English question

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?