Q. I’m finishing a book manuscript that includes uncommon fractions (such as 1/72) for which there aren’t single Unicode characters. How should I render my fractions? Using superscript for the numerator and subscript for the denominator results in inconsistent spacing. Even the existing Unicode fractions aren’t consistently kerned. Is there a way to have uniform-looking fractions regardless of the specific numbers? Thanks for your help.
A. You’re right that a single-character Unicode fraction like ½ (U+00BD, vulgar fraction one half) won’t match a fraction like 1/72 that relies on the forward slash (or solidus) character. One approach that can work in HTML (which is what you’re viewing right now) is to use a fraction slash (U+2044) instead of an ordinary forward slash (U+002F, the character that shares a key with the question mark on English-language QWERTY keyboards).
Unlike the forward slash, the fraction slash is designed to kern tightly to any character immediately before or after it. Best of all, the numbers before and after the slash will automatically go into fraction mode, adjusting their size and position relative to the slash (though not in all fonts):
Fraction slash, no superscripts or subscripts:
1⁄2 and 2⁄3 and 3⁄4 and 5⁄8 and 3⁄16 and 1⁄72
Forward slash (solidus), with superscripts and subscripts:
1/2 and 2/3 and 3/4 and 5/8 and 3/16 and 1/72
Both versions have a certain consistency to them, but the first set of fractions is better at matching the look of Unicode’s vulgar fractions. And according to the applicable Unicode chart (in what Unicode defines in its Help pages as an “informative note”), the fraction slash is intended “for composing arbitrary fractions”—which is the goal in this case.
But this approach won’t automatically work across applications. In a book manuscript composed in Word, you should probably use ordinary numbers with the forward slash—as in “1/72”—and ask your publisher or typesetter to format the fractions for you (e.g., using the available tools in a program like InDesign), specifying that you want them all to look like Unicode’s ½.
Q. Would you spell out 150,000?
A. Use numerals for 150,000. The applicable principles are as follows:
- Spell out numbers one through one hundred (Chicago’s general rule).
- Spell out multiples of one through one hundred used in combination with hundred, thousand, or hundred thousand.
So you would spell out “five thousand” and “one hundred thousand” but use digits for 150,000—because 150 would normally be rendered as a numeral.
But if you’re following Chicago’s alternative rule of using digits for 10 and up, all such larger numbers are usually given as numerals. Rather than, for example, “fifteen thousand” or “15 thousand,” you’d write 15,000.
For more details, see CMOS 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4. For numbers with million, billion, and so forth, see CMOS 9.8.
Q. I am editing an article that has sports terminology in it, and I wanted to verify whether a player’s jersey number would fall under the general rule of numbers or would be a special case in which the jersey number would be written as a numeral. And if it is to be written as a numeral, would an octothorpe/hashtag be used (for example, #24)?
A. Jersey numbers (like page numbers and a few other categories) are best expressed as numerals to reflect the way they normally appear in real life: Upon his much-anticipated return to the court, he wore number 45.* Usually, the word “number” can be spelled out; if you need to abbreviate it, we’d recommend using “No.”† instead of the number sign‡ (i.e., No. 45).
* Hint: The year was 1995, when CMOS was in its fourteenth edition.
† For the capital N, see this Q&A on a related matter (the No. 2 pencil).
‡ “Number sign” is Unicode’s name for # (U+0023); the code chart for that symbol also lists pound sign, hashtag, hash, crosshatch, and octothorpe as what it calls informative aliases (which are preceded by equals signs in the charts; see “Key to the Unicode Code Charts” at Unicode’s Help and Links page).
Q. Sorry if I’ve overlooked a CMOS (or Q&A) answer to this question. I’m reviewing an organization’s bylaws, which contain several instances of a number spelled out followed by the number as a numeral in parentheses: e.g., “two (2).” I think parenthetical numerals are pointless redundancies. Does CMOS have a rule or preference related to this?
A. CMOS doesn’t cover this, but we agree with you, as does legal scholar and grammarian Bryan Garner: “The repetition of numbers by spelling them out and then using numerals typifies legalese and should never be used outside legal drafting. . . . Even in modern legal documents it’s largely uncalled for—the convention harks back to the days of legal scribes, who doubled words and numerals to prevent fraudulent alterations (words controlled over numerals).” See Garner’s Modern English Usage (Oxford, 2022), under “Numerals (G).”
Garner’s parenthetical observation that “words controlled over numerals” is interesting. In “two (3),” for example, the mistake would almost certainly be with the 3 and not the two (it’s easy to press a 1 or a 3 when a 2 is intended). That parenthetical numeral is subject not only to “fraudulent alterations” but to typos.
Q. When referring to the number of points possible on an exam, should I style numbers according to CMOS’s general rule, or should I use numerals even for numbers below 101? Using numerals seems more common, but I’d like to know whether CMOS has an opinion.
A. There are many categories where numerals are generally used instead of words, from page numbers to sports scores. Whenever you suspect numerals would be more appropriate in a given scenario, particularly when referring to a type of number that would normally be expressed as a numeral in the wild (as page numbers on the pages of a book, scores on a scoreboard—or points tallied on an exam), then use numerals, even for numbers under 101.
Q. Hi. How do you write out grade levels? For example, would it be “third grade” or “3rd grade”? “Grade three” or “grade 3”? I cannot find the answer in CMOS 17; did I miss it? Thanks in advance!
A. Write “third grade” and “grade 3.” In Chicago style, the numbers zero through one hundred (CMOS 9.2) or, alternatively, zero through nine (9.3) are spelled out. This applies whether the number is a cardinal (“one”) or an ordinal (“first”). But numerals are preferred in many expressions where the number follows the noun. For example, we’d refer to page 3, act 7, room 9, and Highway 2. Examples like these appear throughout CMOS, but none with grade levels. We’ll try to add some in a future edition.
Q. I understand a space is necessary between a number and a fraction when the fraction symbol is unavailable (e.g., 2 1/2), because the number would be illegible without it. But what if you use the symbol?
A. Fractional quantities expressed as a numeral plus a symbol are normally written without a space, as in 2½ or 5⅞. See CMOS 9.15 for examples.
Whether the symbol is used or not, these are known as “vulgar” fractions. For example, the Unicode name for “⅞” is “vulgar fraction seven eighths.” In this context, “vulgar” means “common.” We can only guess, then, that decimal fractions (e.g., 0.875) would be considered fancy by comparison.
Q. I’m editing a book that follows Chicago’s general rule for spelling out numbers zero through one hundred. In the construction “on a scale of 1 to 10,” would you spell out the numbers or use numerals? Thanks!
A. According to Google’s Ngram Viewer, numerals have been consistently more common in that expression in published books—but only slightly.
Would “1 to 10” be even more popular if CMOS 9.2 didn’t advise spelling out numbers one through one hundred in most contexts? Maybe.
But you can take this answer as permission to use numerals, which seem to do a better job than spelled-out numbers at suggesting the hypothetical scale in that expression.
Q. I am writing about pencils. The piece has to conform to CMOS. How am I supposed to write “No. 2 pencil,” which isn’t a proper name, but nearly so? If I write “Number 2,” it doesn’t seem to be “better.” Thoughts?
A. Where CMOS fails to offer a specific ruling, follow common usage. This often means looking to Merriam-Webster, but since there’s no entry there, you’ll have to do some digging.
Pencil companies seem to prefer the form “No. 2” (as on this page from Dixon Ticonderoga), though “#2” is also common. According to Google’s Ngram Viewer, those forms also happen to be at or near the top of the list of how such pencils have been referred to in books published since 1900. Book editors often default to spelling out abbreviations and numerals in running text, but even so, most of the spelled-out forms trail the abbreviations:
And though “number 2 pencil” would be okay with us—in line with “type 2 diabetes,” “size 10 dress,” and “type A executive” (see CMOS 7.89, sec. 2, under “noun + numeral or enumerator”)—we’d argue from the evidence above that “No. 2” will be more familiar to readers.
A third option—spelling out the whole thing (“number two”)—would be okay also (it’s the second most common usage). But as with dress sizes (and page numbers), a numeral matches what’s usually on the item itself.
As for the capital N in “No.,” there’s a close analogy in “No. 1”—as in “we’re No. 1.” That’s how “number one” in that sense is “often written” according to Merriam-Webster. It’s maybe not surprising, then, that the form “no. 2 pencil” (lowercase n) doesn’t even chart in an ngram (unless its absence stems from a limitation in Google’s data).
As most editors who work on paper would know, the “2” refers to hardness. A No. 2 pencil leaves less graphite on the paper than the softer No. 1 (which makes darker marks), but more than the harder No. 3 (which makes lighter marks). According to a more common classification system, a No. 2 pencil is an HB. H refers to hardness, B to blackness. So whereas an H pencil would be hard (and light), a B would be soft (and dark); HB is in the middle. These grades can also include numbers. For example, an 8B is softer than a 6B.
For more information on these and other details, see The Pencil: A History of Design and Circumstance, by Henry Petroski (Knopf, 1990).
Q. In fiction, when a character reads off a hotel room number, would it be in numbers or spelled out? “Room 305, down the hall.” Or “Room three oh five, down the hall.”
Q. I’m currently editing a novel and having difficulty discerning whether Chicago would spell out temperatures or use numerals. CMOS 9.13 offers this example of the general rule for physical quantities: “Within fifteen minutes the temperature dropped twenty degrees.” But elsewhere in the Manual you use numerals: “the phrase freezing point denotes 32 degrees Fahrenheit or 0 degrees Celsius” (CMOS 5.250, under “connote; denote”) and “consisting of two geometric angles that, added together, take up 90 degrees” (CMOS 5.250, under “compliment; complement”). Could you please offer clear simple guidance as to how temperatures should appear in fiction? Thanks!
A. There are at least two principles at work in these two questions.
First, though numbers are often spelled out in dialogue (to help readers understand how they would be spoken), that doesn’t mean numerals are never used. Fictional room 305 would almost never be encountered in the real world as “room three oh five” or “room three hundred five” (or “three hundred and five”), least of all on an actual hotel room door. So “room 305” is the best option, even in dialogue; it’s how room numbers are known.
The second principle is precision. Passing mentions of temperatures, whether in dialogue or narration, would be spelled out in Chicago style: “Brrr, it must be ten degrees below zero out here!” (or “Brrr, it must be ten below out here!”). But freezing points and geometric angles represent exact measurements, and numerals are often the best way of communicating these in ordinary prose.
In dialogue, however, spelling out exact quantities suggests a different kind of precision—another meaning of spell out is to make something clear—so words would work at least as well as numerals:
“Freezing point is zero degrees Celsius,” he announced.
“I can draw a perfect forty-five-degree angle,” she bragged.
You might make an exception, however, if the character is referring to an actual numeral somewhere:
“The thermometer says 32 degrees,” I said, squinting at the display.
That “32” might help the reader imagine the scene, making the dialogue seem more realistic (much as writing “305” in the previous example would).
So numerals can work in dialogue for expressions that would always be written with numerals or when a character is referring to actual numerals; otherwise, it’s usually best to spell them out. In narrative, Chicago’s general rules for numbers apply—subject to editorial discretion. For more on this topic, see “Numbers in Creative Writing” at CMOS Shop Talk.