How do you say it: 1 & 1a. vs. 1a. & 1b.

[Illiniwek]

Maybe someone can explain how "1 & 1a." is supposed to make sense, but to me it makes absolutely zero sense. Making this reference is meant to show that two things are basically at the same level (of preference, or whatever). "1 & 1a" suggests the the 1a item is a subcategory under 1. 1a and 1b suggest that there are two items both at the 1 level. It drives me nuts when people say "1 & 1a."

[Ban my account ffs!]

I've literally never heard anyone say either.

One of my big pet peeves is when people say "same difference"... when the difference clearly isn't the same or even vaguely the same, but instead, they are just using it as a dismissal of a correction you were pointing out.  

[dead0man]

1 and 1a is stupid and anybody that does that should have their head checked


1a and 1b are fine, but only if you have MORE than two options, but just two of them are good options.  "how are you going to Chicago dead0man?  well, I have a bunch of options, but the train and driving are 1a and 1b"

[wxtransit]

A and B. Why is it ever logical to jump from 1 to 1a?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

1. a) and b) only makes sense when you're making multiple points with subpoints of their own. So, for example: "1. a) and b) and c); 2.; 3. a) and b)". If you're just going to say "1a. and 1b." there's no reason to not say "1 and 2" or "A and B".

[Illiniwek]

1. a) and b) only makes sense when you're making multiple points with subpoints of their own. So, for example: "1. a) and b) and c); 2.; 3. a) and b)". If you're just going to say "1a. and 1b." there's no reason to not say "1 and 2" or "A and B".

That's fair. But what really triggered me on this issue was a tweet with this text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It depends.  If I'm saving files, it's 1 and 1a, otherwise 1a and 1b.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. a) and b) only makes sense when you're making multiple points with subpoints of their own. So, for example: "1. a) and b) and c); 2.; 3. a) and b)". If you're just going to say "1a. and 1b." there's no reason to not say "1 and 2" or "A and B".

That's fair. But what really triggered me on this issue was a tweet with this text:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is just the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

I can sort of see using that as a way of expressing that a super bowl win was almost but not as important as his marriage.  "1, 2, 3" wouldn't express that, nor would "1a, 1b, 2". "1, 2, 4" might but that's also irksome. 

[SingingAnalyst]

I sometimes say "1", then remember that there's a part (b), so then I say "1B", skipping right over "1A".

[muon2]

I sometimes say "1", then remember that there's a part (b), so then I say "1B", skipping right over "1A".

Most people wouldn't assess it as deeply as you just did. They would list item 1, then realize that they needed two parts to that item and call the second part 1A. A related example I've seen is on toll highways that number sequentially instead of by mile marker. When a new exit is added between exits 5 and 6 it is given the designation 5A to avoid renumbering all the exits after it.

[HillGoose]

i don't under stand

[Illiniwek]

I sometimes say "1", then remember that there's a part (b), so then I say "1B", skipping right over "1A".

Most people wouldn't assess it as deeply as you just did. They would list item 1, then realize that they needed two parts to that item and call the second part 1A. A related example I've seen is on toll highways that number sequentially instead of by mile marker. When a new exit is added between exits 5 and 6 it is given the designation 5A to avoid renumbering all the exits after it.

That's interesting about the highway exists. They really do that instead of changing 5 to 5A and creating a 5B?

[wxtransit]

I sometimes say "1", then remember that there's a part (b), so then I say "1B", skipping right over "1A".

Most people wouldn't assess it as deeply as you just did. They would list item 1, then realize that they needed two parts to that item and call the second part 1A. A related example I've seen is on toll highways that number sequentially instead of by mile marker. When a new exit is added between exits 5 and 6 it is given the designation 5A to avoid renumbering all the exits after it.

That's interesting about the highway exists. They really do that instead of changing 5 to 5A and creating a 5B?

Yep, they don't want to change the old signs.