English question

Turnabout is fair play, or should be....

Anyway, I know the answer, but I want some confirmation. Some years ago my dad asked me to write a check for the company's bank account in the US. I forget the amount, but let's say it was $1,150 dollars. I wrote down "eleven hundred and fifty dollars."

I'm sure that's right, but both my dad and older brother said it was wrong. So I had to redo the check and write "one thousand one hundred and fifty dollars."

The way I see it they're both right.

I'm asking because for some reason my brother brought it up recently. We had the same English teacher, actually, and he's just about as fluent as I am. But sometimes he lets show some amazing gaps in his understanding. Like the time he said the "No Littering" signs on the freeways meant the use of high-beam headlights was restricted :)

I think both are right too. When I was a client at PNC I had no problems in writing checks with "one thousand and two hundred" for example.

In all those instances "and" should have been omitted.

I believe that the cheque should have been written 'one thousand one hundred and fifty dollars'. Probably either way would clear the bank though. I am not sure of the comment about no "and" but believe it is necessary. But of course my english is more British than American as shown by my spelling of cheque.

Quote: aluisio

I think both are right too. When I was a client at PNC I had no problems in writing checks with "one thousand and two hundred" for example.

The thing is in Spanish there's no equivalent to "eleven hundred." The hundreds top out at "nine hundred," which is called "novecientos."

Now, my dad, who didn't have any formal education in English, did understand "eleven hundred." But he thought it only applied when the amount was even as far as hundreds are concrned. So in his mind it was "eleven hundred" yes, "eleven hundred and fifty" no. My brother should have known better.

Quote: kenarman

I believe that the cheque should have been written 'one thousand one hundred and fifty dollars'. Probably either way would clear the bank though. I am not sure of the comment about no "and" but believe it is necessary. But of course my english is more British than American as shown by my spelling of cheque.

Mexican banks are awful and strict about how checks have to be made out. For example, in the area where you write the amount in words, cents have to be expressed as fractions of one hundred like this: 1,127.56 = Un mil ciento veintisiete pesos 56/100. If you instead write at the tned "cincuenta y seis centavos," odds are your check will be rejected by the teller.

On the upside, any check from any Mexican bank clears for deposit on any other Mexican bank the next business day at noon (unless the check lacked enough funds). You can also pay a credit card issued by one bank at a second bank with a check from a third bank, but that gets you charged a comission.

Having just taken a semester-long class on writing checks, I can tell you the correct way is:

One thousand one hundred fifty dollars.

The "and" is unnecessary and is only used to indicate the decimal point for cents, e.g. "One dollar and fifty cents."

You should also do a strikethrough of the rest of the amount line or write "and no cents," "00/100," or something of the sort.

That's an impressive clearing time by Mexican banks. In the U.S. the deadline for final payment is midnight on the day after the item is deposited. Often times they are faster. Depends on whether you are in a big city and how concentrated the banking market is. I'd imagine Mex City has a couple big banking chains that are pretty well integrated.

Quote: teddys

That's an impressive clearing time by Mexican banks. In the U.S. the deadline for final payment is midnight on the day after the item is deposited. Often times they are faster. Depends on whether you are in a big city and how concentrated the banking market is. I'd imagine Mex City has a couple big banking chains that are pretty well integrated.

Not quite, but the number of banks is rather small. At a guess I'd say there are less than 30 or 40 banks operating in the whole country. That is banks with branch offices where you can open accounts, make payments, cash checks deposit money, etc. There are a number of foreign banks with offices here, but they don't provide bannking services to the public at large.

There are many advantages to the small number of banks, beyond claering checks quickly (there's a kind of central celaring house for that, as I understand). For instance, you can use a branch in Guadalajara as easilya s one in Mexico City. You also find your banks ATMs nearly everywhere and avoid extra fees from networked transactions.

Lately small banks were quite the rage, until a certain big company known as Walmart got in on the action. They offer small bank services at all their retail stores. Then other large retail chains began to copy them, so now Soriana and Chedrahui also offer banking at their stores. Only Comercial Mexicana hasn't jumped in yet. Oh, to be fair Banco Azteca started that trend in a chain of applaince stores called Elektra, but their numbers can't comapre to Walmart's; and their banks were separate fromt he stores. At Walmart you can make deposits to your account at the checkout line. That's very convenient.

Quote: Nareed

Mexican banks are awful and strict about how checks have to be made out.

I don't think that American banks even look at the writing. It's all processed by computers. The only purpose of writing out the amount is a check against fraud if someone alters the digits. I wouldn't normally write the word "and" on a check, but I always wrote 45/100 for the cents (even if it was 00/100) . The only reason was that it makes it harder to move a decimal point for fraud.

I did have one case a long time ago where I was very careless, and sent a check in for a credit card company where I forgot to write in who the check was made out to. Someone at the company wrote in their own name and cashed the check. This was in the day when you had carbon copies. Even though I had made the mistake, the company had a thief on their staff. So I wrote in the company name on the carbon copy, xeroxed it and sent it in as proof. The company accepted it, but I doubt that would work today. It is too easy to get a picture of the original check as cashed. On the other hand the thief would be much easier to catch.

Eleven hundred fifty dollars would be normal for way to say the amount verbally. Most newspapers have style manuals, and I think they usually present amounts like that as numerals instead of spelling it out. They limit words to numbers from one to ten.

Quote: pacomartin

I did have one case a long time ago where I was very careless, and sent a check in for a credit card company where I forgot to write in who the check was made out to. Someone at the company wrote in their own name and cashed the check. This was in the day when you had carbon copies. Even though I had made the mistake, the company had a thief on their staff. So I wrote in the company name on the carbon copy, xeroxed it and sent it in as proof. The company accepted it, but I doubt that would work today. It is too easy to get a picture of the original check as cashed. On the other hand the thief would be much easier to catch.

That's interesting. There is a legal remedy for forged employee indorsements, so for example if the thief forged the credit card company's signature on the back of the cheque and cashed it, the company would be held liable for failing to monitor the thief. Forgery of the payee's name is a different matter. You would probably be liable for negligently failing to fill in the payee name. I can't see any company passing the loss onto you, however. In the name of good customer service they would shoulder the loss. I assume the employee absconded with the money, and you didn't have to pay twice?

Proper format is to write out the words as you would say them properly and not in slang.

For example:

"One thousand one hundred forty-five" and not "One thousand one hundred and forty-five." IOW, you don't say it the second way out loud so don't write it that way.


and NEVER "Eleven hundred and forty-five." There is no number "eleven hundred."

I assumed that the thief simply penned in his own name on the check and threw away the envelope. While I readily admit that what I did was not legal either, I just figured if I tried to pursue at a corporate complaint, the clerk may no longer be an employee. In either case they might say that I had to pursue legal action to try and get my money back from the thief. That seldom works. The amount was significant enough that it would have hurt to pay the bill twice, but not enough so that I figured someone would make a federal case out of it.

Anyway, it was probably 30 years ago, and things were much more analog in those days.

There was a massive case fo fraud a few years back. People paid their monthly tax bil at a bank with checks made out to "Tesoreria de la Federación," by hand usually. the thieves, who worked at the bank, would alter them to read "Masoneria de la Federación," and would deposit them at a different account.

The really bad thing is the people who were thus defrauded were also accused of not paying their taxes on time. So they ahd to pay late fees, itnerest and the principal amounts all over again. That sucks. They paid in good faith and on time. So either the bank should owe the government, seeing as they allowed the thieves to operate in their premises; or the government should try to collect from the thieves.

Quote: Nareed

There was a massive case fo fraud a few years back. People paid their monthly tax bil at a bank with checks made out to "Tesoreria de la Federación," by hand usually. the thieves, who worked at the bank, would alter them to read "Masoneria de la Federación," and would deposit them at a different account.

The really bad thing is the people who were thus defrauded were also accused of not paying their taxes on time. So they ahd to pay late fees, itnerest and the principal amounts all over again. That sucks. They paid in good faith and on time. So either the bank should owe the government, seeing as they allowed the thieves to operate in their premises; or the government should try to collect from the thieves.

No way should the customers be liable for an alteration. In the U.S., the loss would be shifted to the drawee bank, as they should have noticed the alteration. An alteration of the payee's name makes the check not properly payable, so the bank shouldn't have paid it. There are various loss-shifting provisions to pass the liability up the chain, to the depositary bank and eventually to the fraudsters if they can be found. In any case, the customers would be off the hook. (Unless the bank could somehow prove a case of gross negligence).

The same thing happens in the U.S. every year around tax time. You are supposed to make your checks out to "Department of the Treasury," but some fraudsters (usually tax preparers) say to make it out to IRS, and then they alter that to say MRS. "XXX" and cash it themselves.

Quote: teddys

No way should the customers be liable for an alteration.

I agree. But the fastest, surest way for the government to get "its" money is to squeeze the captive tax payers. God forbid the government should do with less.

Quote:

The same thing happens in the U.S. every year around tax time. You are supposed to make your checks out to "Department of the Treasury," but some fraudsters (usually tax preparers) say to make it out to IRS, and then they alter that to say MRS. "XXX" and cash it themselves.

I heard of a case where people paid their money to the tax guy, who then stole it rather than pay their taxes. As I understand, the tax payers were liable for not paying their taxes. It's a different situation, but still unfair.

To answer the original question...

I work in the billing office where I work. I process about 100 checks coming in each day. As a rule, the checks printed by computer always have the amount correctly spelled out. Hand-written checks can appear either as "eleven hundred" or "one thousand one hundred". The presence of "and" before "fifty dollars" occurs often enough to make you think that's correct - until you realize that it's missing from the computer checks.

Note that this is not limited to 11 thru 19. ANY number of 'hundreds' between 11 and 99 that is not an even thousand has appeared as that many hundreds. It's wrong, but is generally accepted, the same way the "and" is wrong but accepted.

I've also seen handwriting that is so terrible that I have to check the customer's account for their balance to see if the amount on the check looks like the number. I then write it on a post-it and send it to the bank like that. This happens about once a month, and I've never gotten a call from the bank about it. Then again, the confusion is often just in the pennies...

---

On the subject of the problems with misdirected checks, a couple years back we had a situation that I talk about whenever the opportunity presents itself.

We sent a check to a vendor. The vendor's remit address is a lock box. FYI: A lock box is a PO box where the bank retrieves the mail, makes the deposit, and sends the payee the accompanying paperwork. It is designed to speed up the cash flow.

Apparently, the check was misdirected to the wrong lock box.

As a general rule, such checks do NOT get a rubber stamp endorsement, so there's no indication of who deposited the check. The check DID get the typical bank printing on it, but since it's typical to have multiple over-prints, it gets hard to read.

Combine it with the new practice of scanning and destroying the original, and it became impossible to track who got the money.

As a result, we had to pay the vendor twice.

Quote: AZDuffman

Proper format is to write out the words as you would say them properly and not in slang.

A few years back, for kicks, I started writing out my checks in such a fashion as "One hunnid fiddy trey". Bank cashed every one of them. Then, on a check I wrote out "Yo Dawg, what's the haps?!?" Still got cashed. Last one, I wrote, "Hi Mom!". Got cashed. All of them had the number correctly written in the number section (153.00 or whatever). I was somewhat disappointed that neither the vendor, nor the vendor's bank, nor my own bank, thought to not process these checks. But, whatever.

A couple of years ago I wrote a check for $1500 but when I started writing out the amount only got as far as "one thousand", got interrupted, and never finished. Someone along the trail decided the check should only get honored for the $1000. Not sure who made that decision. On the other hand, I have had checks cashed that I accidentally never signed.

Quote: odiousgambit

...On the other hand, I have had checks cashed that I accidentally never signed.

I had one that not only wasn't signed, it wasn't endorsed by the payee either!

The truth is, all of that is irrelevant, unless someone wants to challenge some part of it.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Note that this is not limited to 11 thru 19. ANY number of 'hundreds' between 11 and 99 that is not an even thousand has appeared as that many hundreds. It's wrong, but is generally accepted, the same way the "and" is wrong but accepted.

"Wrong"? What's wrong with it? It's concise, sensible, unambiguous, and grammatically consistent ...

In sports, for example, they always say "fifteen hundred yards", not "one thousand five hundred". I see nothing "wrong" with it whatsoever, either way is right, just a matter of personal preference.

Same goes for "and" after "hundred". It is optional, but not "wrong". The fact that computer does not put it in, does not mean it is wrong, just means that the programmer, who programmed it, preferred it this way.

Or is there some kind of a rule I don't know about, that explicitly declares this usage incorrect?

I've heard that the letter amount serves to confirm the number amount only. Here if they don't match the check is rejected.

An acount my mom had for her business required all checks presented for cashing to be authorized by a bank executive. Once I took three checks to cash them, so I went to an executive before getting in line at the teller's. He authorized them all without trouble. At the teller he tells me "These are not signed." Lo and behold, my mother hadn't signed them. But the bank exec authorized them for payment anyway. I think he kept his job, too :)

This has been said before, but I agree that "eleven hundred" is not proper English. However, this shortcut to avoid using the word "thousand" is so prevalent that only a real stickler would question it.

Regarding checks, I heard the standards for a legitimate check are extremely lenient in the US. I don't know if this is true but it just needs to have the source bank, amount, and who it is going to. There are no standards on the size or what the check is printed on. I have heard a cocktail napkin would be legal. I've always meant to give it a try.

Quote: Wizard

Regarding checks, I heard the standards for a legitimate check are extremely lenient in the US. I don't know if this is true but it just needs to have the source bank, amount, and who it is going to. There are no standards on the size or what the check is printed on. I have heard a cocktail napkin would be legal. I've always meant to give it a try.

So I take it US checks are done without watermarks, UV ink, micro-printing and other "security" features?

I can hear the teller think "They didn't cover napkins at the orientation..." :P

Quote: Wizard

This has been said before, but I agree that "eleven hundred" is not proper English.
However, this shortcut to avoid using the word "thousand" is so prevalent that only a real stickler would question it.

How do you distinguish "proper English" from "improper English"?
I mean, what is the authoritative source for deciding questions like this?

Quote: weaselman

How do you distinguish "proper English" from "improper English"?

Improper English takes too many liberties with concepts? :)

Quote:

I mean, what is the authoritative source for deciding questions like this?

There isn't one. The Oxford English Dictionary pretends to be, but it hasn't any real authority. Then again, neither does the Academia Real de la Lengua Española. It's not like it can levy fines or arrest you for saying "...en una frecuencia de dos mil Hertz..." is it?

Quote: Nareed

There isn't one. The Oxford English Dictionary pretends to be, but it hasn't any real authority.

It may not have the power, but it certainly does have the authority.
But who do you use it to resolve questions like this one? Does it have a specific article on how to spell large numerals?
I tried looking it up before posting the last post, but could not find anything relevant.
For example, wikipedia does suggest, that this usage is quite proper:

Quote: Wikipedia

In American usage, four-digit numbers with non-zero hundreds are often named using multiples of "hundred" and combined with tens and ones: "One thousand one", "Eleven hundred three", "Twelve hundred twenty-five", "Four thousand forty-two", or "Ninety-nine hundred ninety-nine." In British usage, this style is common for multiples of 100 between 1,000 and 2,000 (e.g. 1,500 as "fifteen hundred") but not for higher numbers.

But I was kinda reluctant to quote it as an authority on English language, so I asked if anyone could suggest a better source.

Quote: Nareed

So I take it US checks are done without watermarks, UV ink, micro-printing and other "security" features?

There are plenty of "security" features available, however, there is little standard of what is required. As a result, it's still easy to conterfeit a check.

Quote: Wizard

There are no standards on the size or what the check is printed on. I have heard a cocktail napkin would be legal. I've always meant to give it a try.

I remember hearing about such an argument among people at a restaurant. To end the argument, one of them paid for dinner by writing a check on the tablecloth. He was a regular, and promised the restaurant owner that he'd cover it if the tablecloth didn't clear.

The bank had trouble finding their old rubber stamps to clear it, but eventually, the tablecloth was fully processed.



I *think* that with the recent changes in banking procedures and regulations that the napkin thing has finally been put to rest. However, there still aren't any real standards for security.

Quote: Wizard

This has been said before, but I agree that "eleven hundred" is not proper English. However, this shortcut to avoid using the word "thousand" is so prevalent that only a real stickler would question it.

Regarding checks, I heard the standards for a legitimate check are extremely lenient in the US. I don't know if this is true but it just needs to have the source bank, amount, and who it is going to. There are no standards on the size or what the check is printed on. I have heard a cocktail napkin would be legal. I've always meant to give it a try.

A check is a check -- whatever it's printed on

Quote: Wizard

Regarding checks, I heard the standards for a legitimate check are extremely lenient in the US. I don't know if this is true but it just needs to have the source bank, amount, and who it is going to. There are no standards on the size or what the check is printed on. I have heard a cocktail napkin would be legal. I've always meant to give it a try.

This is true throughout the common law world. All that is required for a negotiable instrument is that it be a written, unconditional signed order/promise to pay a fixed amount of money on demand or at a definite time.

There is an apocryphal story about a "negotiable cow" -- a guy who wrote a check on his cow and submitted it for payment. It never happened, but in theory, the cow would be valid payment. Nowadays, you can try writing your check on what-have-you, but your bank would slam you with fees every which way which is their M.O. these days.

I couldn't be happier to see checks go the way of the dodo. We need to move closer to an all-electronic payments system in the U.S.

Quote: weaselman

It may not have the power, but it certainly does have the authority.

When you think about it, dictionaries are the closest thing in existence to a circular time-trvel paradox. They begin by defining words as they are used, then people sue words as defined by the dictionary only not consistently, then the dictionary adjusts to how some words are used or new wrds come into being, then people look them up in the dictionary...

So, really, the question of authority is rather moot, isn't it?

Quote: teddys

I couldn't be happier to see checks go the way of the dodo. We need to move closer to an all-electronic payments system in the U.S.

About two years ago I moved all my financial ops to online banking. It worked so well I was about to retire my checkbook, and then it happened....

I made a payment from bank B to my credit card on bank X. I did that every month. I checked my balance the next day, and sure enough the funds had been deducted. But then I begin to get calls from bank X about late payments. It turns out they rejected the funds transfer for some reason. I got hit with a late fee, interests and other assorted penalties.

So I went back to paying bills by check. The law doesn't allow a bank to reject payment by check, unless the check doesn't clear. besides, I get a stamped receipt from the bank saying I did indeed pay, which I dont' get if I pay online.

Sad, yes, but true.

Quote: Nareed

So, really, the question of authority is rather moot, isn't it?

No, not really. I think, it is perfectly fine that the language evolves with time. Some words and phrases drop out of circulation, new words get coined, existing words get new meaning. It is a slow, gradual process, dictionaries get updated to reflect the changes, so at any given moment, a good academic dictionary is the authoritative source on the correct use of the language at that particular moment. I see nothing wrong with that.

Quote: weaselman

No, not really. I think, it is perfectly fine that the language evolves with time. Some words and phrases drop out of circulation, new words get coined, existing words get new meaning. It is a slow, gradual process, dictionaries get updated to reflect the changes, so at any given moment, a good academic dictionary is the authoritative source on the correct use of the language at that particular moment. I see nothing wrong with that.

I was actually posting somethign long and pedantic, until I realized it was long and pedantic.

Let's just say I find some dictionaries annoying in the definition of certain words. And let me add a question: Some yeard back the OED put the term "yadda yadda" in the dictionary. Does anyone still use it? ;)

Quote: Nareed

And let me add a question: Some yeard back the OED put the term "yadda yadda" in the dictionary. Does anyone still use it? ;)

Yeah ... I do hear it every now and then ...

Quote: Nareed

Let's just say I find some dictionaries annoying in the definition of certain words. And let me add a question: Some yeard back the OED put the term "yadda yadda" in the dictionary. Does anyone still use it? ;)

I'm not sure how to answer that.

Although it has declined in use, I still use and hear, "Yadda, yadda, yadda."

THREE "Yadda"s.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

THREE "Yadda"s.

Oh, well, that chnges everything :P

BTW, you seem to be having trouble with the block feature. If you need any help, you can PM me. Or ask around on the board.