five feet two inches or 5' 2" or...
Coming from a nerd background we are typically are very lazy about how we write measurements in application notes. We will write 5 ft. 2 inch. for a measurement. What is correct for fiction Lit, five feet two inches, 5 feet 2 inches or 5' 2" when describing how tall a person is?
I was taught that numbers which can be written in one or two words are spelled out within text. I'd write He was shorter than the other cops, no more than five foot ten. But I would not write She was exactly five foot three and three-quarters.
Of course, each publisher has its own conventions and might change it to meet their norm. As long as their check clears, I'd be good with that.
Maryn, who knows which side her bread's buttered on
This is quite a coincidence--I was just about post a very similar question about height. I agree that numbers are to be spelled out, but my question is a little different. I don't think Maryn's response exactly answered mine, but instead made me even more unsure:
Would you say "He was five foot ten." or "He was five feet ten."? I've heard it said both ways. I always thought "five foot ten", but when I heard a news announcer identify a crime suspect as "five feet ten", it didn't sound wrong; as a matter of fact, it sounded more reasonable.
Walk With Purpose- Poems (mostly) and essays by Don Magin
I use "five foot ten" casually, or "five feet ten inches" when writing more formally.
Originally Posted by dobiwon
practical experience, FTW
I agree with Maryn and if you want to be specific, five feet two inches is your best choice. The singular spelling of foot for a measurement over one foot is an old form more common in non-RP areas of the U.K. and among those in America who follow a more provincial or folksy method of language acquisition (from family generation after generation rather than from school). Usually it is spoken without the inches, as in "five foot two, eyes of blue". By the way, should you could get published outside the U.S., many don't know that ' and " mean feet and inches.
"Now Leroy, more than trouble
You see, he stand 'bout six foot four"
Last edited by Lance_in_Shanghai; 03-08-2008 at 01:31 PM.
I'd lean towards less formal when describing human dimensions, "Crazy Johnny was six-two and built like a tank." Or in Brit-speak, "Crazy Johnny was six-two and built like a brick shithouse." Shrug, each to their own.
Write a story every day during the month of December!
Check out the Countdown to 2017 Flash Fiction Calendar
in Flash Fiction Challenge
So would it be better to say:
at over 6 foot
at over 6 feet?
Which is better:
I'd lean towards less formal when describing human dimensions, "Crazy Johnny was six-two and built like a tank."
Uncle Thomas was six foot two, and my dad was only five foot eleven.
Or would it be better to write:
Uncle Thomas was six-two, and my dad was only five-eleven.
* That's a point well put, and a timely suggestion that we'll bring up at the very
next board meeting a week from Tuesday . . . I don't know why, it's just policy *
I was gonna say "short" or "tall enough for my feet to touch the ground" but that probably won't help.
It depends on how formal the writing is. I'd lean toward "five foot two" and not worry about it till the editor gets her hands on it.