – Were days ever written as ordinal numbers when writing day-month-year
numberswriting-style
Related Solutions
A common rule is to write out numbers from one to nine (sometimes 10), and use numerals after that. This is also matter of style, and for example the Guardian style guide says:
Spell out from one to nine; numerals from 10 to 999,999; thereafter use m or bn for sums of money, quantities or inanimate objects in copy, eg £10m, 5bn tonnes of coal, 30m doses of vaccine; but million or billion for people or animals, eg 1 million people, 25 million rabbits, the world population is 7 billion, etc; spell trillion in full at first mention, then tn; in headlines use m, bn or tn
You should also use commas to separate the numerals into groups of three. So 1,002 rather than 1002.
But assuming you want to write any number in full, use as many ands as makes it clear, and use commas to list the separate groups of number.
- 102: one hundred and two
- 120: one hundred and twenty
- 1,002: one thousand and two
- 1,203: one thousand, two hundred and three
- 102,003: one hundred and two thousand and three
- 102,304: one hundred and two thousand, three hundred and four
- 1,000,002: one million and two
- 1,000,020: one million and twenty
- 1,000,200: one million, two hundred
- 1,002,000: one million, two thousand
- 1,002,003: one million, two thousand and three
- 1,023,045: one million, twenty-three thousand and forty-five
- 1,203,450: one million, two hundred and three thousand, four hundred and fifty
- 100,000,300 : one hundred million, three hundred
- 102,000,003 : one hundred and two million and three
- 102,304,567 : one hundred and two million, three hundred and four thousand, five hundred and sixty-seven
Although it is also common to say a instead of an initial one.
- 102: a hundred and two
And sometimes just hundreds are used instead of numbers:
- 2,502: twenty-five hundred and two
Years are different and have their own rules.
It's a style guide thing in my op, but if you're writing out numerals that large in a block paragraph, I would recommend using the commas for readability purposes - a string of text numerals is hard to parse - and it also sounds better (I'm relatively sure most people insert pauses between logical digit groupings).
I'll admit to influence being ex APS (Australian Public Service), but we do tend to do a lot of writing and our style guidelines have been hammered out specifically with a view to making sure that the relevant information gets to the eyes of the target reader, in a form with the lowest chance of it being mangled.
Paraphrasing our guide (specific reference below) and personal experience, three other suggestions:
If you can, place the numeric form after the string. The numbers are much easier to scan for in text, and give a quicker indication of 'sizeness'.
five million, two hundred and fifty thousand, four hundred and twenty-two (5 250 422)
I'd also suggest retaining the and within digit blocks. In my op, it's more natural but also binds the numerals together indicating who belongs to which group.
four hundred and twenty-two
not
four hundred twenty two
Finally, hyphenate between the tens and ones of a group of digits, again for readability.
two million, fifty-four thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine.
not
two million, fifty four thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine.
I thought it was a bit silly when first having to internalise the style guide, but after a while it starts to make sense, for example in a straight side-by-side:
Five million six hundred twenty nine thousand two hundred ninety six
Five million, six hundred and twenty-nine thousand, two hundred and ninety-six (5 629 296)
Of course, your internal guides (or the prevailing style in your area, I have a funny feeling AmE might drop the internal ands for instance) will have their own suggestions, and consistency is king with something like this.
Source: Old habits from a stint in the Australian Public Service as a policy officer, and the Style Manual (6th ed), pg 176. (ISBN 978-0-7016-3648-7)
Best Answer
Dates written with ordinal numbers have always been less common than dates written as cardinal numbers in the month first format. Here is a Google Ngram for the phrases "July 4th" and "July 4":
The curves look slightly different for British versus American English, but the predominance of cardinal dates (when writing the month first) remains the same. I don't know about Canadian, Australian and other varietes of English, as Google Ngram Viewer doesn't allow to select them.
The Ngram for the day first format (i.e. "4 July" and "4th July") shows that in this convention, cardinal numbers have replaced ordinal numbers in the 1940s. Before that, ordinal numbers were the norm:
But this apparent current predominance of cardinal dates (in both month first and day first formats) may be misleading, because the picture changes slightly when you consider where and how dates are written. If you write a date in a common date format, such as "April 26, 2003", current stlye guides recommend that you write cardinal numbers, but they allow that you pronounce these as ordinal numbers. For example, the Chicago Manual of Style recommends:
And as soon as you write dates outside of strict date formats, for example when you narrate what happened on the last Independence Day, you will most probably write about the "Fourth of July", not "July 4", so while strictly speaking "fourth" is a word and not a number, it is a word that means a cardinal number. So cardinal numbers are still in use for dates today.
But you ask about the past, and indeed the convention for dates was different a few decades ago. Many of us will remember learning to write "August 2nd" in school (and not "August 2"). For example, the Collins Cobuild English Grammar of 1990 recommends:
The change from the recommendation of ordinal dates, as in the 1990 Collins Grammar, to a preference of cardinal dates must have taken place before the turn of the millennium, because The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language from 2002 states (p. 1719) that
This seems to contradict the change in the 1940s apparent in the Ngrams of the day first format. But then, grammars and style guides are always a bit behind actual usage, so that the 1990 Collins Grammar was merely continuing to recommend a tradition that unnoticed by its authors had already fallen out of use.
I would like to note that contrary to what @Chenmunka claims in their comment, British English doesn't universally follow the day before month convention. As the Wikipedia article on Date and time notation in the United Kingdom states:
A screenshot from the Times website provides proof: