quarter to five p.m
Can I add a.m and p.m to the time? But I have to write time in phrases. So for example:
It's quarter to five p.m.
Is that right or not?
time
New contributor
add a comment |
Can I add a.m and p.m to the time? But I have to write time in phrases. So for example:
It's quarter to five p.m.
Is that right or not?
time
New contributor
4
Just a personal opinion, but I find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).
– FumbleFingers
9 hours ago
3
I would say if you want to use 'quarter to five' you should write 'in the morning' in full. If you want to use A.M. or P.M. the you should revert to 'four fourty five A.M.'
– Smock
8 hours ago
Mariya, you can click on theedit
label under your question if you'd like to include additional examples you're not sure about.
– userr2684291
8 hours ago
1
@userr2684291 just fyi, you can put the word edit within square brackets to make it even easier for mariya. Like so: edit
– Aethenosity
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Can I add a.m and p.m to the time? But I have to write time in phrases. So for example:
It's quarter to five p.m.
Is that right or not?
time
New contributor
Can I add a.m and p.m to the time? But I have to write time in phrases. So for example:
It's quarter to five p.m.
Is that right or not?
time
time
New contributor
New contributor
edited 8 hours ago
userr2684291
2,60631532
2,60631532
New contributor
asked 9 hours ago
Mariya DamyanovaMariya Damyanova
262
262
New contributor
New contributor
4
Just a personal opinion, but I find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).
– FumbleFingers
9 hours ago
3
I would say if you want to use 'quarter to five' you should write 'in the morning' in full. If you want to use A.M. or P.M. the you should revert to 'four fourty five A.M.'
– Smock
8 hours ago
Mariya, you can click on theedit
label under your question if you'd like to include additional examples you're not sure about.
– userr2684291
8 hours ago
1
@userr2684291 just fyi, you can put the word edit within square brackets to make it even easier for mariya. Like so: edit
– Aethenosity
7 hours ago
add a comment |
4
Just a personal opinion, but I find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).
– FumbleFingers
9 hours ago
3
I would say if you want to use 'quarter to five' you should write 'in the morning' in full. If you want to use A.M. or P.M. the you should revert to 'four fourty five A.M.'
– Smock
8 hours ago
Mariya, you can click on theedit
label under your question if you'd like to include additional examples you're not sure about.
– userr2684291
8 hours ago
1
@userr2684291 just fyi, you can put the word edit within square brackets to make it even easier for mariya. Like so: edit
– Aethenosity
7 hours ago
4
4
Just a personal opinion, but I find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).
– FumbleFingers
9 hours ago
Just a personal opinion, but I find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).
– FumbleFingers
9 hours ago
3
3
I would say if you want to use 'quarter to five' you should write 'in the morning' in full. If you want to use A.M. or P.M. the you should revert to 'four fourty five A.M.'
– Smock
8 hours ago
I would say if you want to use 'quarter to five' you should write 'in the morning' in full. If you want to use A.M. or P.M. the you should revert to 'four fourty five A.M.'
– Smock
8 hours ago
Mariya, you can click on the
edit
label under your question if you'd like to include additional examples you're not sure about.– userr2684291
8 hours ago
Mariya, you can click on the
edit
label under your question if you'd like to include additional examples you're not sure about.– userr2684291
8 hours ago
1
1
@userr2684291 just fyi, you can put the word edit within square brackets to make it even easier for mariya. Like so: edit
– Aethenosity
7 hours ago
@userr2684291 just fyi, you can put the word edit within square brackets to make it even easier for mariya. Like so: edit
– Aethenosity
7 hours ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
My sense, from my own experience, is that people usually use the informal "in the morning" when using the casual "quarter to three" in words, and the more formal, technical-sounding "a.m." when using the precise "2:45" in numbers. If you're only mentioning an hour, of course, then there's no difference when speaking aloud, and either might be used.
However, while I say "usually", I suspect that that is not by a significant margin. There's nothing weird or unnatural about "quarter to three a.m." or "2:45 in the morning". Using both about the same time in a single phrase will make you look/sound silly, though. Don't say "2:45 a.m. in the morning"1. "From 9:15 in the morning to quarter to five p.m." is perhaps idiosyncratic, and might draw odd looks in a formal context, but is in no way wrong.
1: There will likely be edge cases where it's appropriate to say that, but it will arise naturally from the surrounding text - it's likely that, in most analyses, they wouldn't actually be the same phrase. "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. in the morning" could be better rephrased to avoid the apparent redundancy, in the case where it means "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. tomorrow". However, if you parse the apparently-redundant sentence with both "at 7 a.m." and "in the morning" as separate adverbials of time, you can see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.
I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
@FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.
– SamBC
7 hours ago
Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
add a comment |
From my initial comment, I personally find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).
But that's very much a personal opinion about style. As regards using both a.m. / p.m. (capitalised on not, with periods or not, according to stylistic preference) and in the morning / afternoon / evening, consider...
"at 7 am in the morning" - about 4510 written instances in Google Books
...where obviously there will be plenty more for the actual word seven, or for other times. I believe it's relevant that in many (but by no means all) those hits, in the morning will mean tomorrow morning. In which case it probably wouldn't even occur to most native speakers that there was any tautologous repetition at all (it simply clarifies the day of the specified time).
There's often also an element of (perfectly idiomatic / natural) emphasis in my example (either or both of a.m. and in the morning could be seen as implying [unusually] early. This isn't so likely with p.m. + in the afternoon, so you won't come across that collocation very often.
But the justification for "clarification / emphasis" certainly re-appears with...
"at 7 pm in the evening" - about 3960 hits in Google Books
Perhaps I should have switched to six p.m. there, to add weight to my point here. Suppose you hear one work colleague say to another, I'll see you at 6 p.m. in the evening. In context, it's extremely likely the speaker expects himself and/or the other person to return home after work before they meet again. Effectively, in the evening is an "additional clarification" element, used to distinguish "working afternoon" from "leisure time evening".
So as you should be able to see, there are contexts where it's absolutely fine to include both "time of day" elements. Arguably it's "clumsy" to do this unless you actually want either the nuance of "emphasis" OR the other associations (morning = early, evening = after work) involved.
Since it might be difficult for non-native speakers to reliably identify which contexts do justify the repetition, and it's undoubtedly true that there will be other more "neutral" contexts where it's noticeably "awkward" to include both, my general rule of thumb would be to avoid it. But if you think you have a context that seems to match the "valid" constructions I've referred to above, don't rule it out. And certainly don't feel you can justifiably criticise any native speaker who does it!
Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)
– J.R.♦
7 hours ago
btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
1
You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (*
= *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.
– userr2684291
6 hours ago
add a comment |
You can use either A.M. or in the morning, and P.M. or in the evening. It is incorrect to use both A.M. and in the morning in the same sentence.
In your case, you would be correct in saying It's a quarter to five P.M.
New contributor
1
...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
2
A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
1
If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
3
Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.
– Lorel C.
8 hours ago
2
Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Yes. No problem in that usage. Make sure both a.m. and p.m. are properly written in lowercase with periods.
I have found an example sentence from NY Times website:
Over the past two weeks, however, a group of hooligans have made a routine of partying on my roof at 3:30 a.m.
And here's another one from Slate, showing something more akin to your example:
No prisoner is allowed under any circumstances to leave his cell after half-past five p.m.
New contributor
2
The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.
– userr2684291
8 hours ago
Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.
– Michael Harvey
7 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.
– FumbleFingers
6 hours ago
Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.
– FumbleFingers
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f202507%2fquarter-to-five-p-m%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
My sense, from my own experience, is that people usually use the informal "in the morning" when using the casual "quarter to three" in words, and the more formal, technical-sounding "a.m." when using the precise "2:45" in numbers. If you're only mentioning an hour, of course, then there's no difference when speaking aloud, and either might be used.
However, while I say "usually", I suspect that that is not by a significant margin. There's nothing weird or unnatural about "quarter to three a.m." or "2:45 in the morning". Using both about the same time in a single phrase will make you look/sound silly, though. Don't say "2:45 a.m. in the morning"1. "From 9:15 in the morning to quarter to five p.m." is perhaps idiosyncratic, and might draw odd looks in a formal context, but is in no way wrong.
1: There will likely be edge cases where it's appropriate to say that, but it will arise naturally from the surrounding text - it's likely that, in most analyses, they wouldn't actually be the same phrase. "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. in the morning" could be better rephrased to avoid the apparent redundancy, in the case where it means "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. tomorrow". However, if you parse the apparently-redundant sentence with both "at 7 a.m." and "in the morning" as separate adverbials of time, you can see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.
I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
@FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.
– SamBC
7 hours ago
Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
add a comment |
My sense, from my own experience, is that people usually use the informal "in the morning" when using the casual "quarter to three" in words, and the more formal, technical-sounding "a.m." when using the precise "2:45" in numbers. If you're only mentioning an hour, of course, then there's no difference when speaking aloud, and either might be used.
However, while I say "usually", I suspect that that is not by a significant margin. There's nothing weird or unnatural about "quarter to three a.m." or "2:45 in the morning". Using both about the same time in a single phrase will make you look/sound silly, though. Don't say "2:45 a.m. in the morning"1. "From 9:15 in the morning to quarter to five p.m." is perhaps idiosyncratic, and might draw odd looks in a formal context, but is in no way wrong.
1: There will likely be edge cases where it's appropriate to say that, but it will arise naturally from the surrounding text - it's likely that, in most analyses, they wouldn't actually be the same phrase. "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. in the morning" could be better rephrased to avoid the apparent redundancy, in the case where it means "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. tomorrow". However, if you parse the apparently-redundant sentence with both "at 7 a.m." and "in the morning" as separate adverbials of time, you can see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.
I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
@FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.
– SamBC
7 hours ago
Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
add a comment |
My sense, from my own experience, is that people usually use the informal "in the morning" when using the casual "quarter to three" in words, and the more formal, technical-sounding "a.m." when using the precise "2:45" in numbers. If you're only mentioning an hour, of course, then there's no difference when speaking aloud, and either might be used.
However, while I say "usually", I suspect that that is not by a significant margin. There's nothing weird or unnatural about "quarter to three a.m." or "2:45 in the morning". Using both about the same time in a single phrase will make you look/sound silly, though. Don't say "2:45 a.m. in the morning"1. "From 9:15 in the morning to quarter to five p.m." is perhaps idiosyncratic, and might draw odd looks in a formal context, but is in no way wrong.
1: There will likely be edge cases where it's appropriate to say that, but it will arise naturally from the surrounding text - it's likely that, in most analyses, they wouldn't actually be the same phrase. "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. in the morning" could be better rephrased to avoid the apparent redundancy, in the case where it means "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. tomorrow". However, if you parse the apparently-redundant sentence with both "at 7 a.m." and "in the morning" as separate adverbials of time, you can see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.
My sense, from my own experience, is that people usually use the informal "in the morning" when using the casual "quarter to three" in words, and the more formal, technical-sounding "a.m." when using the precise "2:45" in numbers. If you're only mentioning an hour, of course, then there's no difference when speaking aloud, and either might be used.
However, while I say "usually", I suspect that that is not by a significant margin. There's nothing weird or unnatural about "quarter to three a.m." or "2:45 in the morning". Using both about the same time in a single phrase will make you look/sound silly, though. Don't say "2:45 a.m. in the morning"1. "From 9:15 in the morning to quarter to five p.m." is perhaps idiosyncratic, and might draw odd looks in a formal context, but is in no way wrong.
1: There will likely be edge cases where it's appropriate to say that, but it will arise naturally from the surrounding text - it's likely that, in most analyses, they wouldn't actually be the same phrase. "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. in the morning" could be better rephrased to avoid the apparent redundancy, in the case where it means "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. tomorrow". However, if you parse the apparently-redundant sentence with both "at 7 a.m." and "in the morning" as separate adverbials of time, you can see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.
edited 7 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
SamBCSamBC
14.8k1958
14.8k1958
I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
@FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.
– SamBC
7 hours ago
Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
add a comment |
I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
@FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.
– SamBC
7 hours ago
Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
@FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.
– SamBC
7 hours ago
@FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.
– SamBC
7 hours ago
Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
add a comment |
From my initial comment, I personally find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).
But that's very much a personal opinion about style. As regards using both a.m. / p.m. (capitalised on not, with periods or not, according to stylistic preference) and in the morning / afternoon / evening, consider...
"at 7 am in the morning" - about 4510 written instances in Google Books
...where obviously there will be plenty more for the actual word seven, or for other times. I believe it's relevant that in many (but by no means all) those hits, in the morning will mean tomorrow morning. In which case it probably wouldn't even occur to most native speakers that there was any tautologous repetition at all (it simply clarifies the day of the specified time).
There's often also an element of (perfectly idiomatic / natural) emphasis in my example (either or both of a.m. and in the morning could be seen as implying [unusually] early. This isn't so likely with p.m. + in the afternoon, so you won't come across that collocation very often.
But the justification for "clarification / emphasis" certainly re-appears with...
"at 7 pm in the evening" - about 3960 hits in Google Books
Perhaps I should have switched to six p.m. there, to add weight to my point here. Suppose you hear one work colleague say to another, I'll see you at 6 p.m. in the evening. In context, it's extremely likely the speaker expects himself and/or the other person to return home after work before they meet again. Effectively, in the evening is an "additional clarification" element, used to distinguish "working afternoon" from "leisure time evening".
So as you should be able to see, there are contexts where it's absolutely fine to include both "time of day" elements. Arguably it's "clumsy" to do this unless you actually want either the nuance of "emphasis" OR the other associations (morning = early, evening = after work) involved.
Since it might be difficult for non-native speakers to reliably identify which contexts do justify the repetition, and it's undoubtedly true that there will be other more "neutral" contexts where it's noticeably "awkward" to include both, my general rule of thumb would be to avoid it. But if you think you have a context that seems to match the "valid" constructions I've referred to above, don't rule it out. And certainly don't feel you can justifiably criticise any native speaker who does it!
Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)
– J.R.♦
7 hours ago
btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
1
You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (*
= *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.
– userr2684291
6 hours ago
add a comment |
From my initial comment, I personally find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).
But that's very much a personal opinion about style. As regards using both a.m. / p.m. (capitalised on not, with periods or not, according to stylistic preference) and in the morning / afternoon / evening, consider...
"at 7 am in the morning" - about 4510 written instances in Google Books
...where obviously there will be plenty more for the actual word seven, or for other times. I believe it's relevant that in many (but by no means all) those hits, in the morning will mean tomorrow morning. In which case it probably wouldn't even occur to most native speakers that there was any tautologous repetition at all (it simply clarifies the day of the specified time).
There's often also an element of (perfectly idiomatic / natural) emphasis in my example (either or both of a.m. and in the morning could be seen as implying [unusually] early. This isn't so likely with p.m. + in the afternoon, so you won't come across that collocation very often.
But the justification for "clarification / emphasis" certainly re-appears with...
"at 7 pm in the evening" - about 3960 hits in Google Books
Perhaps I should have switched to six p.m. there, to add weight to my point here. Suppose you hear one work colleague say to another, I'll see you at 6 p.m. in the evening. In context, it's extremely likely the speaker expects himself and/or the other person to return home after work before they meet again. Effectively, in the evening is an "additional clarification" element, used to distinguish "working afternoon" from "leisure time evening".
So as you should be able to see, there are contexts where it's absolutely fine to include both "time of day" elements. Arguably it's "clumsy" to do this unless you actually want either the nuance of "emphasis" OR the other associations (morning = early, evening = after work) involved.
Since it might be difficult for non-native speakers to reliably identify which contexts do justify the repetition, and it's undoubtedly true that there will be other more "neutral" contexts where it's noticeably "awkward" to include both, my general rule of thumb would be to avoid it. But if you think you have a context that seems to match the "valid" constructions I've referred to above, don't rule it out. And certainly don't feel you can justifiably criticise any native speaker who does it!
Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)
– J.R.♦
7 hours ago
btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
1
You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (*
= *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.
– userr2684291
6 hours ago
add a comment |
From my initial comment, I personally find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).
But that's very much a personal opinion about style. As regards using both a.m. / p.m. (capitalised on not, with periods or not, according to stylistic preference) and in the morning / afternoon / evening, consider...
"at 7 am in the morning" - about 4510 written instances in Google Books
...where obviously there will be plenty more for the actual word seven, or for other times. I believe it's relevant that in many (but by no means all) those hits, in the morning will mean tomorrow morning. In which case it probably wouldn't even occur to most native speakers that there was any tautologous repetition at all (it simply clarifies the day of the specified time).
There's often also an element of (perfectly idiomatic / natural) emphasis in my example (either or both of a.m. and in the morning could be seen as implying [unusually] early. This isn't so likely with p.m. + in the afternoon, so you won't come across that collocation very often.
But the justification for "clarification / emphasis" certainly re-appears with...
"at 7 pm in the evening" - about 3960 hits in Google Books
Perhaps I should have switched to six p.m. there, to add weight to my point here. Suppose you hear one work colleague say to another, I'll see you at 6 p.m. in the evening. In context, it's extremely likely the speaker expects himself and/or the other person to return home after work before they meet again. Effectively, in the evening is an "additional clarification" element, used to distinguish "working afternoon" from "leisure time evening".
So as you should be able to see, there are contexts where it's absolutely fine to include both "time of day" elements. Arguably it's "clumsy" to do this unless you actually want either the nuance of "emphasis" OR the other associations (morning = early, evening = after work) involved.
Since it might be difficult for non-native speakers to reliably identify which contexts do justify the repetition, and it's undoubtedly true that there will be other more "neutral" contexts where it's noticeably "awkward" to include both, my general rule of thumb would be to avoid it. But if you think you have a context that seems to match the "valid" constructions I've referred to above, don't rule it out. And certainly don't feel you can justifiably criticise any native speaker who does it!
From my initial comment, I personally find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).
But that's very much a personal opinion about style. As regards using both a.m. / p.m. (capitalised on not, with periods or not, according to stylistic preference) and in the morning / afternoon / evening, consider...
"at 7 am in the morning" - about 4510 written instances in Google Books
...where obviously there will be plenty more for the actual word seven, or for other times. I believe it's relevant that in many (but by no means all) those hits, in the morning will mean tomorrow morning. In which case it probably wouldn't even occur to most native speakers that there was any tautologous repetition at all (it simply clarifies the day of the specified time).
There's often also an element of (perfectly idiomatic / natural) emphasis in my example (either or both of a.m. and in the morning could be seen as implying [unusually] early. This isn't so likely with p.m. + in the afternoon, so you won't come across that collocation very often.
But the justification for "clarification / emphasis" certainly re-appears with...
"at 7 pm in the evening" - about 3960 hits in Google Books
Perhaps I should have switched to six p.m. there, to add weight to my point here. Suppose you hear one work colleague say to another, I'll see you at 6 p.m. in the evening. In context, it's extremely likely the speaker expects himself and/or the other person to return home after work before they meet again. Effectively, in the evening is an "additional clarification" element, used to distinguish "working afternoon" from "leisure time evening".
So as you should be able to see, there are contexts where it's absolutely fine to include both "time of day" elements. Arguably it's "clumsy" to do this unless you actually want either the nuance of "emphasis" OR the other associations (morning = early, evening = after work) involved.
Since it might be difficult for non-native speakers to reliably identify which contexts do justify the repetition, and it's undoubtedly true that there will be other more "neutral" contexts where it's noticeably "awkward" to include both, my general rule of thumb would be to avoid it. But if you think you have a context that seems to match the "valid" constructions I've referred to above, don't rule it out. And certainly don't feel you can justifiably criticise any native speaker who does it!
answered 7 hours ago
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
46.1k155123
46.1k155123
Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)
– J.R.♦
7 hours ago
btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
1
You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (*
= *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.
– userr2684291
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)
– J.R.♦
7 hours ago
btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
1
You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (*
= *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.
– userr2684291
6 hours ago
Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)
– J.R.♦
7 hours ago
There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)
– J.R.♦
7 hours ago
btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.
– FumbleFingers
7 hours ago
1
1
You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (
*
= *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.– userr2684291
6 hours ago
You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (
*
= *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.– userr2684291
6 hours ago
add a comment |
You can use either A.M. or in the morning, and P.M. or in the evening. It is incorrect to use both A.M. and in the morning in the same sentence.
In your case, you would be correct in saying It's a quarter to five P.M.
New contributor
1
...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
2
A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
1
If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
3
Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.
– Lorel C.
8 hours ago
2
Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
You can use either A.M. or in the morning, and P.M. or in the evening. It is incorrect to use both A.M. and in the morning in the same sentence.
In your case, you would be correct in saying It's a quarter to five P.M.
New contributor
1
...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
2
A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
1
If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
3
Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.
– Lorel C.
8 hours ago
2
Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
You can use either A.M. or in the morning, and P.M. or in the evening. It is incorrect to use both A.M. and in the morning in the same sentence.
In your case, you would be correct in saying It's a quarter to five P.M.
New contributor
You can use either A.M. or in the morning, and P.M. or in the evening. It is incorrect to use both A.M. and in the morning in the same sentence.
In your case, you would be correct in saying It's a quarter to five P.M.
New contributor
edited 9 hours ago
New contributor
answered 9 hours ago
medicine_manmedicine_man
3538
3538
New contributor
New contributor
1
...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
2
A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
1
If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
3
Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.
– Lorel C.
8 hours ago
2
Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
1
...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
2
A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
1
If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
3
Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.
– Lorel C.
8 hours ago
2
Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
1
1
...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
2
2
A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
1
1
If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).
– FumbleFingers
8 hours ago
3
3
Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.
– Lorel C.
8 hours ago
Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.
– Lorel C.
8 hours ago
2
2
Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.
– medicine_man
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
Yes. No problem in that usage. Make sure both a.m. and p.m. are properly written in lowercase with periods.
I have found an example sentence from NY Times website:
Over the past two weeks, however, a group of hooligans have made a routine of partying on my roof at 3:30 a.m.
And here's another one from Slate, showing something more akin to your example:
No prisoner is allowed under any circumstances to leave his cell after half-past five p.m.
New contributor
2
The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.
– userr2684291
8 hours ago
Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.
– Michael Harvey
7 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.
– FumbleFingers
6 hours ago
Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.
– FumbleFingers
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Yes. No problem in that usage. Make sure both a.m. and p.m. are properly written in lowercase with periods.
I have found an example sentence from NY Times website:
Over the past two weeks, however, a group of hooligans have made a routine of partying on my roof at 3:30 a.m.
And here's another one from Slate, showing something more akin to your example:
No prisoner is allowed under any circumstances to leave his cell after half-past five p.m.
New contributor
2
The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.
– userr2684291
8 hours ago
Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.
– Michael Harvey
7 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.
– FumbleFingers
6 hours ago
Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.
– FumbleFingers
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Yes. No problem in that usage. Make sure both a.m. and p.m. are properly written in lowercase with periods.
I have found an example sentence from NY Times website:
Over the past two weeks, however, a group of hooligans have made a routine of partying on my roof at 3:30 a.m.
And here's another one from Slate, showing something more akin to your example:
No prisoner is allowed under any circumstances to leave his cell after half-past five p.m.
New contributor
Yes. No problem in that usage. Make sure both a.m. and p.m. are properly written in lowercase with periods.
I have found an example sentence from NY Times website:
Over the past two weeks, however, a group of hooligans have made a routine of partying on my roof at 3:30 a.m.
And here's another one from Slate, showing something more akin to your example:
No prisoner is allowed under any circumstances to leave his cell after half-past five p.m.
New contributor
edited 7 hours ago
J.R.♦
100k8129248
100k8129248
New contributor
answered 9 hours ago
Lutfur RahmanLutfur Rahman
367
367
New contributor
New contributor
2
The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.
– userr2684291
8 hours ago
Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.
– Michael Harvey
7 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.
– FumbleFingers
6 hours ago
Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.
– FumbleFingers
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
2
The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.
– userr2684291
8 hours ago
Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.
– Michael Harvey
7 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.
– FumbleFingers
6 hours ago
Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.
– FumbleFingers
5 hours ago
2
2
The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.
– userr2684291
8 hours ago
The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.
– userr2684291
8 hours ago
Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.
– Michael Harvey
7 hours ago
Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.
– Michael Harvey
7 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.
– FumbleFingers
6 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.
– FumbleFingers
6 hours ago
Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.
– Michael Harvey
6 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.
– FumbleFingers
5 hours ago
@MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.
– FumbleFingers
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f202507%2fquarter-to-five-p-m%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
Just a personal opinion, but I find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).
– FumbleFingers
9 hours ago
3
I would say if you want to use 'quarter to five' you should write 'in the morning' in full. If you want to use A.M. or P.M. the you should revert to 'four fourty five A.M.'
– Smock
8 hours ago
Mariya, you can click on the
edit
label under your question if you'd like to include additional examples you're not sure about.– userr2684291
8 hours ago
1
@userr2684291 just fyi, you can put the word edit within square brackets to make it even easier for mariya. Like so: edit
– Aethenosity
7 hours ago