Inch vs. Inches

And what about adjectives? A ruler can be twelve inches long, but that makes it a twelve inch ruler.

Eliszbet - please note that "Due to..." is incorrect. This should be "Owing to..."

Stickler, please not that there is nothing wrong with "due to."

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage page 375:
"There is no solid reason to avoid using due to."

http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA374&vq=due+to&dq=merriam+webster's+dictionary+of+english+usage&source=gbs_search_s&sig=w6fdY6k5b_OkKdYzuuD3SyJIkNA#PPA375,M1

Thanks everyone for the help on this. We've resolved the issue to my satisfaction.

Much thanks also to "Nick-alias" for the National Geographic link.

Yeah, really. I used to feel comfortable with things like "0.5 inches" and then for whatever reason I started saying "0.5 inch." I guess it's kinda like how I started to like hot peppers at some point in my up-bringing. Just a change of taste/habit.

You probably finished editing your technical manual a long time ago. At any rate, my personal experience tells me that "0.5 inch" may or may not be more correct, but at least sounds more technical. Maybe that's just because I started saying it later in my life, so I mark "0.5 inches" as more child-like and "0.5 inch" as more mature.

Who knows.

note that, while the abbreviations for most units of measure do not end with a period, the correct abbreviation for "inch" does end with a period, so as not to be confused with the preposition "in".

pound - lb
kilogram - kg
centimeter - cm
inch - in.
hour - hr
second - s

note also that when using these abbreviations, there are no grammatical dilemmas regarding pluralization.

quote:
//Tolken says:
June 9, 2008, 8:06am
A. Inches are not subdivided as decimals, but as simple fractions. (That's why they're so accurate)
//

how can fraction be accurate??? only if the value is exactly 1/2, 1/4 etc
there are some numbers that can not be expressed with fraction, but can be written as accurate as you want with decimal system.
For example square root of 2 cm (1.41421356....), can be written 14142 um and can be easily converted 141 mm, depending on accuracy one needs. How do you do that in inches?
also metric system allows you to do random mathematical operations with random numbers without any converting.

im not saying you can not be more accurate using inches, you can, but it's useless as it is limited to only few numbers.

in our company, we have our own style guide. the only individual number that is treated as singular is exactly one, neither more nor less. hence it should be "0.5 inches." but you can also write it as "half of an inch."

To Tolken and Ursus,

Regarding fractions and decimal numbers, neither one is fundamentally more or less accurate than the other. Also, any number that can be represented by one can be represented by the other. Every single rational number, terminating or repeating, can be represented as a fraction.

Irrational numbers, non-terminating and non-repeating, cannot be represented by a fraction OR a decimal number with perfect accuracy. They can only be approximated by such, and since every decimal can be converted to a fraction, any decimal approximation would be no more or less accurate than the corresponding fraction. Besides, while there are certain common conventions, accuracy can really only be known if the tolerance is specified for either.

Next, there's nothing special about inches that require the use of fractions whose denominator is a power of two. You can use English units but still use the decimal system for them.

I see this is an old thread, however I feel the need to introject being an engineer.

I expect the desire to pluralize stems from the fact that we are often working with multiple fractions at a time (eg 3/4), however we would be less inclined to want to pluralize 1/4. However the numerator is not the subject of this conversation, it is the unit of that number we are discussing. Strictly speaking I would also never encourage a student to pluralize any measurement as the unit is just that; one unit.

To elaborate 1/3 of two inches would actually be 2/3, which is clearly not the intention being communicated. I do agree with Ursus however, in any practical environment (and any guidelines) the deprecated sizes of late British royalty's body parts should no longer be used as units of measure in a competitive global environment.

I have these plans for a.shooting board but the inches refer to .5 of nan inch and .75 of an inch ehich i do not understand ,please reply btw the plans came from canada if that helps pleasa reply

@Nathaniel George,

.5 of an inch=1/2 (of) an inch and .75 of an inch=3/4 of an inch.

Our company style guide says, "In situations where space is an issue, such as in charts or tables, abbreviations may be used: 16-in. screen. Always abbreviate inches as in., don't use 0." What the heck do they mean by "don't use 0." (zero) ?

'0.5 inch or 0.5 inches' refers to 0.5 of an inch - inch being the base unit. A base unit is singular, so former is logically correct.

'0.67 inch' is another issue. inch is divided into fraction. 0.67 appears to be two-thirds of an inch. Again the singular inch prevails.

I bought a rug whose height is 0.32 inches. Is that more or less then 1/2 inch?

What is 1/12 of 3?

1/8 inch, 3/8 inches. Singular vs plural is not a matter of measure but rather the number of units being referenced. In the matter of fractions, while both are less than one (1) inch, 1/8 is one of eight parts, therefore, a singular "inch" should be used, whereas anything more than one of eight (i.e. two, three, four... of eight) is plural and thus "inches" is appropriate. 2/8 inches = 1/4 inch. In similar manner for decimals, 0.1 inch, 0.2 inches, 0.11 inches.

Please, can you tell me how to correctly format the following sentence?

"...comprised of four, .5" layers of felt..." OR "...comprised of four, .5"-layers of felt...?

Many thanks in advance for your help!

I am expecting rain on Friday of this week of 0.12 inches, how much rain would that actually be?