Idiosyncratic rules on numeracy
Garret on numeracy:
I suggest spelling out either: (1) all numbers below 10 or; (2) all numbers below 20 or (3) all numbers below 100 with the exception of your chapter references. If there are too many numbers like this in your pose, then the important numbers won’t stand out as much, like the reference examples later in this paragraph. Garner prefers option 1. DFW prefers option 2. Chicago style is option 3.
My reply:
Given different writers have their own range, is there a case for “all numbers below 2”? I’d argue that anything that is a quantity, other than a/one, can justify being a numeral: 1) it creates a visual fabric, where all quantity gets a specific symbol, and 2) it’s create the least readerly friction (I look to reduce this where I can because in other areas I intentionally add friction for specific ideas/phrases. To spell out “seventy-six,” in my mind, is a poor use of someone’s mental resources, an unnecessary drain of stamina. Even “7” over “seven” saves a few milliseconds of stamina that I will expend elsewhere. Also I love numbers. I’m really a math guy, and all my prose is just really filler between my numbers.
Here are some idiosyncratic rules on how to make these decisions:
- If two numbers occur in a sentence or a paragraph, use numbers so the reader can effortlessly see and compare quantities in a pre-read scan.
- If you have a set of labeled or numbered items to make a framework (a, b, c) or (1, 2, 3), you can default to spelling out a number so it doesn’t appear to be part of the framework.
- By intentionally spelling out large numbers, you make a point (“we waited for one hundred and twelve seconds for the waiter to return”). The delay of processing numbers can be used for effect.
This is a good example of rebelling against prescriptive, absolute rules: “everything under 10 must be spelt out.”