Peter Richardson prichard at LINFIELD.EDU
Thu Mar 27 18:26:11 UTC 2003

Gee, can't we just say "sixty/sixty/twenty-four/seven/fifty-two" and be
sure we're not missing anything? It's a shame to neglect the seconds and
minutes, and these expressions are so much more time-efficient than saying


On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, LeMay, William wrote:

> A colleague of mine gets peeved when people extend the phrase to
> "twenty-four/seven/three-sixty-five", contending that logically it
> should be "twenty-four/seven/fifty-two."

More information about the Ads-l mailing list