One reason for leaving out the comma is that it creates confusion in
international journals. An American could write one thousand twelve and a
half as 1,012.5, but in Europe the comma and period are reversed so it is
1.012,5. It is better to use just one separator for the decimals to minimise
confusion.
There is a tendency in journals to Americanise (oops, Americanize)
everything, including spelling. It seems strange that a European writing in
a European journal is expected to follow American rather than UK spelling.
Ironically I have had editors in Hong Kong try to change my UK (actually
Canadian) spelling.
I suppose that if Melissa is in the US and writing reports for US readers
the commas might be justified, but if writing for an international audience
she should be able to have it omitted.
Bill Silvert
Portugal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Melissa McCanna" <parmeli...@aol.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 9:10 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] technical writing: comma at thousand mark?
Recently, I have been "edited" to place a comma at the thousand mark in my
technical reports.? It was my understanding and my preference for nearly
20 years that the comma in 1000/1,000 was optional, and preferred absent
in technical writing.? What is the general feeling out there?
Also, I have been noticing more and more a comma added for a month-year
designation: July, 2009.? I thought the comma was unnecessary.
I turn 40 this year.? Is this just the natural order of things that I
become a writing curmudgeon? :-)
-Melissa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.10/2230 - Release Date: 07/10/09
17:57:00
