question about identifying CLDR coverage % for Amharic
emmo at us.ibm.com
Sun Feb 26 21:34:33 CST 2017
Both varieties ( one thousand eight hundred ) and ( eighteen hundred ) are
supported in CLDR.
Use "%spellout-numbering-year" for the latter, while simply
"%spellout-numbering" for the former.
John C. Emmons
Senior Software Engineer
Unicode CLDR TC Vice Chairman
IBM Global Foundations Technology Team
e-mail: emmo at us.ibm.com
From: Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com>
To: cldr-users at unicode.org
Date: 02/25/2017 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: question about identifying CLDR coverage % for Amharic
Sent by: "CLDR-Users" <cldr-users-bounces at unicode.org>
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:22:49 +0100
Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 2017-02-24 22:42 GMT+01:00 Richard Wordingham <
> richard.wordingham at ntlworld.com>:
> > There is a data synchronisation issue, unfortunately. Is 1800
> > "eighteen hundred" or "one thousand eight hundred"?
> Both are valid, but not at the same ranks in term of use, depending
> on the context. The former is mostly encountered in dates (for years,
> which are not really cardinal quantities, but discrete ordinal
> values). But the generic pattern focuses on generic numbers for
> quantities (discrete or not). If used with amounts of currencies,
> "eithen hundreds dollars" is possible and understood, but rare.
True, it's normally "eighteen hundred pounds" in en_GB. -:) More
seriously, the relative appears to vary significantly, and it may well
be that in the lack of contextual information, en_GB and en_US should
perhaps have different spell out rules.
The synchronisation required would be between the plural rules and the
spell-out rules - unless I've missed a feature in the spell-out rules
that would make the plural rules redundant in this case.
CLDR-Users mailing list
CLDR-Users at unicode.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CLDR-Users