0.5 hectares

Karen123456

Senior Member
Malaysia English
Policy XYZ deals with new larger-scale developments, defined as developments comprising 10 or more dwellings, or taking place in sites of more than 0.5 hectares if the number of dwellings is not given. Those developments are expected to adhere to principles of sustainable energy design. They are expected to pursue first-energy savings through building design and energy-efficient technologies, and to meet the remaining demand by utilising renewable energy. Only as a last resource, they are permitted to use fossil fuels or grid electricity.

Why is it '0.5 hectares' when 0.5 is less than 1? Is it an error?

Many thanks.
 
  • anti-timer

    New Member
    English - Australian
    Is this case we still use the plural. Only with 1 do we say 'hectare'.

    e.g.
    more than 0.5 hectares
    more than 0.2 hectares
    more than 2 hectares
    more than 1 hectare

    You could say 'or taking place in sites of more than half a hectare'. But 'or taking place in sites of more than 0.5 hectares' is perfectly correct in this instance.

    So I guess with decimal points you use hectares, but with fractions you can use hectare.

    0.2 hectares = a/one fifth of a hectare
    0.5 hectares = half a hectare
     
    Last edited:

    M1991

    Member
    English-Urdu
    Does the fact that 0.5 is less than one have some particular significance in this case?

    0.5 hectare is simply defining the size of the site in lieu of any information on the number of dwellings. It must be that 0.5 hectares is the correct size due to some special consideration.

    Ok, got you. After reading it again, it seems to me that you are confused as to why hectares is depicted in the plural form with the number of hectares being less than 1.

    I'm not exactly sure, although I know that we say .5 feet rather than .5 foot.

    I suppose it has to do with the fact that once you withdraw any restrictions on the measurement by converting it to the plural, the meaning is uniform. That is to say, you can write any number in that measurement, without having to qualify in how many sub-units of that measurement it is. I hope that helps.
     

    Karen123456

    Senior Member
    Malaysia English
    Could some member tell me why it is 0.5 hectares? Now that I know that it is not an error, it seems illogical. I presume it should be 1/2 hectare, but how did it come about that it should be 0.5 hectares? :confused:
     
    Last edited:

    Dimcl

    Senior Member
    Canadian English
    Could some member tell me why it is 0.5 hectares? Now that I know that it is nor an error, it seems illogical. I presume it should be 1/2 hectare, but how did it come about that it should be 0.5 hectares? :confused:
    I'm honestly not certain what you're asking, Karen. It could be 0.50 or 0.500 or 0.5000. It just depends on how accurate you want to be as to how many decimals you put into the number. 0.75 = 3/4. 0.3333 = 1/3. 0.50 = 1/2. 0.5 = 1/2.

    Is this what you're enquiring about?
     

    Karen123456

    Senior Member
    Malaysia English
    I'm honestly not certain what you're asking, Karen. It could be 0.50 or 0.500 or 0.5000. It just depends on how accurate you want to be as to how many decimals you put into the number. 0.75 = 3/4. 0.3333 = 1/3. 0.50 = 1/2. 0.5 = 1/2.

    Is this what you're enquiring about?
    No. 0.5 is less than 1. It is 1 hectare but 2, 3, 4... hectares. However, why is it that it should be 0.5 hectares. It seems illogical. Why is it that after a decimal, it should be hectares, not hectare when after a fraction it is followed by a singular noun, as in 1/2 hectare?

    What I want to know is the origin? How it came about?

    I hope it is clearer now.

    Many thanks.
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    It is a convention that comes with using the decimals and using specific units. It no longer follows the "grammar of words" - the way 7 3/4 would be "seven and three quarters" for example - so 3/4 hectare would be said "three quarters of a hectare".

    The way the number "grammar " works is (a number) + (the name of the units being used - in plural form, regardless of the value in the number "part"). As matching mole said, that's the way it is.

    As to the origin, I think it arose from a desire for consistency when discussing numbers: 0.13x and 1.13x would be read "zero point one three x" and "one point one three x" where the verbalized x would be the same and it wouldn't make sense to have them always in the form "of a hectare" or plain "hectare" in the example, so it's plural. It's as "illogical" as the non-agreement of adjectives and their nouns in English, no?
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top