10 would be written "1."

[Ocham]

I think the underlined part is grammatically wrong. It should be "10 would be written as '1.'" Am I right?

It’s not clear exactly when it first appeared, but by the seventh century, if not earlier, the Indians were using a dot as a place-holder, so 10 would be written ‘1.’ and 100, ‘1..’.

 

[boozer]

Adding 'as' is fine, but I do not see the original as grammatically wrong.

 

[perpend]

I agree with boozer. Technically, it gets weird.
-- "'10' would be written '1'" (this is more direct)
-- "'10' would be written as '1'"

Both are fine.

 

[Ocham]

In my dictionary (and all the dictionaries published in Japan), the verb "write" doesn't have the usage like that, but I'll give priority to the actual usage that is currently popular among native speakers. Thak you very much.

 

[PaulQ]

In my dictionary (and all the dictionaries published in Japan), the verb "write" doesn't have the usage like that,

OED: "2 a. To form or delineate (a letter, symbol, ideogram, etc.) on paper or the like with a pen, pencil, etc.; to trace (significant characters) in this manner."

 

[Englishmypassion]

"Write" does take a direct object. Don't you say "Write (verb) your name (object)"?

Though using "as" there is fine too, as the others have said.

 

[entangledbank]

It's the passive that makes this usage possible. In the active, there'd be two similar objects together, and this would be confusing:

They used to write '10' '1.' in early India.
'10' used to be written '1.' in early India.

 

[Ocham]

The usage is only possible when used in the passive voice? Amazing!

 

[Keith Bradford]

No, the form They used to write '10' '1.' in early India is grammatically possible and might well be spoken with a pause and a change of tone after "10". (They used to write ten... one dot in early India ). However, in writing we have to replace the inflections of our voice by written indications. One such indication would be They used to write ten: "1." Another would be to insert 'as'. For certainty's sake, most people would prefer the 'as' version.

 

[Ocham]

Ten:"1" is convincing. I have a clearer understanding now. Thank you very much.

 

[Myridon]

They used to write '10' '1.' in early India.

What did they write in early India?
10' '1.

I'm confused by the periods and quotation marks when you have '1.' at the end of a sentence. How did they write 10? 1? 1.?

 

[RM1(SS)]

As stated in the OP: 1.

 

[Myridon]

As stated in the OP: 1.

What did you just write?

 

[RM1(SS)]

10 = 1.
100 = 1..

As stated in the OP:

10 would be written ‘1.’ and 100, ‘1..’.

 

[Keith Bradford]

To clarify: before the invention of zero, the zero symbol was a dot/period/full stop.

This is a symbol, not a punctuation mark; if in doubt, enclose it with inverted commas.

 

[Myridon]

10 = 1.
100 = 1..

As stated in the OP:

10 is 1 and 100 is 1..
10 is 1. and 100 is 1...
The original post has a difficult to read mixture of " and ' which doesn't help with the . at first (or second or third) glance.
If . is a symbol that stands for 0, the sentence still needs a '.'.

 

[JamesM]

There is a final period in the original sentence:

so 10 would be written ‘1.’ and 100, ‘1..’.

Note the period after '1..'.

 

[Wordsmyth]

All of which argues in favour of logical punctuation rather than typesetters' punctuation.

As a fan of logical punctuation I had no problem understanding the OP, though for added clarity I would use "as" (twice):

... the Indians were using a dot as a place-holder; so 10 would be written as "1.", and 100 as "1..".

Ws

 

[JamesM]

I like yours, Ws. It's very readable.

 

[Wordsmyth]

Thank you, kind sir.