Another pondial difference

[Tony Cooper]

Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".

An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".

OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is or
was said.

[Peter Young]

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is or
was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

Peter.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is or
was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

One might even omit the word "quid".

[LFS]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK.  "Never" is an impossible claim.  Somewhere, by someone, it is or
was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

One might even omit the word "quid".

One probably would. "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by LFS

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK.  "Never" is an impossible claim.  Somewhere, by someone, it is or
was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

One might even omit the word "quid".

One probably would. "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Suitable context would be needed to distinguish between 3.50 and 350.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by LFS

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK.  "Never" is an impossible claim.  Somewhere, by someone, it is or
was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

One might even omit the word "quid".

One probably would. "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Suitable context would be needed to distinguish between 3.50 and 350.

Maybe for a factor of 100, context will resolve the issue, but not for
smaller, but still large, factors. When my wife had not been in England
for very long she saw a dress in a charity shop that she liked, offered
for 30/-. She interpreted that as £30 and thought it was a reasonable
price, but on buying it she was surprised that it was much less than
she expected. (She hadn't realized that it was a charity shop.) More
than 30 years later she still wears it occasionally.

[Don P]

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence were
current, their names did not need to be specified. Something might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more often
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and current
but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am I
betraying my home county origins?)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more often
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and current
but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am I
betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more often
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and current
but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am I
betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

[Peter Young]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or

"It

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more

often

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and current
but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am I
betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

That idea was thriving in my Ethiopian days in the 1960s. If you parked
your car in central Addis Ababa, a child would come and say "Makina
sabanya?" which translates as "look after your car?". If you didn't give
him money, at best your tyres would be let down by the time you came back.

ObAUE: Why did my Italian butcher in Addis Ababa refer to his mincer (AmE
meat grinder?) as a "car"?

Peter.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter Young

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or

"It

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more

often

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and current
but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am I
betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

That idea was thriving in my Ethiopian days in the 1960s. If you parked
your car in central Addis Ababa, a child would come and say "Makina
sabanya?" which translates as "look after your car?". If you didn't give
him money, at best your tyres would be let down by the time you came back.
ObAUE: Why did my Italian butcher in Addis Ababa refer to his mincer (AmE
meat grinder?)

Yes.

Post by Peter Young
as a "car"?

Because it was a machine, and according to wordreference, "macchina" is
an informal term for a car? (It sort of suggests "ride" as a translation.)

[Peter Young]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Young

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or

"It

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more

often

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and current
but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am I
betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

That idea was thriving in my Ethiopian days in the 1960s. If you parked
your car in central Addis Ababa, a child would come and say "Makina
sabanya?" which translates as "look after your car?". If you didn't give
him money, at best your tyres would be let down by the time you came back.
ObAUE: Why did my Italian butcher in Addis Ababa refer to his mincer (AmE
meat grinder?)

Yes.

Post by Peter Young
as a "car"?

Because it was a machine, and according to wordreference, "macchina" is
an informal term for a car? (It sort of suggests "ride" as a translation.)

Give that man a sheep.

Peter.

[JNugent]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Young

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or

"It

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more

often

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and current
but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am I
betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

That idea was thriving in my Ethiopian days in the 1960s. If you parked
your car in central Addis Ababa, a child would come and say "Makina
sabanya?" which translates as "look after your car?". If you didn't give
him money, at best your tyres would be let down by the time you came back.
ObAUE: Why did my Italian butcher in Addis Ababa refer to his mincer (AmE
meat grinder?)

Yes.

Post by Peter Young
as a "car"?

Because it was a machine, and according to wordreference, "macchina" is
an informal term for a car? (It sort of suggests "ride" as a translation.)

Macchina is Italian for "car", I think.

Italy and Ethiopia have history in common.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by JNugent

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Young

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or

"It

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more

often

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and current
but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am I
betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

That idea was thriving in my Ethiopian days in the 1960s. If you parked
your car in central Addis Ababa, a child would come and say "Makina
sabanya?" which translates as "look after your car?". If you didn't give
him money, at best your tyres would be let down by the time you came back.
ObAUE: Why did my Italian butcher in Addis Ababa refer to his mincer (AmE
meat grinder?)

Yes.

Post by Peter Young
as a "car"?

Because it was a machine, and according to wordreference, "macchina" is
an informal term for a car? (It sort of suggests "ride" as a translation.)

Macchina is Italian for "car", I think.

It is also where their god comes from,

Jan

[charles]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by JNugent

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Young

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or

"It

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and
pence were current, their names did not need to be specified.
Something might cost "three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or
"seventeen and fourpence" (pointing out the curiosity that some
numbers seemed need "pence" much more

often

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and
current but nevertheless used less often than "three and six."
(Or am I betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied
in Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in
Birmingham before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

That idea was thriving in my Ethiopian days in the 1960s. If you
parked your car in central Addis Ababa, a child would come and say
"Makina sabanya?" which translates as "look after your car?". If you
didn't give him money, at best your tyres would be let down by the
time you came back.
ObAUE: Why did my Italian butcher in Addis Ababa refer to his mincer
(AmE meat grinder?)

Yes.

Post by Peter Young
as a "car"?

Because it was a machine, and according to wordreference, "macchina"
is an informal term for a car? (It sort of suggests "ride" as a
translation.)

Macchina is Italian for "car", I think.

It is also where their god comes from,

only in theatre

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by charles

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by JNugent

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Young

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents"
or

"It

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and
pence were current, their names did not need to be specified.
Something might cost "three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or
"seventeen and fourpence" (pointing out the curiosity that some
numbers seemed need "pence" much more

often

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and
current but nevertheless used less often than "three and six."
(Or am I betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied
in Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in
Birmingham before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

That idea was thriving in my Ethiopian days in the 1960s. If you
parked your car in central Addis Ababa, a child would come and say
"Makina sabanya?" which translates as "look after your car?". If you
didn't give him money, at best your tyres would be let down by the
time you came back.
ObAUE: Why did my Italian butcher in Addis Ababa refer to his mincer
(AmE meat grinder?)

Yes.

Post by Peter Young
as a "car"?

Because it was a machine, and according to wordreference, "macchina"
is an informal term for a car? (It sort of suggests "ride" as a
translation.)

Macchina is Italian for "car", I think.

It is also where their god comes from,

only in theatre

What? Are there parts of Italy where they are not theatrical?

Jan

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by JNugent

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Young
ObAUE: Why did my Italian butcher in Addis Ababa refer to his mincer
(AmE meat grinder?)

Yes.

Post by Peter Young
as a "car"?

Because it was a machine, and according to wordreference, "macchina" is
an informal term for a car?  (It sort of suggests "ride" as a
translation.)

Macchina is Italian for "car", I think.

Meaning that it's not just informal, which is what I got from
wordreference.com? Wiktionary agrees with you--at least it lists
"macchina" first and doesn't say anything about formality in regard to
"macchina", "auto", and "automobile".

Post by JNugent
Italy and Ethiopia have history in common.

That's a nice way to put it.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Young

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or

"It

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more

often

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and current
but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am I
betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

That idea was thriving in my Ethiopian days in the 1960s. If you parked
your car in central Addis Ababa, a child would come and say "Makina

derived from "machine"?

Post by Peter Young
sabanya?" which translates as "look after your car?". If you didn't give
him money, at best your tyres would be let down by the time you came back.
ObAUE: Why did my Italian butcher in Addis Ababa refer to his mincer (AmE
meat grinder?) as a "car"?

Like that in Chile 40 years ago. Not now: they have parking meters and
all the accoutrements of modern life. Besides, the sort of people who
had no employment during the glorious days of Pinochet now have work,
and turn up their noses at the sort of work that immigrant Haitians do.

[Janet]

Post by Peter Young

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or

"It

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more

often

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and current
but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am I
betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

That idea was thriving in my Ethiopian days in the 1960s. If you parked
your car in central Addis Ababa, a child would come and say "Makina
sabanya?" which translates as "look after your car?". If you didn't give
him money, at best your tyres would be let down by the time you came back.

I encountered the same tactic outside a council high-rise in the East
End of Glasgow where the going rate was a quid.

Janet.

[musika]

Post by Janet

Post by Peter Young

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

That idea was thriving in my Ethiopian days in the 1960s. If you parked
your car in central Addis Ababa, a child would come and say "Makina
sabanya?" which translates as "look after your car?". If you didn't give
him money, at best your tyres would be let down by the time you came back.

I encountered the same tactic outside a council high-rise in the East
End of Glasgow where the going rate was a quid.

Kid outside Anfield: Giz a quid mister an' I'll look after yer car.
Driver: 'sokay lah, I got a rottweiler in the back.
Kid: 'e can put out fires, can 'e?

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or

"It

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more

often

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and current
but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am I
betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

You'll take tuppence and be glad of it!

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 23:03:38 GMT, Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or

"It

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and
pence were current, their names did not need to be specified.
Something might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more

often

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and current
but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am I
betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in
Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

You'll take tuppence and be glad of it!

Bird-feed!

You (generic) can't get much for tuppence these days.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 23:03:38 GMT, Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or

"It

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
cost three fifty".  Never just "three dollars fifty".

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and
pence were current, their names did not need to be specified.
Something might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more

often

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P
than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and current
but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am I
betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in
Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

You'll take tuppence and be glad of it!

Bird-feed!
You (generic) can't get much for tuppence these days.

Not even if they're new pence.

Now that the smaller coins have become worthless it hardly matters any
more, but it was noticeable when decimalization came in that no one
said tuppence for 2p: they said "two pee" or "two pence" with both
words fully enunciated in each case. One didn't even hear a reduced
"pence", such as "two p'nce" ['tuːpəns]. I read an article, probably by
Auberon Waugh in the Spectator, not known for its progressive views,
that this argued that the Decimalization Board was engaging in wishful
thinking when they claimed that the British people had taken the new
coins to their hearts. I don't think we were ever asked if we wanted
decimalization or not, and if we had been most voters would have said
they were quite happy with £sd.

At the time I thought that decimalization was a driving force for the
runaway inflation in the 1970s, especially for small amounts, as one
tended to think that 40p was about the same as 4/-. However, that
argument won't hold water as countries such as France that had never
had £sd experienced similar degrees of inflation over the same period.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 10:04:29 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 23:03:38 GMT, Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 17:07:45 GMT, Athel Cornish-Bowden

[]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
before decimalization, there too.

Gis a tanner gunv'r and oil look arfter yer orses.

You'll take tuppence and be glad of it!

Bird-feed!

A reference to Mary Poppins, m'lud.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
You (generic) can't get much for tuppence these days.

Sorry, I was being rude.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Not even if they're new pence.
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless it hardly matters any
more, but it was noticeable when decimalization came in that no one
said tuppence for 2p: they said "two pee" or "two pence" with both
words fully enunciated in each case. One didn't even hear a reduced
"pence", such as "two p'nce" ['tuːpəns]. I read an article, probably
by Auberon Waugh in the Spectator, not known for its progressive
views, that this argued that the Decimalization Board was engaging in
wishful thinking when they claimed that the British people had taken
the new coins to their hearts. I don't think we were ever asked if we
wanted decimalization or not, and if we had been most voters would
have said they were quite happy with £sd.

Â?

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
At the time I thought that decimalization was a driving force for the
runaway inflation in the 1970s, especially for small amounts, as one

Me too. A packet of crisps was 6d - it went to 7d just before
decimalisation, therefore became 3np not 2+1/2np. Quite a hike I felt.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
tended to think that 40p was about the same as 4/-. However, that
argument won't hold water as countries such as France that had never
had £sd experienced similar degrees of inflation over the same
period.

[Paul Wolff]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
You (generic) can't get much for tuppence these days.

Not even if they're new pence.
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless

Not quite. When the simmer plate on your Aga is still too hot to cook a
roux on, the solution is to space three 2p pieces apart as a triangle on
the plate, to raise your pan a trifle.

[the Omrud]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

 You (generic) can't get much for tuppence these days.

Not even if they're new pence.
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless

Not quite. When the simmer plate on your Aga is still too hot to cook a
roux on, the solution is to space three 2p pieces apart as a triangle on
the plate, to raise your pan a trifle.

I'm not keen on trifle. I'll raise mine a soupçon.

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

 You (generic) can't get much for tuppence these days.

Not even if they're new pence.
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless

Not quite. When the simmer plate on your Aga is still too hot to cook
a roux on, the solution is to space three 2p pieces apart as a
triangle on the plate, to raise your pan a trifle.

I'm not keen on trifle. I'll raise mine a soupçon.

Sorry, soups off.

I might have a small roll, though.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by the Omrud

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

 You (generic) can't get much for tuppence these days.

Not even if they're new pence.
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless

Not quite. When the simmer plate on your Aga is still too hot to cook
a roux on, the solution is to space three 2p pieces apart as a
triangle on the plate, to raise your pan a trifle.

I'm not keen on trifle. I'll raise mine a soupçon.

Sorry, soups off.
I might have a small roll, though.

Not really your role, is it?

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Paul Wolff
Not quite. When the simmer plate on your Aga is still too hot to cook a
roux on, the solution is to space three 2p pieces apart as a triangle on
the plate, to raise your pan

An improvised trivet.

Post by Paul Wolff
a trifle.

"You know my method Watson, it is founded upon the observation of trifles."

-- Richard

[charles]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
You (generic) can't get much for tuppence these days.

Not even if they're new pence.
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless

Not quite. When the simmer plate on your Aga is still too hot to cook a
roux on, the solution is to space three 2p pieces apart as a triangle on
the plate, to raise your pan a trifle.

a diy trivet!

[RHDraney]

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

 You (generic) can't get much for tuppence these days.

Not even if they're new pence.
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless

Not quite. When the simmer plate on your Aga is still too hot to cook a
roux on, the solution is to space three 2p pieces apart as a triangle on
the plate, to raise your pan a trifle.

And by trifle you mean trivet?...r

[Paul Wolff]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Paul Wolff

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

 You (generic) can't get much for tuppence these days.

Not even if they're new pence.
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless

Not quite. When the simmer plate on your Aga is still too hot to
cook a roux on, the solution is to space three 2p pieces apart as a
triangle on the plate, to raise your pan a trifle.

And by trifle you mean trivet?...r

A trivial distinction.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless

My wife has just taken on the job of "biscuit Nazi" for our choir. That
means she buys the coffee and tea and milk and biscuits, and gets to say
how many biscuits each person is entitled to. (Sometimes this breaks
down into categories, because things like Tim Tams are greatly prized.)
She took this on at a difficult time, because this weekend we celebrated
the choir's 30th birthday, which inter alia meant hosting people from
other choirs for a big concert.

The standard rule is that you put one dollar into a green cup when you
serve yourself with refreshments. (It used to be fifty cents, but the
former biscuit Nazi ended up out of pocket, which was undesirable.) For
some reason that cup has accumulate a great deal of shrapnel. So, to
help out, I decided today to swap smaller coins for larger from my own
resources. The end result is that the kitty now contains $10 in paper
money, while my own personal collection of coins includes a huge number
of 5c coins.

I can live with that, because I use up low-denomination coins when I buy
my daily newspaper. I'm also good at preparing the coins when queuing at
the supermarket checkout, so it won't be long before I get rid of that
shrapnel.

The lesson I take from this is that, while the smaller coins appear
worthless individually, they do have value once you've collected a
hundred of them.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless

My wife has just taken on the job of "biscuit Nazi" for our choir. That
means she buys the coffee and tea and milk and biscuits, and gets to say
how many biscuits each person is entitled to. (Sometimes this breaks
down into categories, because things like Tim Tams are greatly prized.)
She took this on at a difficult time, because this weekend we celebrated
the choir's 30th birthday, which inter alia meant hosting people from
other choirs for a big concert.
The standard rule is that you put one dollar into a green cup when you
serve yourself with refreshments. (It used to be fifty cents, but the
former biscuit Nazi ended up out of pocket, which was undesirable.) For
some reason that cup has accumulate a great deal of shrapnel. So, to
help out, I decided today to swap smaller coins for larger from my own
resources. The end result is that the kitty now contains $10 in paper
money, while my own personal collection of coins includes a huge number
of 5c coins.

Why "Nazi"? Does the holder of the post have the power to withhold cookies
from those who fail to pay enough? Does she have enforcement powers?

The Seinfeld term "Soup Nazi" was controversial enough, and if this is an
application of that, perhaps a re-viewing of the relevant episodes would
be in order.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless

My wife has just taken on the job of "biscuit Nazi" for our choir. That
means she buys the coffee and tea and milk and biscuits, and gets to say
how many biscuits each person is entitled to. (Sometimes this breaks
down into categories, because things like Tim Tams are greatly prized.)
She took this on at a difficult time, because this weekend we celebrated
the choir's 30th birthday, which inter alia meant hosting people from
other choirs for a big concert.
The standard rule is that you put one dollar into a green cup when you
serve yourself with refreshments. (It used to be fifty cents, but the
former biscuit Nazi ended up out of pocket, which was undesirable.) For
some reason that cup has accumulate a great deal of shrapnel. So, to
help out, I decided today to swap smaller coins for larger from my own
resources. The end result is that the kitty now contains $10 in paper
money, while my own personal collection of coins includes a huge number
of 5c coins.

Why "Nazi"? Does the holder of the post have the power to withhold cookies
from those who fail to pay enough? Does she have enforcement powers?
The Seinfeld term "Soup Nazi" was controversial enough, and if this is an
application of that, perhaps a re-viewing of the relevant episodes would
be in order.

I myself and, I think, everyone around me would consider
actually using Nazi in that way as being in bad taste.

They might even know about Seinfeld's Nazi.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 29-Jul-18 14:01, Peter Moylan wrote:

with gross snippage

Post by Peter Moylan
My wife has just taken on the job of "biscuit Nazi" for our choir. That
means she buys the coffee and tea and milk and biscuits, and gets to say
how many biscuits each person is entitled to. (Sometimes this breaks
down into categories, because things like Tim Tams are greatly prized.)

Expats from the land of Oz have ensured that Tim Tams are available here
in the UK.
Boodly expensive, but available.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Sam Plusnet
with gross snippage

Post by Peter Moylan
My wife has just taken on the job of "biscuit Nazi" for our choir. That
means she buys the coffee and tea and milk and biscuits, and gets to say
how many biscuits each person is entitled to. (Sometimes this breaks
down into categories, because things like Tim Tams are greatly prized.)

Expats from the land of Oz have ensured that Tim Tams are available here
in the UK.
Boodly expensive, but available.

Have they? Any of the big supermarkets involved?

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Sam Plusnet
with gross snippage

Post by Peter Moylan
My wife has just taken on the job of "biscuit Nazi" for our choir. That
means she buys the coffee and tea and milk and biscuits, and gets to say
how many biscuits each person is entitled to. (Sometimes this breaks
down into categories, because things like Tim Tams are greatly prized.)

Expats from the land of Oz have ensured that Tim Tams are available here
in the UK.
Boodly expensive, but available.

Have they? Any of the big supermarkets involved?

Ocado & Amazon - categorise them as you will.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
You (generic) can't get much for tuppence these days.

Not even if they're new pence.
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless it hardly matters any
more, but it was noticeable when decimalization came in that no one
said tuppence for 2p: they said "two pee" or "two pence" with both
words fully enunciated in each case. One didn't even hear a reduced
"pence", such as "two p'nce" ['tuːpəns].

I found a nice shiny fivepence on the sidewalk outside the Bodleian. For
some reason I had a dime in my pocket -- I thought I'd left all my change
at home -- and the coin is the same diameter but considerably thicker. At
that time ($1.32 to the pound), it was worth about 6.6 c, or 2/3 of a dime.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless it hardly matters any
more, but it was noticeable when decimalization came in that no one
said tuppence for 2p: they said "two pee" or "two pence" with both
words fully enunciated in each case. One didn't even hear a reduced
"pence"...

Did anyone say "2 new pence", which was the actual wording on the coin?
(Loading Image...)

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
At the time I thought that decimalization was a driving force for the
runaway inflation in the 1970s, especially for small amounts, as one
tended to think that 40p was about the same as 4/- ...

My aunt expressed a similar suspicion, but she said it was because
if a shopkeeper would previously have decided to increase a price
by 3d., now they would increase it by 3p instead. (Yeah, I know,
causes and effects and all that.)

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless it hardly matters any
more, but it was noticeable when decimalization came in that no one
said tuppence for 2p: they said "two pee" or "two pence" with both
words fully enunciated in each case. One didn't even hear a reduced
"pence"...

Did anyone say "2 new pence", which was the actual wording on the coin?
(http://media1.allnumis.com/314_687528813562e6c6L.jpg)

For a while either side of the changeover. Everybody soon got used to
'p' as standard though.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 15:38:56 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless it hardly matters any
more, but it was noticeable when decimalization came in that no one
said tuppence for 2p: they said "two pee" or "two pence" with both
words fully enunciated in each case. One didn't even hear a reduced
"pence"...

Did anyone say "2 new pence", which was the actual wording on the coin?
(http://media1.allnumis.com/314_687528813562e6c6L.jpg)

For a while either side of the changeover. Everybody soon got used to
'p' as standard though.

Early on I sometimes heard "One Pence" for 1p.

[Peter Young]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless it hardly matters any
more, but it was noticeable when decimalization came in that no one
said tuppence for 2p: they said "two pee" or "two pence" with both
words fully enunciated in each case. One didn't even hear a reduced
"pence"...

Did anyone say "2 new pence", which was the actual wording on the coin?
(http://media1.allnumis.com/314_687528813562e6c6L.jpg)

For a while either side of the changeover. Everybody soon got used to
'p' as standard though.

I think I have mentioned before, but I hear the young ones saying "one
pence".

Peter.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless it hardly matters any
more, but it was noticeable when decimalization came in that no one
said tuppence for 2p: they said "two pee" or "two pence" with both
words fully enunciated in each case. One didn't even hear a reduced
"pence"...

Did anyone say "2 new pence", which was the actual wording on the coin?
(http://media1.allnumis.com/314_687528813562e6c6L.jpg)

For a while either side of the changeover. Everybody soon got used to
'p' as standard though.

One good thing about the introduction of the euro is that French people
no longer express amounts of money in francs without specifying whether
they mean old francs or new francs -- something not always obvious in
relation to large amounts. They did this for a very long time after
introduction of the new franc, and sometimes talked about "centimes" to
mean old francs. Prices of houses were usually quoted in centimes.

Once when picking up an expense payment in a bank in Montevideo I saw a
notice that said something like "one new new peso is equivalent to 1000
new pesos or 1000000 old pesos; one new peso is equivalent to 1000 old
pesos." Very confusing for the poor foreigner, but no doubt the
Orientals understood. (An "Oriental" in Uruguay is a Uruguayan.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless it hardly matters any
more, but it was noticeable when decimalization came in that no one
said tuppence for 2p: they said "two pee" or "two pence" with both
words fully enunciated in each case. One didn't even hear a reduced
"pence"...

Did anyone say "2 new pence", which was the actual wording on the coin?
(http://media1.allnumis.com/314_687528813562e6c6L.jpg)

For a while either side of the changeover. Everybody soon got used to
'p' as standard though.

One good thing about the introduction of the euro is that French people
no longer express amounts of money in francs without specifying whether
they mean old francs or new francs -- something not always obvious in
relation to large amounts. They did this for a very long time after
introduction of the new franc, and sometimes talked about "centimes" to
mean old francs. Prices of houses were usually quoted in centimes.

On April 29 I bought from a shop in Hamburg the 1995 reprint of the 1959
second edition of Février's Histoire de l'écriture (It does differ somewhat
from the 1948 original) from a shop in Hamburg for, IIRC, E12 (calculated
at the then-current exchange rate -- the postage was nearly as much) and
when it arrived a month or so later, it proved to be brand-new and bears
a sticker reading 138.00 prix fnac (it can't be DM, which were fluttering
around 3 per dollar toward the end), which must have been some generation
of francs (reprint by the original publisher, Payot of Paris).

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Once when picking up an expense payment in a bank in Montevideo I saw a
notice that said something like "one new new peso is equivalent to 1000
new pesos or 1000000 old pesos; one new peso is equivalent to 1000 old
pesos." Very confusing for the poor foreigner, but no doubt the
Orientals understood. (An "Oriental" in Uruguay is a Uruguayan.)

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless it hardly matters any
more, but it was noticeable when decimalization came in that no one
said tuppence for 2p: they said "two pee" or "two pence" with both
words fully enunciated in each case. One didn't even hear a reduced
"pence"...

Did anyone say "2 new pence", which was the actual wording on the coin?
(http://media1.allnumis.com/314_687528813562e6c6L.jpg)

For a while either side of the changeover. Everybody soon got used to
'p' as standard though.

One good thing about the introduction of the euro is that French people
no longer express amounts of money in francs without specifying whether
they mean old francs or new francs -- something not always obvious in
relation to large amounts. They did this for a very long time after
introduction of the new franc, and sometimes talked about "centimes" to
mean old francs. Prices of houses were usually quoted in centimes.

On April 29 I bought from a shop in Hamburg the 1995 reprint of the 1959
second edition of Février's Histoire de l'écriture (It does differ somewhat
from the 1948 original) from a shop in Hamburg for, IIRC, E12 (calculated
at the then-current exchange rate -- the postage was nearly as much) and
when it arrived a month or so later, it proved to be brand-new and bears
a sticker reading 138.00 prix fnac (it can't be DM, which were fluttering
around 3 per dollar toward the end), which must have been some generation
of francs (reprint by the original publisher, Payot of Paris).

That would by about 20 euro, if De Gaulle's Franks, aka new Francs.
The FNAC has nothing to do with Francs,
it is the 'Fédération Nationale d'Achats des Cadres',
origanally a collective buying organisation,
nowadays a shopping chain for mostly books and electronics,
<www.fnac.fr>
The 'fnac price' may be lower than the official publishers price.
(the fnac got lower prices for its members by buying wholesale)

Jan

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless it hardly matters any
more, but it was noticeable when decimalization came in that no one
said tuppence for 2p: they said "two pee" or "two pence" with both
words fully enunciated in each case. One didn't even hear a reduced
"pence"...

Did anyone say "2 new pence", which was the actual wording on the coin?
(http://media1.allnumis.com/314_687528813562e6c6L.jpg)

For a while either side of the changeover. Everybody soon got used to
'p' as standard though.

One good thing about the introduction of the euro is that French people
no longer express amounts of money in francs without specifying whether
they mean old francs or new francs -- something not always obvious in
relation to large amounts. They did this for a very long time after
introduction of the new franc, and sometimes talked about "centimes" to
mean old francs. Prices of houses were usually quoted in centimes.

On April 29 I bought from a shop in Hamburg the 1995 reprint of the 1959
second edition of Février's Histoire de l'écriture (It does differ somewhat
from the 1948 original) from a shop in Hamburg for, IIRC, E12 (calculated
at the then-current exchange rate -- the postage was nearly as much) and
when it arrived a month or so later, it proved to be brand-new and bears
a sticker reading 138.00 prix fnac (it can't be DM, which were fluttering
around 3 per dollar toward the end), which must have been some generation
of francs (reprint by the original publisher, Payot of Paris).

That would by about 20 euro, if De Gaulle's Franks, aka new Francs.

In 1995?

Post by J. J. Lodder
The FNAC has nothing to do with Francs,
it is the 'Fédération Nationale d'Achats des Cadres',
origanally a collective buying organisation,
nowadays a shopping chain for mostly books and electronics,
<www.fnac.fr>
The 'fnac price' may be lower than the official publishers price.
(the fnac got lower prices for its members by buying wholesale)

Whereas my Johannes Friedrich, Geschichte der Schrift (1968), priced at
$23.50 just over a year ago, proved to be a brand-new copy, with pristine
dust jacket, that must have been in the shop's stock since publication --
BBB-Internetbuchantiquariat (Bremen, Germany) ok, some bookseller's
inventory that they bought out -- but I seem not to have put it back on
the shelf where it belongs so I can't tell you what it was priced in DM
(rather more than the E15 or so it went for; and the shipping was under
$10.) AbeBooks will obligingly show you the exchange rate for the prices
put on books, and strange dollar amounts usually prove to be even euro amounts.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by J. J. Lodder
That would by about 20 euro, if De Gaulle's Franks, aka new Francs.

In 1995?

Yes.

"New Francs" were replaced by the Euro.

[the Omrud]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
One good thing about the introduction of the euro is that French people
no longer express amounts of money in francs without specifying whether
they mean old francs or new francs -- something not always obvious in
relation to large amounts. They did this for a very long time after
introduction of the new franc, and sometimes talked about "centimes" to
mean old francs. Prices of houses were usually quoted in centimes.

When I first spent any time in France (1969), the old people would talk
about "balles", which was a nickname for the old franc (although I've no
idea how to spell it). One often heard "mille balles", which was
actually 10F or about £1.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Now that the smaller coins have become worthless it hardly matters any
more, but it was noticeable when decimalization came in that no one
said tuppence for 2p: they said "two pee" or "two pence" with both
words fully enunciated in each case. One didn't even hear a reduced
"pence"...

Did anyone say "2 new pence", which was the actual wording on the coin?
(http://media1.allnumis.com/314_687528813562e6c6L.jpg)

For a while either side of the changeover. Everybody soon got used to
'p' as standard though.

I seem to remember that the 'public information' adverts encouraged
everyone to say quite clearly "2 new pence" to avoid confusion.
Some people followed the advice & some didn't.

[JNugent]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more
often than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and
current but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am
I betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

The same in Liverpool. "Three and eleven" always meant three shillings
and elevenpence.

When the sum was more than a pound, the word "pound(s)" was included,
eg: "One pound, three and eleven".

[Mack A. Damia]

Post by JNugent

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more
often than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and
current but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am
I betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

The same in Liverpool. "Three and eleven" always meant three shillings
and elevenpence.
When the sum was more than a pound, the word "pound(s)" was included,
eg: "One pound, three and eleven".

Was "two and six" or "half a crown" more common?

[JNugent]

Post by Mack A. Damia

Post by JNugent

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more
often than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and
current but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am
I betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

The same in Liverpool. "Three and eleven" always meant three shillings
and elevenpence.
When the sum was more than a pound, the word "pound(s)" was included,
eg: "One pound, three and eleven".

Was "two and six" or "half a crown" more common?

Difficult to say. About the same frequency.

"Half a dollar" was another popular term for the same amount (dating,
presumably, from when the exchange rate was steady at four $4 USA to the £).

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by JNugent

Post by Mack A. Damia

Post by JNugent

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more
often than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and
current but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am
I betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

The same in Liverpool. "Three and eleven" always meant three shillings
and elevenpence.
When the sum was more than a pound, the word "pound(s)" was included,
eg: "One pound, three and eleven".

Was "two and six" or "half a crown" more common?

Difficult to say. About the same frequency.
"Half a dollar" was another popular term for the same amount (dating,
presumably, from when the exchange rate was steady at four $4 USA to the £).

When was that? AIUI, it was $5 = £1 during the gold standard, and became
$2.40 = £1 at some point thereafter, i.e. 1d = 1c, and subsequently the
currencies were allowed to "float" (Athel once called that "the Harold
Wilson deflation" or something like that), such that a couple weeks ago
it was $1.32 = £1 and slipping (to the US advantage) -- my £70 purchase
at Blackwell's that day showed up as about $95 on my credit card.

[charles]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by JNugent

Post by Mack A. Damia

Post by JNugent

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents"
or "It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and
pence were current, their names did not need to be specified.
Something might cost "three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen
and fourpence" (pointing out the curiosity that some numbers
seemed need "pence" much more often than others.) "Three and
sixpence" was equally colloquial and current but nevertheless used
less often than "three and six." (Or am I betraying my home county
origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in
Birmingham before decimalization, there too.

The same in Liverpool. "Three and eleven" always meant three
shillings and elevenpence.
When the sum was more than a pound, the word "pound(s)" was
included, eg: "One pound, three and eleven".

Was "two and six" or "half a crown" more common?

Difficult to say. About the same frequency.
"Half a dollar" was another popular term for the same amount (dating,
presumably, from when the exchange rate was steady at four $4 USA to the £).

When was that? AIUI, it was $5 = £1 during the gold standard,

1949 devalued from $4.03 = £1 to $2.80 =£1

Post by Peter T. Daniels
and became $2.40 = £1 at some point thereafter, i.e. 1d = 1c,

That was when Harold Wilson was Prime Minister - 1967

[Richard Tobin]

Post by charles

Post by Peter T. Daniels
and became $2.40 = £1 at some point thereafter, i.e. 1d = 1c,

That was when Harold Wilson was Prime Minister - 1967

"This will not affect the pound in your pocket."

-- Richard

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by JNugent

Post by Mack A. Damia

Post by JNugent

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more
often than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and
current but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am
I betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

The same in Liverpool. "Three and eleven" always meant three shillings
and elevenpence.
When the sum was more than a pound, the word "pound(s)" was included,
eg: "One pound, three and eleven".

Was "two and six" or "half a crown" more common?

Difficult to say. About the same frequency.
"Half a dollar" was another popular term for the same amount (dating,
presumably, from when the exchange rate was steady at four $4 USA to the £).

This gives a different suggestion:
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/385349/what-is-half-a-dollar-in-pre-decimal-british-currency-slang

The origin appears to derive from the following historical facts:

It goes back to the Napoleonic Wars. Britain was short of gold
and silver coinage because most of it was used to finance the War
abroad. Spanish dollars were imported to fill the gap and given
the nominal value of 5 shillings, although, despite being about
the same size they were actually worth a little less in terms of
silver content. Hence, 5/- was a dollar and 2/6 as a half-dollar.

(Oman's History of the Peninsular War)

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by JNugent

Post by Mack A. Damia
Was "two and six" or "half a crown" more common?

Difficult to say. About the same frequency.
"Half a dollar" was another popular term for the same amount (dating,
presumably, from when the exchange rate was steady at four $4 USA to the £).

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/385349/what-is-half-a-dollar-in-pre-decimal-british-currency-slang
It goes back to the Napoleonic Wars. Britain was short of gold
and silver coinage because most of it was used to finance the War
abroad. Spanish dollars were imported to fill the gap and given
the nominal value of 5 shillings, although, despite being about
the same size they were actually worth a little less in terms of
silver content. Hence, 5/- was a dollar and 2/6 as a half-dollar.
(Oman's History of the Peninsular War)

New South Wales, and also Prince Edward Island, took a different
approach. The centre was punched out of a Spanish dollar to create two
coins. (Overstamping was used to change what was written on the face of
each coin.) The inner part, called the "dump", was declared to be worth
fifteen pence. The outer part, called the "holey dollar" was valued at
five shillings. Thus, eastern Australia also had the tradition of
calling five shillings a dollar.

There was potential confusion when, a century and a half later, we
changed the currency. The new Australian dollar was worth ten shillings,
but the use of "dollar" to mean five shillings had not died out.

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by JNugent

Post by Mack A. Damia
Was "two and six" or "half a crown" more common?

Difficult to say. About the same frequency.
"Half a dollar" was another popular term for the same amount (dating,
presumably, from when the exchange rate was steady at four $4 USA to the £).

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/385349/what-is-half-a-dollar-in-pre-decimal-british-currency-slang
It goes back to the Napoleonic Wars. Britain was short of gold
and silver coinage because most of it was used to finance the War
abroad. Spanish dollars were imported to fill the gap and given
the nominal value of 5 shillings, although, despite being about
the same size they were actually worth a little less in terms of
silver content. Hence, 5/- was a dollar and 2/6 as a half-dollar.
(Oman's History of the Peninsular War)

Or that.

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by JNugent

Post by Mack A. Damia
Was "two and six" or "half a crown" more common?

Difficult to say. About the same frequency.
"Half a dollar" was another popular term for the same amount (dating,
presumably, from when the exchange rate was steady at four $4 USA to the £).

Wikipedia says the British crown coin following the Act of Union was
"the successor to the English crown and the Scottish dollar". It also
says the English and British crowns were similar in size and value to
the Spanish piece of eight, which according to the OED was known as the
Spanish dollar. All of those, I assume, were similar to the original
Joachimsthaler. So maybe "dollar" for five shillings goes back to times
before the U.S. was born or thought of.

(The OED lists that meaning of "dollar" but gives no citations.)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

[ ... ]
Was "two and six" or "half a crown" more common?

Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

[Janet]

Post by Mack A. Damia

Post by JNugent

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Don P

Post by Peter Young
. . .

Post by Tony Cooper
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".=

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

. . . "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Nearly but not quite (for British usage.) When shillings and pence
were current, their names did not need to be specified. Something
might cost
"three and six" meaning 3s. 6d. or "seventeen and fourpence" (pointing
out the curiosity that some numbers seemed need "pence" much more
often than others.) "Three and sixpence" was equally colloquial and
current but nevertheless used less often than "three and six." (Or am
I betraying my home county origins?)

I never lived in the home counties, but I think the same applied in
Devon, around Manchester and, in the short time I lived in Birmingham
before decimalization, there too.

The same in Liverpool. "Three and eleven" always meant three shillings
and elevenpence.
When the sum was more than a pound, the word "pound(s)" was included,
eg: "One pound, three and eleven".

Was "two and six" or "half a crown" more common?

Two and six was more common when speaking of a price. Half a crown was
more often used for the name of the coin that was worth two and six.

Janet

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Janet

Post by Mack A. Damia
Was "two and six" or "half a crown" more common?

Two and six was more common when speaking of a price. Half a crown was
more often used for the name of the coin that was worth two and six.

As I remember it that would more often have been "a half-crown".

-- Richard

[Mack A. Damia]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Janet

Post by Mack A. Damia
Was "two and six" or "half a crown" more common?

Two and six was more common when speaking of a price. Half a crown was
more often used for the name of the coin that was worth two and six.

As I remember it that would more often have been "a half-crown".

Think of the regular folks. There is some element of difficulty in
saying "a half crown" in the middle of a sentence.

Much easier to say, "half a crown".

Incidentally, if you are going to quote me, please use proper
attributes. Thank you.

[Madhu]

[]

Post by LFS

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Young
As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

One might even omit the word "quid".

One probably would. "Three fifty" sounds more likely to me.

Searching for "three fity" brought up its use in a Southpark episode
(from when I still watched TV) I remember three-fity being bandied
around a lot around that time.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tree-fiddy

Chef's dad: It stood above us looking down with these big red eyes...
Chef's mom: Oh it was so scary!

Chef's dad: And I yelled, I said "What do you want from us monster?!"
And the monster bent down and said "I need about treefiddy." [silent pause]

Kyle: What's treefiddy?

Chef's dad: Three dollars and fifty cents.

Chef's mom: Treefiddy.


- apparently set though in the scottish highlands (which may reflect
nothing)

[John Dunlop]

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences of
"quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number. Google
has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that it's more
naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".

"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

[charles]

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences of
"quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number. Google
has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that it's more
naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is fine, but
not "50 quid 30"

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by charles

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences of
"quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number. Google
has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that it's more
naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is fine, but
not "50 quid 30"

Agreed.

[HVS]

Post by charles

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences of
"quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number. Google
has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that it's more
naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is fine, but
not "50 quid 30"

Entirely agree. (I'm glad I read ahead before posting something similar.)

The usage of "quid" is also one of those formal/informal markers that jump
out at you when they're used in the wrong way or in the wrong register. If I
heard someone say "It cost fifty quid thirty", I'd put a couple of quid on
them being from outside the UK.

(The "wrong register" example I've noticed most often is the use of "guy".
It happens sometimes when a European politician or official in a semi-formal
setting -- say, a press conference -- says something like "We discussed the
subject when we met with these guys last Tuesday". It rings entirely wrong
in any sort of formal or semi-formal context.)

[Katy Jennison]

Post by charles

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences of
"quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number. Google
has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that it's more
naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is fine, but
not "50 quid 30"

Yes. Possibly "three-and-a-half quid".

[charles]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by charles

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences
of "quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number.
Google has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that
it's more naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is fine,
but not "50 quid 30"

Yes. Possibly "three-and-a-half quid".

I can hear "It's worth a tenner,but to you, three quid",

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by charles

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by charles

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says
"It costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it
is or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439
occurrences of "quid", only one of which, from fiction, is
followed by a number. Google has many more examples, of course,
but my own feeling is that it's more naturally expressed without
"quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as
is, in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the
"s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is
fine, but not "50 quid 30"

Yes. Possibly "three-and-a-half quid".

I can hear "It's worth a tenner,but to you, three quid",

and I'm doing you a favour.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by charles

Post by Katy Jennison
Yes. Possibly "three-and-a-half quid".

I can hear "It's worth a tenner,but to you, three quid",

and I'm doing you a favour.

And I'm cutting me own throat.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by charles

Post by Katy Jennison
Yes. Possibly "three-and-a-half quid".

I can hear "It's worth a tenner,but to you, three quid",

and I'm doing you a favour.

And I'm cutting me own throat.

Oh, a dibbler's life is hard,
He can't take a credit card,
And making you part with cash
Is like giving his own 'ead a bash
Wiv an 'ammer.

Oh, a dibbler's life is crap,
Rat on a stick and no bap
Is never a sure best seller
Specially when an 'ard working feller
Is thrown in the slammer

[CDB]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by charles

Post by Katy Jennison
Yes. Possibly "three-and-a-half quid".

I can hear "It's worth a tenner,but to you, three quid",

and I'm doing you a favour.

And I'm cutting me own throat.

Oh, a dibbler's life is hard, He can't take a credit card, And making
you part with cash Is like giving his own 'ead a bash Wiv an 'ammer.
Oh, a dibbler's life is crap, Rat on a stick and no bap Is never a
sure best seller Specially when an 'ard working feller Is thrown in
the slammer

I have sometimes wondered if Pratchett got the name in part from the
last French family of executioners, the Deiblers and their relations.
CMOT, geddit?

[Tony Cooper]

Post by charles

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences of
"quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number. Google
has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that it's more
naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is fine, but
not "50 quid 30"

Are you saying that the author who had a character saying "It costs
three quid fifty" is wrong? That he has a character saying something
that a real person would not say?

The book was first published in 2012, is set in current time, and is
about a police constable assigned to a counter terrorism unit in
Manchester. The author, who lives in Manchester, is Chris Simms.

Interesting information about the known and unknown tunnels and other
underground drain channels and such. By "unknown", I mean "unknown to
the general public".

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by charles

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences of
"quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number. Google
has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that it's more
naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is fine, but
not "50 quid 30"

Are you saying that the author who had a character saying "It costs
three quid fifty" is wrong? That he has a character saying something
that a real person would not say?
The book was first published in 2012, is set in current time, and is
about a police constable assigned to a counter terrorism unit in
Manchester. The author, who lives in Manchester, is Chris Simms.
Interesting information about the known and unknown tunnels and other
underground drain channels and such. By "unknown", I mean "unknown to
the general public".

I don't know as anybody has the authority to claim it's 'wrong'. It's
obvious that the author has heard it said that way in some context,
maybe even his own vernacular. And it is dialogue so quirks are
certainly allowed. But it is a very unusual way of expressing a price.

[charles]

Post by charles

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences
of "quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number.
Google has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that
it's more naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is fine,
but not "50 quid 30"

Are you saying that the author who had a character saying "It costs three
quid fifty" is wrong? That he has a character saying something that a
real person would not say?
The book was first published in 2012, is set in current time, and is
about a police constable assigned to a counter terrorism unit in
Manchester. The author, who lives in Manchester, is Chris Simms.
Interesting information about the known and unknown tunnels and other
underground drain channels and such. By "unknown", I mean "unknown to
the general public".

It might be diffferent in Manchester, but I wouldn't expect to hear that
down south

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by charles

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences of
"quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number. Google
has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that it's more
naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is fine, but
not "50 quid 30"

Are you saying that the author who had a character saying "It costs
three quid fifty" is wrong? That he has a character saying something
that a real person would not say?

It's certainly possible.

Post by Tony Cooper
The book was first published in 2012, is set in current time, and is
about a police constable assigned to a counter terrorism unit in
Manchester. The author, who lives in Manchester, is Chris Simms.

And? Authors make mistakes al the time, and for a variety of reasons.
Mainly, editing errors or :trying to establish a voice" errors. It's
quite possible the author though that sounded like a phrase a PC would
use.

[JNugent]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by charles

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences of
"quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number. Google
has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that it's more
naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is fine, but
not "50 quid 30"

Are you saying that the author who had a character saying "It costs
three quid fifty" is wrong? That he has a character saying something
that a real person would not say?

That is my impression. In sixty-odd years, I have never heard the phrase
"three quid fifty" (or any other amount constructed in the same format).

Post by Tony Cooper
The book was first published in 2012, is set in current time, and is
about a police constable assigned to a counter terrorism unit in
Manchester. The author, who lives in Manchester, is Chris Simms.
Interesting information about the known and unknown tunnels and other
underground drain channels and such. By "unknown", I mean "unknown to
the general public".

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by JNugent

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by charles

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences of
"quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number. Google
has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that it's more
naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is fine, but
not "50 quid 30"

Are you saying that the author who had a character saying "It costs
three quid fifty" is wrong? That he has a character saying something
that a real person would not say?

That is my impression. In sixty-odd years, I have never heard the phrase
"three quid fifty" (or any other amount constructed in the same format).

Then prepare to be amazed ...

<https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g186338-d1812917-r250952032-China_Buffet-London_England.html>

<https://uk.pcmag.com/movies/77040/news/want-to-see-a-blockbuster-thatll-be-a-quid-fifty-more-please>

<http://smariek.blogspot.com/2008/10/sfba-petrol-prices.html?m=0>

[JNugent]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by JNugent

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by charles

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences of
"quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number. Google
has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that it's more
naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is fine, but
not "50 quid 30"

Are you saying that the author who had a character saying "It costs
three quid fifty" is wrong? That he has a character saying something
that a real person would not say?

That is my impression. In sixty-odd years, I have never heard the phrase
"three quid fifty" (or any other amount constructed in the same format).

Then prepare to be amazed ...
<https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g186338-d1812917-r250952032-China_Buffet-London_England.html>
<https://uk.pcmag.com/movies/77040/news/want-to-see-a-blockbuster-thatll-be-a-quid-fifty-more-please>
<http://smariek.blogspot.com/2008/10/sfba-petrol-prices.html?m=0>

That does not undermine what I said in the slightest.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by JNugent

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by charles

Post by John Dunlop

Post by Peter Young

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or
"It cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is
or was said.

As quite normal in BrE. We say things differently Over Here.

I wonder how normal. The British National Corpus has 1439 occurrences of
"quid", only one of which, from fiction, is followed by a number. Google
has many more examples, of course, but my own feeling is that it's more
naturally expressed without "quid": "three fifty".
"Three pounds fifty", on the other hand, is perfectly normal -- as is,
in my dialect among others, "three pound fifty", without the "s".

If "quid" is used, it wouldn't have anything after. "50 quid" is fine, but
not "50 quid 30"

Are you saying that the author who had a character saying "It costs
three quid fifty" is wrong? That he has a character saying something
that a real person would not say?

That is my impression. In sixty-odd years, I have never heard the phrase
"three quid fifty" (or any other amount constructed in the same format).

Isn't it amazing that we can read one sentence from a book and create
a controversy over the usage? We don't even have to read a Patricia
Cornwell book, either.

Post by JNugent

Post by Tony Cooper
The book was first published in 2012, is set in current time, and is
about a police constable assigned to a counter terrorism unit in
Manchester. The author, who lives in Manchester, is Chris Simms.
Interesting information about the known and unknown tunnels and other
underground drain channels and such. By "unknown", I mean "unknown to
the general public".

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by JNugent

Post by Tony Cooper
Are you saying that the author who had a character saying "It costs
three quid fifty" is wrong? That he has a character saying something
that a real person would not say?

That is my impression. In sixty-odd years, I have never heard the phrase
"three quid fifty" (or any other amount constructed in the same format).

Isn't it amazing that we can read one sentence from a book and create
a controversy over the usage? We don't even have to read a Patricia
Cornwell book, either.

A valid point. A single book tells us nothing about general usage.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by JNugent

Post by Tony Cooper
Are you saying that the author who had a character saying "It costs
three quid fifty" is wrong? That he has a character saying something
that a real person would not say?

That is my impression. In sixty-odd years, I have never heard the phrase
"three quid fifty" (or any other amount constructed in the same format).

Isn't it amazing that we can read one sentence from a book and create
a controversy over the usage? We don't even have to read a Patricia
Cornwell book, either.

In a few years' time tonbei will have quoted the whole of Patricia
Cornwell's œuvre for us to discuss.

Post by Peter Moylan
A valid point. A single book tells us nothing about general usage.

[Lewis]

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".

Might say "three and a half dollars" though.

Post by Tony Cooper
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is or
was said.

By accident, perhaps.

[Hen Hanna]

Post by Tony Cooper
Noticed in reading today...in a British novel a character says "It
costs three quid fifty".
An American would say "It cost three dollars and fifty cents" or "It
cost three fifty". Never just "three dollars fifty".
OK. "Never" is an impossible claim. Somewhere, by someone, it is or
was said.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

I think in Am.Eng [a buck fifty] [Two-Buck-Fifty] Three-Buck-Fifty ... are common.


"three dollars fifty" is pretty common too.

Post by Tony Cooper

A punsihment of a buck fifty has another meaning on the streets, where it's also known as Uno Cincuenta. The Urban Dictionary defines a buck 50 thusly: A tear inflicted by a cutting instrument (e.g. a knife or a box cutter) in the skin of the cheek from one corner of the mouth toward the lateral ear. Jun 29, 2009