How do you pronounce 1/2, 3/2, 2/1?

[Glizdka]

I know fractions are read according to the rule "A cardinal number representing the numerator, followed by the denominator represented as an ordinal number, in plural if the numerator is higher than one". For example:

1/3 - One third
2/5 - Two fifths
7/4 - Seven fourths

However, for some reason, the following examples don't feel right to me.

1/2 - One second (sounds like "A moment".)
3/2 - Three seconds (sounds like "Three units of time, seconds".)
2/1 - Two firsts (just because.)

Am I right, or are they perfectly fine? I really want to avoid using the word 'half' ('halves') and simplifying the fractions for meritorious reasons.

 

[teechar]

Note that 1/2 is special. We use "one/a half" for that.

Also note that when the numerator is higher than the denominator, the fraction is greater than one, in which case, the rule you quoted doesn't apply. In such cases just use [numerator] "over" [denominator].

For example,
11/4: eleven over four.

 

[Glizdka]

Would the examples blow be correct?

1/2 - One over two
3/2 - Three over two
2/1 - Two over one

Also note that when the numerator is higher than the denominator, the fraction is greater than one, in which case, the rule you quoted doesn't apply. In such cases just use [numerator] "over" [denominator].

What if it's equal?

3/3 - "Three thirds", "Three over three", or either?

 

[Glizdka]

Would you believe that I'm writing about animatter, and how a W- boson is comprised of a down quark with an electric charge of "negative one third", and an anti-up quark with an electric charge of "negative two thirds" which collectively give the W- boson an electric charge of "negative three thirds" that is inherited by an electron with an electric charge of "negative one" when a W- boson decays into an electron and an antineutrino?

I believe using "-3/3" rather than "-1" helps the reader follow how a down quark and an anti-up quark have the same electric charge as that of an electron when their electric charges are combined.

 

[GoesStation]

I believe using "-3/3" rather than "-1" helps the reader follow how a down quark and an anti-up quark have the same electric charge as that of an electron when their electric charges are combined.

That would be read minus or negative three over three. I'd use that reading for all charge-related fractions.

For other uses, three halves and seven fourths are fine in American English. "1/1" can only be read "one over one".

 

[jutfrank]

Would you believe that I'm writing about animatter, and how a W- boson is comprised of a down quark with an electric charge of "negative one third", and an anti-up quark with an electric charge of "negative two thirds" which collectively give the W- boson an electric charge of "negative three thirds" that is inherited by an electron with an electric charge of "negative one" when a W- boson decays into an electron and an antineutrino?

Yes, I would! ;-)

I believe using "-3/3" rather than "-1" helps the reader follow how a down quark and an anti-up quark have the same electric charge as that of an electron when their electric charges are combined.

Right.

 

[Rover_KE]

Would you believe that I'm writing about antimatter, ... ?

I don't understand a word about the rest of that paragraph, but the said context should have appeared in post #1 for the benefit of those who do.

 

[abaka]

2/1 is "two over one" or (to be really sticky: see explanation below) "two ones" or "two units". Or, better yet, "two".

I once had a summer job marking the assignments of a first-year calculus course taken by science and engineering students. It was easy to tell the engineering students, because they always express a final numerical answer as something like "2.00 units", using the word "units" when the problem did not involve any actually physical units of measurement, and always specifying two decimal places. Evidently, they had been taught to do so in their engineering courses. Mathematically "one" is the unit of multiplication.

 

[abaka]

Would you believe that I'm writing about animatter, and how a W- boson is comprised of a down quark with an electric charge of "negative one third", and an anti-up quark with an electric charge of "negative two thirds" which collectively give the W- boson an electric charge of "negative three thirds" that is inherited by an electron with an electric charge of "negative one" when a W- boson decays into an electron and an antineutrino?

I believe using "-3/3" rather than "-1" helps the reader follow how a down quark and an anti-up quark have the same electric charge as that of an electron when their electric charges are combined.

If "1/3" is the unit charge in the world of quarks, "-3/3" might perhaps be read as "minus three quarks charge" or something similar.

But you should ask a particle physicist.