This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Explanation: In technical texts, I strongly prefer not to use a separator to avoid possible confusion with the decimal point, and you have just made precisely this mistake: the lift of a hot air balloon is 1.225 kg/m3, not 1225 kg/m3.
I agree, typographically it is better. I have a simple workaround: at the end of my job, I simply search and replace all on non-breaking spaces [^s] and replace them with the same, but setting the font size smaller.
This changes the spaces between figures and units too, of course — but generally, that is an advantage anyway.
In my opinion an entire space is just too much space. -----------------------* As a side note, I have sent my client a question about this. I suppose it will ultimately depend on what he will be doing with my text and in which programs/formats it will end up being used/displayed.
In principle, the Narrow No-Break Space looks like the ideal solution, though it's not necessarily easy to achieve in practice. I'm also slightly alarmed to read the following (though don't ask me to explain it):
Frankly, I just use an ordinary non-breaking space and forget about the "narrow" part. That's a matter for printers, in my view; there are limits to what translators can be asked to do. I think the non-breaking part is more important than the width. What needs to be avoided at all costs is having a lengthy number divided across a line break.
OK, so assuming I choose to group thousands (larger than 10 000) with a space, which one do I choose? The EU style guide for English (http://ec.europa.eu/translation/english/guidelines/documents... says I should use a Thin Space (U+2009). However, this is not a non-breaking character. I think I would prefer to use Narrow No-Break Space (U+202F).
What do people here think? I am looking for a solution for technical texts at the moment but would also be interested to hear what you have to say about business texts.
For KudoZ purposes, you can get superscript by using ordinary HTML code, in this case sup in angled brackets (<>) to switch on superscript and /sup in angled brackets to switch it off. That's how I did it in my comment on Henk's answer. This avoids having to use a special character which may or may not display correctly on this site.
Tony: re. your comment on Henk's answer. Henk was clearly and explicitly using the comma as a decimal marker, and it's not only allowed but required for that purpose in languages/countries which normally use the decimal comma (not the case here). It is not allowed as a thousands separator in any country or language (in technical writing).
All you need to do is add a little line of code to an AutoHotkey text file and run it at startup. After that, all your special character ‘shortcuts’ are active system wide.
-------------------------------* <tt>^+o::Send, {U+2022} ; Bullet point ( • ) ^+i::Send, {U+261E} ; Bullet point ( ☞ ) ^+9::Send, {U+2018} ; Single, curly, opening quotation mark ( ‘ ) ^+0::Send, {U+2019} ; Single, curly, closing quotation mark ( ’ ) ^+[::Send, {U+201C} ; Double, curly, opening quotation mark ( “ ) ^+]::Send, {U+201D} ; Double, curly, closing quotation mark ( “ )
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; *** ; ^ = control ; + = shift ; # = windows key ; ! = alt key ; ; = code comment ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ***
Some style guides stipulate a comma separator for all numbers of 1000 or more, others for numbers of 10000 or more. By default, either practice is acceptable, and as always, if the client specifies a particular style, you follow it.
But this applies only to non-technical (e.g. financial) texts. In technical texts, I repeat, the comma separator must not be used however many digits there are.
Style Guide for Authors - Oxford Journals www.oxfordjournals.org/...authors/style_... Style Guide for Authors ... Authors are liable for all costs associated with such services. ... to ninety-nine should be spelled out; numbers over 1,000 use a comma as a thousand separator.
In non-technical texts, my experience is that four-digit numbers (below ten thousand) are usually written without any separator, though sometimes a comma is used, so either 3000 or 3,000, usually the former.
BUT in technical texts no thousands separator should be used. 3,000 in a technical text would be wrong. The general rule is either to use a space or no separator. Again, there is an established convention not to use a separator when there are only four digits. So either 3 000 (use a non-breaking space, as Henk says) or else 3000.
In short, 3000 is OK in any kind of text in English.
Here's the BIPM (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) on the subject, in its SI brochure:
"Following the 9th CGPM (1948, Resolution 7) and the 22nd CGPM (2003, Resolution 10), for numbers with many digits the digits may be divided into groups of three by a thin space, in order to facilitate reading. Neither dots nor commas are inserted in the spaces between groups of three. However, when there are only four digits before or after the decimal marker, it is customary not to use a space to isolate a single digit." http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter5/5-3-2.html#5-...
I posted this question on my way out the door, so to speak.
I was merely wondering whether, in British English, people prefer using commas to denote thousands, as in, do they prefer ‘2000 kg’ or ‘2,000 kg’. Or ‘2 000 kg’.
I quickly chose an example from the text I am translating, but in my haste messed it up. My actual source text reads:
❝Berekenen we de bruto lift in de standaardatmosfeer op gemiddeld zeeniveau, dan bedraagt die in het voorbeeld van Figuur 1-2:
De opwaartse kracht hangt dus uitsluitend af van het volume van de ballon en de atmosferische omstandigheden (de luchtdichtheid).❞
✪ NOTE: the word ‘bruto’ above is written in subscript.
Henk has a keen eye and noticed that something was wrong with my example. It is indeed not ‘1225 kg/m3’, as I wrote in my example, but ‘1,225 kg/m3’ (in Dutch -- hence the comma as a decimal point).
Sorry, I should have chosen my example more carefully. All I really wanted to ask was how people write thousands (or millions, etc.) ... with a comma, without a comma, or with a space. This is for technical texts in British English.
The snippet is aout the lift of an hot air balloon. It might be clear without much thinking that the lift can never be more than one thousand kg per cubic metre, so the likely value is 1 kg plus 225 g per cubic metre. The volume of the balloon is three thousand cubic metre, which is written as 3 000 m3 (of course, the '3' should be written as a superscript, but that's not possible here).
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
25 mins confidence: peer agreement (net): +5
1225 kg
Explanation: In technical texts, I strongly prefer not to use a separator to avoid possible confusion with the decimal point, and you have just made precisely this mistake: the lift of a hot air balloon is 1.225 kg/m3, not 1225 kg/m3.
Anton Konashenok Czech Republic Local time: 09:30 Specializes in field Native speaker of: Russian, English PRO pts in category: 4
peer agreement (net): +5