The use of 'at' for numbers representing passengers

[Mehrgan]

Hi there,

Is the following sentence correct when describing a table? (This is not a part of any assignment, and I'm working out different bits of language I can use to describe such charts.)

"As is shown, Tokyo and Paris (having a route of 155 Km and 199 Km respectively) carried the largest numbers of passengers at 1927 and 1191 million."

I'd be most thankful if you could just kindly let me know how any other part doesn't sound natural to you.

 

[cameron206]

I am not a teacher...

..but I think it sounds right, in regards to the use of 'at'.
I might adjust this a tiny bit:

"As is shown, Tokyo and Paris (having [STRIKE]a[/STRIKE] routes of 155 Km and 199 Km respectively) carried the largest numbers of passengers at 1927 and 1191 million."

 

[GoesStation]

In American English I'd write at 1.927 and 1.191 billion, respectively.

 

[emsr2d2]

I wasn't aware that AmE used the full stop (period) there. I associate it with most continental European countries. In BrE, it would "1,927 and 1,191 billion". (For anyone looking at this on a small screen, those are commas.)

 

[Rover_KE]

That's what I thought at first, ems, but GS correctly changed 1,927 million to 1.927 billion.

Mehrgan, I'd expect to see 1,927 and 1,191 million.

 

[bubbha]

I wasn't aware that AmE used the full stop (period) there. I associate it with most continental European countries. In BrE, it would "1,927 and 1,191 billion". (For anyone looking at this on a small screen, those are commas.)

It's a decimal point. In American English, we simply don't put thousands before millions, since a thousand million is a billion.

Aware of the potential for confusion, I have long been an advocate of rounding off to two decimal places before "-illion" words; e.g., 1.93 billion.

 

[Tdol]

In American English, we simply don't put thousands before millions, since a thousand million is a billion.

The billion is the same in normal British English- the milliard has gone from usage.

 

[emsr2d2]

That has clearly passed me by. As far as I'm concerned, a billion is a million million and always has been. I was already aware that it's a thousand million in the USA.

 

[teechar]

a million million

That's a trillion.

 

[GoesStation]

That has clearly passed me by. As far as I'm concerned, a billion is a million million and always has been. I was already aware that it's a thousand million in the USA.

British texts often use thousand million just to avoid confusion. The "long billion" of a thousand million was never widely used in America so a billion is unambiguous over here.

 

[Roman55]

That's a trillion.

I agree with emsr2d2.


And a trillion always used to be, and still is far as I'm concerned, a million million million. (Hence the prefixes bi and tri)

 

[tzfujimino]

[STRIKE]May I ask why "a trillion is a million million million"?[/STRIKE]

 

[tzfujimino]

I've found this explanation: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/how-many-is-a-billion
I understand the issue now.

 

[Tdol]

That has clearly passed me by. As far as I'm concerned, a billion is a million million and always has been. I was already aware that it's a thousand million in the USA.

How much is a billionaire worth to you?

 

[Tdol]

(Hence the prefixes bi and tri)

I would say that the American billion has cleaned up here and maths purity doesn't work.

 

[emsr2d2]

How much is a billionaire worth to you?

It's someone who has at least a billion pounds. That would be £1,000,000,000,000.

It's officially been a thousand million in BrE since about 1974.

I'm really surprised about that. That means it changed before I started school yet throughout my schooling, it was a million million.

 

[Tdol]

I was a mere whippersnapper in secondary school when it changed. :shock:

I don't recall hearing milliard used for 1,000 million.

 

[Rover_KE]

I am beginning to believe that those members who feel I am past my best-by date may be right. :-(

Who are those rotters, Piscean? I'll take my walking-stick to them, so help me!

Buck up, buddy. I reckon I'm the oldest member here (79.5) and there's still plenty of mileage left in this old brain (not so much in the rest of the body, unforch).

 

[Tdol]

(not so much in the rest of the body, unforch).

So, we'll go no more a roving
So late into the night,
Though the heart be still as loving,
And the moon be still as bright.


For the sword outwears its sheath,
And the soul wears out the breast,
And the heart must pause to breathe,
And love itself have rest.


Though the night was made for loving,
And the day returns too soon,
Yet we'll go no more a roving
By the light of the moon.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43845/so-well-go-no-more-a-roving

 

[Rover_KE]