quarter to five p.m












5















Can I add a.m and p.m to the time? But I have to write time in phrases. So for example:




It's quarter to five p.m.




Is that right or not?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 4





    Just a personal opinion, but I find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago








  • 3





    I would say if you want to use 'quarter to five' you should write 'in the morning' in full. If you want to use A.M. or P.M. the you should revert to 'four fourty five A.M.'

    – Smock
    17 hours ago











  • Mariya, you can click on the edit label under your question if you'd like to include additional examples you're not sure about.

    – userr2684291
    16 hours ago






  • 1





    @userr2684291 just fyi, you can put the word edit within square brackets to make it even easier for mariya. Like so: edit

    – Aethenosity
    16 hours ago


















5















Can I add a.m and p.m to the time? But I have to write time in phrases. So for example:




It's quarter to five p.m.




Is that right or not?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 4





    Just a personal opinion, but I find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago








  • 3





    I would say if you want to use 'quarter to five' you should write 'in the morning' in full. If you want to use A.M. or P.M. the you should revert to 'four fourty five A.M.'

    – Smock
    17 hours ago











  • Mariya, you can click on the edit label under your question if you'd like to include additional examples you're not sure about.

    – userr2684291
    16 hours ago






  • 1





    @userr2684291 just fyi, you can put the word edit within square brackets to make it even easier for mariya. Like so: edit

    – Aethenosity
    16 hours ago
















5












5








5


1






Can I add a.m and p.m to the time? But I have to write time in phrases. So for example:




It's quarter to five p.m.




Is that right or not?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












Can I add a.m and p.m to the time? But I have to write time in phrases. So for example:




It's quarter to five p.m.




Is that right or not?







time






share|improve this question









New contributor




Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 17 hours ago









userr2684291

2,60631532




2,60631532






New contributor




Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 18 hours ago









Mariya DamyanovaMariya Damyanova

242




242




New contributor




Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 4





    Just a personal opinion, but I find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago








  • 3





    I would say if you want to use 'quarter to five' you should write 'in the morning' in full. If you want to use A.M. or P.M. the you should revert to 'four fourty five A.M.'

    – Smock
    17 hours ago











  • Mariya, you can click on the edit label under your question if you'd like to include additional examples you're not sure about.

    – userr2684291
    16 hours ago






  • 1





    @userr2684291 just fyi, you can put the word edit within square brackets to make it even easier for mariya. Like so: edit

    – Aethenosity
    16 hours ago
















  • 4





    Just a personal opinion, but I find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago








  • 3





    I would say if you want to use 'quarter to five' you should write 'in the morning' in full. If you want to use A.M. or P.M. the you should revert to 'four fourty five A.M.'

    – Smock
    17 hours ago











  • Mariya, you can click on the edit label under your question if you'd like to include additional examples you're not sure about.

    – userr2684291
    16 hours ago






  • 1





    @userr2684291 just fyi, you can put the word edit within square brackets to make it even easier for mariya. Like so: edit

    – Aethenosity
    16 hours ago










4




4





Just a personal opinion, but I find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).

– FumbleFingers
17 hours ago







Just a personal opinion, but I find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).

– FumbleFingers
17 hours ago






3




3





I would say if you want to use 'quarter to five' you should write 'in the morning' in full. If you want to use A.M. or P.M. the you should revert to 'four fourty five A.M.'

– Smock
17 hours ago





I would say if you want to use 'quarter to five' you should write 'in the morning' in full. If you want to use A.M. or P.M. the you should revert to 'four fourty five A.M.'

– Smock
17 hours ago













Mariya, you can click on the edit label under your question if you'd like to include additional examples you're not sure about.

– userr2684291
16 hours ago





Mariya, you can click on the edit label under your question if you'd like to include additional examples you're not sure about.

– userr2684291
16 hours ago




1




1





@userr2684291 just fyi, you can put the word edit within square brackets to make it even easier for mariya. Like so: edit

– Aethenosity
16 hours ago







@userr2684291 just fyi, you can put the word edit within square brackets to make it even easier for mariya. Like so: edit

– Aethenosity
16 hours ago












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















5














My sense, from my own experience, is that people usually use the informal "in the morning" when using the casual "quarter to three" in words, and the more formal, technical-sounding "a.m." when using the precise "2:45" in numbers. If you're only mentioning an hour, of course, then there's no difference when speaking aloud, and either might be used.



However, while I say "usually", I suspect that that is not by a significant margin. There's nothing weird or unnatural about "quarter to three a.m." or "2:45 in the morning". Using both about the same time in a single phrase will make you look/sound silly, though. Don't say "2:45 a.m. in the morning"1. "From 9:15 in the morning to quarter to five p.m." is perhaps idiosyncratic, and might draw odd looks in a formal context, but is in no way wrong.





1: There will likely be edge cases where it's appropriate to say that, but it will arise naturally from the surrounding text - it's likely that, in most analyses, they wouldn't actually be the same phrase. "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. in the morning" could be better rephrased to avoid the apparent redundancy, in the case where it means "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. tomorrow". However, if you parse the apparently-redundant sentence with both "at 7 a.m." and "in the morning" as separate adverbials of time, you can see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.






share|improve this answer


























  • I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".

    – FumbleFingers
    16 hours ago











  • @FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.

    – SamBC
    16 hours ago













  • Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago



















3














From my initial comment, I personally find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).



But that's very much a personal opinion about style. As regards using both a.m. / p.m. (capitalised on not, with periods or not, according to stylistic preference) and in the morning / afternoon / evening, consider...




"at 7 am in the morning" - about 4510 written instances in Google Books




...where obviously there will be plenty more for the actual word seven, or for other times. I believe it's relevant that in many (but by no means all) those hits, in the morning will mean tomorrow morning. In which case it probably wouldn't even occur to most native speakers that there was any tautologous repetition at all (it simply clarifies the day of the specified time).



There's often also an element of (perfectly idiomatic / natural) emphasis in my example (either or both of a.m. and in the morning could be seen as implying [unusually] early. This isn't so likely with p.m. + in the afternoon, so you won't come across that collocation very often.



But the justification for "clarification / emphasis" certainly re-appears with...




"at 7 pm in the evening" - about 3960 hits in Google Books




Perhaps I should have switched to six p.m. there, to add weight to my point here. Suppose you hear one work colleague say to another, I'll see you at 6 p.m. in the evening. In context, it's extremely likely the speaker expects himself and/or the other person to return home after work before they meet again. Effectively, in the evening is an "additional clarification" element, used to distinguish "working afternoon" from "leisure time evening".





So as you should be able to see, there are contexts where it's absolutely fine to include both "time of day" elements. Arguably it's "clumsy" to do this unless you actually want either the nuance of "emphasis" OR the other associations (morning = early, evening = after work) involved.



Since it might be difficult for non-native speakers to reliably identify which contexts do justify the repetition, and it's undoubtedly true that there will be other more "neutral" contexts where it's noticeably "awkward" to include both, my general rule of thumb would be to avoid it. But if you think you have a context that seems to match the "valid" constructions I've referred to above, don't rule it out. And certainly don't feel you can justifiably criticise any native speaker who does it!






share|improve this answer
























  • Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!

    – FumbleFingers
    16 hours ago











  • There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)

    – J.R.
    16 hours ago













  • btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago








  • 1





    You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (* = *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.

    – userr2684291
    15 hours ago



















0














You can use either A.M. or in the morning, and P.M. or in the evening. It is incorrect to use both A.M. and in the morning in the same sentence.



In your case, you would be correct in saying It's a quarter to five P.M.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




medicine_man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    ...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago






  • 2





    A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.

    – medicine_man
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago








  • 3





    Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.

    – Lorel C.
    17 hours ago






  • 2





    Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.

    – medicine_man
    17 hours ago





















-1














Yes. No problem in that usage. Make sure both a.m. and p.m. are properly written in lowercase with periods.



I have found an example sentence from NY Times website:




Over the past two weeks, however, a group of hooligans have made a routine of partying on my roof at 3:30 a.m.




And here's another one from Slate, showing something more akin to your example:




No prisoner is allowed under any circumstances to leave his cell after half-past five p.m.







share|improve this answer










New contributor




Lutfur Rahman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 2





    The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.

    – userr2684291
    16 hours ago











  • Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.

    – Michael Harvey
    15 hours ago













  • @MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago













  • Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.

    – Michael Harvey
    14 hours ago











  • @MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.

    – FumbleFingers
    14 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f202507%2fquarter-to-five-p-m%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5














My sense, from my own experience, is that people usually use the informal "in the morning" when using the casual "quarter to three" in words, and the more formal, technical-sounding "a.m." when using the precise "2:45" in numbers. If you're only mentioning an hour, of course, then there's no difference when speaking aloud, and either might be used.



However, while I say "usually", I suspect that that is not by a significant margin. There's nothing weird or unnatural about "quarter to three a.m." or "2:45 in the morning". Using both about the same time in a single phrase will make you look/sound silly, though. Don't say "2:45 a.m. in the morning"1. "From 9:15 in the morning to quarter to five p.m." is perhaps idiosyncratic, and might draw odd looks in a formal context, but is in no way wrong.





1: There will likely be edge cases where it's appropriate to say that, but it will arise naturally from the surrounding text - it's likely that, in most analyses, they wouldn't actually be the same phrase. "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. in the morning" could be better rephrased to avoid the apparent redundancy, in the case where it means "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. tomorrow". However, if you parse the apparently-redundant sentence with both "at 7 a.m." and "in the morning" as separate adverbials of time, you can see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.






share|improve this answer


























  • I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".

    – FumbleFingers
    16 hours ago











  • @FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.

    – SamBC
    16 hours ago













  • Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago
















5














My sense, from my own experience, is that people usually use the informal "in the morning" when using the casual "quarter to three" in words, and the more formal, technical-sounding "a.m." when using the precise "2:45" in numbers. If you're only mentioning an hour, of course, then there's no difference when speaking aloud, and either might be used.



However, while I say "usually", I suspect that that is not by a significant margin. There's nothing weird or unnatural about "quarter to three a.m." or "2:45 in the morning". Using both about the same time in a single phrase will make you look/sound silly, though. Don't say "2:45 a.m. in the morning"1. "From 9:15 in the morning to quarter to five p.m." is perhaps idiosyncratic, and might draw odd looks in a formal context, but is in no way wrong.





1: There will likely be edge cases where it's appropriate to say that, but it will arise naturally from the surrounding text - it's likely that, in most analyses, they wouldn't actually be the same phrase. "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. in the morning" could be better rephrased to avoid the apparent redundancy, in the case where it means "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. tomorrow". However, if you parse the apparently-redundant sentence with both "at 7 a.m." and "in the morning" as separate adverbials of time, you can see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.






share|improve this answer


























  • I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".

    – FumbleFingers
    16 hours ago











  • @FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.

    – SamBC
    16 hours ago













  • Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago














5












5








5







My sense, from my own experience, is that people usually use the informal "in the morning" when using the casual "quarter to three" in words, and the more formal, technical-sounding "a.m." when using the precise "2:45" in numbers. If you're only mentioning an hour, of course, then there's no difference when speaking aloud, and either might be used.



However, while I say "usually", I suspect that that is not by a significant margin. There's nothing weird or unnatural about "quarter to three a.m." or "2:45 in the morning". Using both about the same time in a single phrase will make you look/sound silly, though. Don't say "2:45 a.m. in the morning"1. "From 9:15 in the morning to quarter to five p.m." is perhaps idiosyncratic, and might draw odd looks in a formal context, but is in no way wrong.





1: There will likely be edge cases where it's appropriate to say that, but it will arise naturally from the surrounding text - it's likely that, in most analyses, they wouldn't actually be the same phrase. "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. in the morning" could be better rephrased to avoid the apparent redundancy, in the case where it means "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. tomorrow". However, if you parse the apparently-redundant sentence with both "at 7 a.m." and "in the morning" as separate adverbials of time, you can see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.






share|improve this answer















My sense, from my own experience, is that people usually use the informal "in the morning" when using the casual "quarter to three" in words, and the more formal, technical-sounding "a.m." when using the precise "2:45" in numbers. If you're only mentioning an hour, of course, then there's no difference when speaking aloud, and either might be used.



However, while I say "usually", I suspect that that is not by a significant margin. There's nothing weird or unnatural about "quarter to three a.m." or "2:45 in the morning". Using both about the same time in a single phrase will make you look/sound silly, though. Don't say "2:45 a.m. in the morning"1. "From 9:15 in the morning to quarter to five p.m." is perhaps idiosyncratic, and might draw odd looks in a formal context, but is in no way wrong.





1: There will likely be edge cases where it's appropriate to say that, but it will arise naturally from the surrounding text - it's likely that, in most analyses, they wouldn't actually be the same phrase. "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. in the morning" could be better rephrased to avoid the apparent redundancy, in the case where it means "I'm leaving at 7 a.m. tomorrow". However, if you parse the apparently-redundant sentence with both "at 7 a.m." and "in the morning" as separate adverbials of time, you can see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 16 hours ago

























answered 16 hours ago









SamBCSamBC

14.8k1958




14.8k1958













  • I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".

    – FumbleFingers
    16 hours ago











  • @FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.

    – SamBC
    16 hours ago













  • Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago



















  • I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".

    – FumbleFingers
    16 hours ago











  • @FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.

    – SamBC
    16 hours ago













  • Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago

















I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".

– FumbleFingers
16 hours ago





I agree the "aptness" of including relatively formal a.m. / p.m. varies somewhat according to whether it's coupled with (again, relatively formal) two forty-five or with (relatively informal) quarter to three. I'm not sure if it would be possible to find statistical support in Google Books showing that usage skews in favour of what we both seem to think are the more "natural" combinations, but I certainly wouldn't rule that out. In which case arguably what we're saying would be a matter of "verifiable truth", rather than "personal opinions / stylistic preference".

– FumbleFingers
16 hours ago













@FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.

– SamBC
16 hours ago







@FumbleFingers Well, for me it's what my impression is, of what I've experienced. Utterly unverifiable, but also working with a lot of stuff that won't be on ngram.

– SamBC
16 hours ago















Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.

– FumbleFingers
15 hours ago





Well, your later edit brings more attention to what I consider to be another relevant factor besides the "formal / informal clash". In some contexts, I can certainly see that in the morning and a.m. aren't part of the same phrase.

– FumbleFingers
15 hours ago













3














From my initial comment, I personally find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).



But that's very much a personal opinion about style. As regards using both a.m. / p.m. (capitalised on not, with periods or not, according to stylistic preference) and in the morning / afternoon / evening, consider...




"at 7 am in the morning" - about 4510 written instances in Google Books




...where obviously there will be plenty more for the actual word seven, or for other times. I believe it's relevant that in many (but by no means all) those hits, in the morning will mean tomorrow morning. In which case it probably wouldn't even occur to most native speakers that there was any tautologous repetition at all (it simply clarifies the day of the specified time).



There's often also an element of (perfectly idiomatic / natural) emphasis in my example (either or both of a.m. and in the morning could be seen as implying [unusually] early. This isn't so likely with p.m. + in the afternoon, so you won't come across that collocation very often.



But the justification for "clarification / emphasis" certainly re-appears with...




"at 7 pm in the evening" - about 3960 hits in Google Books




Perhaps I should have switched to six p.m. there, to add weight to my point here. Suppose you hear one work colleague say to another, I'll see you at 6 p.m. in the evening. In context, it's extremely likely the speaker expects himself and/or the other person to return home after work before they meet again. Effectively, in the evening is an "additional clarification" element, used to distinguish "working afternoon" from "leisure time evening".





So as you should be able to see, there are contexts where it's absolutely fine to include both "time of day" elements. Arguably it's "clumsy" to do this unless you actually want either the nuance of "emphasis" OR the other associations (morning = early, evening = after work) involved.



Since it might be difficult for non-native speakers to reliably identify which contexts do justify the repetition, and it's undoubtedly true that there will be other more "neutral" contexts where it's noticeably "awkward" to include both, my general rule of thumb would be to avoid it. But if you think you have a context that seems to match the "valid" constructions I've referred to above, don't rule it out. And certainly don't feel you can justifiably criticise any native speaker who does it!






share|improve this answer
























  • Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!

    – FumbleFingers
    16 hours ago











  • There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)

    – J.R.
    16 hours ago













  • btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago








  • 1





    You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (* = *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.

    – userr2684291
    15 hours ago
















3














From my initial comment, I personally find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).



But that's very much a personal opinion about style. As regards using both a.m. / p.m. (capitalised on not, with periods or not, according to stylistic preference) and in the morning / afternoon / evening, consider...




"at 7 am in the morning" - about 4510 written instances in Google Books




...where obviously there will be plenty more for the actual word seven, or for other times. I believe it's relevant that in many (but by no means all) those hits, in the morning will mean tomorrow morning. In which case it probably wouldn't even occur to most native speakers that there was any tautologous repetition at all (it simply clarifies the day of the specified time).



There's often also an element of (perfectly idiomatic / natural) emphasis in my example (either or both of a.m. and in the morning could be seen as implying [unusually] early. This isn't so likely with p.m. + in the afternoon, so you won't come across that collocation very often.



But the justification for "clarification / emphasis" certainly re-appears with...




"at 7 pm in the evening" - about 3960 hits in Google Books




Perhaps I should have switched to six p.m. there, to add weight to my point here. Suppose you hear one work colleague say to another, I'll see you at 6 p.m. in the evening. In context, it's extremely likely the speaker expects himself and/or the other person to return home after work before they meet again. Effectively, in the evening is an "additional clarification" element, used to distinguish "working afternoon" from "leisure time evening".





So as you should be able to see, there are contexts where it's absolutely fine to include both "time of day" elements. Arguably it's "clumsy" to do this unless you actually want either the nuance of "emphasis" OR the other associations (morning = early, evening = after work) involved.



Since it might be difficult for non-native speakers to reliably identify which contexts do justify the repetition, and it's undoubtedly true that there will be other more "neutral" contexts where it's noticeably "awkward" to include both, my general rule of thumb would be to avoid it. But if you think you have a context that seems to match the "valid" constructions I've referred to above, don't rule it out. And certainly don't feel you can justifiably criticise any native speaker who does it!






share|improve this answer
























  • Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!

    – FumbleFingers
    16 hours ago











  • There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)

    – J.R.
    16 hours ago













  • btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago








  • 1





    You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (* = *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.

    – userr2684291
    15 hours ago














3












3








3







From my initial comment, I personally find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).



But that's very much a personal opinion about style. As regards using both a.m. / p.m. (capitalised on not, with periods or not, according to stylistic preference) and in the morning / afternoon / evening, consider...




"at 7 am in the morning" - about 4510 written instances in Google Books




...where obviously there will be plenty more for the actual word seven, or for other times. I believe it's relevant that in many (but by no means all) those hits, in the morning will mean tomorrow morning. In which case it probably wouldn't even occur to most native speakers that there was any tautologous repetition at all (it simply clarifies the day of the specified time).



There's often also an element of (perfectly idiomatic / natural) emphasis in my example (either or both of a.m. and in the morning could be seen as implying [unusually] early. This isn't so likely with p.m. + in the afternoon, so you won't come across that collocation very often.



But the justification for "clarification / emphasis" certainly re-appears with...




"at 7 pm in the evening" - about 3960 hits in Google Books




Perhaps I should have switched to six p.m. there, to add weight to my point here. Suppose you hear one work colleague say to another, I'll see you at 6 p.m. in the evening. In context, it's extremely likely the speaker expects himself and/or the other person to return home after work before they meet again. Effectively, in the evening is an "additional clarification" element, used to distinguish "working afternoon" from "leisure time evening".





So as you should be able to see, there are contexts where it's absolutely fine to include both "time of day" elements. Arguably it's "clumsy" to do this unless you actually want either the nuance of "emphasis" OR the other associations (morning = early, evening = after work) involved.



Since it might be difficult for non-native speakers to reliably identify which contexts do justify the repetition, and it's undoubtedly true that there will be other more "neutral" contexts where it's noticeably "awkward" to include both, my general rule of thumb would be to avoid it. But if you think you have a context that seems to match the "valid" constructions I've referred to above, don't rule it out. And certainly don't feel you can justifiably criticise any native speaker who does it!






share|improve this answer













From my initial comment, I personally find the juxtaposition of "colloquial" quarter to [hour] and "formal, official" p.m. quite jarring in the example as given. I'd much prefer either It's quarter to five in the afternoon or It's four forty-five p.m. (or go the whole hog with military time; It's sixteen forty-five).



But that's very much a personal opinion about style. As regards using both a.m. / p.m. (capitalised on not, with periods or not, according to stylistic preference) and in the morning / afternoon / evening, consider...




"at 7 am in the morning" - about 4510 written instances in Google Books




...where obviously there will be plenty more for the actual word seven, or for other times. I believe it's relevant that in many (but by no means all) those hits, in the morning will mean tomorrow morning. In which case it probably wouldn't even occur to most native speakers that there was any tautologous repetition at all (it simply clarifies the day of the specified time).



There's often also an element of (perfectly idiomatic / natural) emphasis in my example (either or both of a.m. and in the morning could be seen as implying [unusually] early. This isn't so likely with p.m. + in the afternoon, so you won't come across that collocation very often.



But the justification for "clarification / emphasis" certainly re-appears with...




"at 7 pm in the evening" - about 3960 hits in Google Books




Perhaps I should have switched to six p.m. there, to add weight to my point here. Suppose you hear one work colleague say to another, I'll see you at 6 p.m. in the evening. In context, it's extremely likely the speaker expects himself and/or the other person to return home after work before they meet again. Effectively, in the evening is an "additional clarification" element, used to distinguish "working afternoon" from "leisure time evening".





So as you should be able to see, there are contexts where it's absolutely fine to include both "time of day" elements. Arguably it's "clumsy" to do this unless you actually want either the nuance of "emphasis" OR the other associations (morning = early, evening = after work) involved.



Since it might be difficult for non-native speakers to reliably identify which contexts do justify the repetition, and it's undoubtedly true that there will be other more "neutral" contexts where it's noticeably "awkward" to include both, my general rule of thumb would be to avoid it. But if you think you have a context that seems to match the "valid" constructions I've referred to above, don't rule it out. And certainly don't feel you can justifiably criticise any native speaker who does it!







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 16 hours ago









FumbleFingersFumbleFingers

46.1k155123




46.1k155123













  • Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!

    – FumbleFingers
    16 hours ago











  • There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)

    – J.R.
    16 hours ago













  • btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago








  • 1





    You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (* = *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.

    – userr2684291
    15 hours ago



















  • Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!

    – FumbleFingers
    16 hours ago











  • There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)

    – J.R.
    16 hours ago













  • btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago








  • 1





    You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (* = *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.

    – userr2684291
    15 hours ago

















Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!

– FumbleFingers
16 hours ago





Oh wow! Two downvotes! This one could get interesting!

– FumbleFingers
16 hours ago













There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)

– J.R.
16 hours ago







There seems to be a lot of helpful advice here, and, to your credit, you're not being dogmatic about anything. Count me among the upvoters. I'm curious about what the downvoters might have disagreed with. (One thing I will say, though, is that you overstate the number of hits on Google. Go to Page 2, and those 3960 hits dwindle down to 11. Still, this is very hard to gauge using Google, because there are twelve hours in a day that could all be used. This query is a good one.)

– J.R.
16 hours ago















btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.

– FumbleFingers
15 hours ago







btw - does "asterisk" (the symbol I can't actually write here in a comment) actually work in Google Internet searches? I seem to remember it doesn't in Google Books, but does in NGrams.

– FumbleFingers
15 hours ago






1




1





You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (* = *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.

– userr2684291
15 hours ago





You can escape an asterisk in comments by putting a backslash in front of it (* = *). Yes, the asterisk works in Google Books, where it replaces any number of words, I believe. In the Google Books Ngram Viewer it replaces a single word.

– userr2684291
15 hours ago











0














You can use either A.M. or in the morning, and P.M. or in the evening. It is incorrect to use both A.M. and in the morning in the same sentence.



In your case, you would be correct in saying It's a quarter to five P.M.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




medicine_man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    ...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago






  • 2





    A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.

    – medicine_man
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago








  • 3





    Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.

    – Lorel C.
    17 hours ago






  • 2





    Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.

    – medicine_man
    17 hours ago


















0














You can use either A.M. or in the morning, and P.M. or in the evening. It is incorrect to use both A.M. and in the morning in the same sentence.



In your case, you would be correct in saying It's a quarter to five P.M.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




medicine_man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 1





    ...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago






  • 2





    A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.

    – medicine_man
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago








  • 3





    Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.

    – Lorel C.
    17 hours ago






  • 2





    Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.

    – medicine_man
    17 hours ago
















0












0








0







You can use either A.M. or in the morning, and P.M. or in the evening. It is incorrect to use both A.M. and in the morning in the same sentence.



In your case, you would be correct in saying It's a quarter to five P.M.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




medicine_man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










You can use either A.M. or in the morning, and P.M. or in the evening. It is incorrect to use both A.M. and in the morning in the same sentence.



In your case, you would be correct in saying It's a quarter to five P.M.







share|improve this answer










New contributor




medicine_man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 17 hours ago





















New contributor




medicine_man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 17 hours ago









medicine_manmedicine_man

3538




3538




New contributor




medicine_man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





medicine_man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






medicine_man is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 1





    ...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago






  • 2





    A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.

    – medicine_man
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago








  • 3





    Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.

    – Lorel C.
    17 hours ago






  • 2





    Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.

    – medicine_man
    17 hours ago
















  • 1





    ...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago






  • 2





    A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.

    – medicine_man
    17 hours ago






  • 1





    If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).

    – FumbleFingers
    17 hours ago








  • 3





    Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.

    – Lorel C.
    17 hours ago






  • 2





    Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.

    – medicine_man
    17 hours ago










1




1





...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.

– FumbleFingers
17 hours ago





...sorry, but on reflection, the downvote stands. It's often ugly and unnecessary tautology to include both "temporal clarifiers", but they can have different nuances, and there are contexts where it's perfectly okay to include both. Your "incorrect" is an inaccurate sweeping generalisation.

– FumbleFingers
17 hours ago




2




2





A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.

– medicine_man
17 hours ago





A.M. and P.M. refer to a period within a day. Adding a phrase like in the morning or in the afternooon after A.M. or P.M. is redundant, and thus incorrect.

– medicine_man
17 hours ago




1




1





If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).

– FumbleFingers
17 hours ago







If I could downvote comments, I surely would! Where did you get the idea that redundancy is "incorrect" in English? It's extremely common (and natural, in many contexts).

– FumbleFingers
17 hours ago






3




3





Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.

– Lorel C.
17 hours ago





Just because lots of people have used it in writing doesn't make it automatically correct. Look up "the dangerous of". That one occurs a lot, but it still isn't right.

– Lorel C.
17 hours ago




2




2





Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.

– medicine_man
17 hours ago







Extremely common and natural do not equate to it being correct in the formal language. Everyone misuses phrases all the time in spoken/informal English, where issues like this are not a problem. However, formally, this phrase would be incorrect.

– medicine_man
17 hours ago













-1














Yes. No problem in that usage. Make sure both a.m. and p.m. are properly written in lowercase with periods.



I have found an example sentence from NY Times website:




Over the past two weeks, however, a group of hooligans have made a routine of partying on my roof at 3:30 a.m.




And here's another one from Slate, showing something more akin to your example:




No prisoner is allowed under any circumstances to leave his cell after half-past five p.m.







share|improve this answer










New contributor




Lutfur Rahman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 2





    The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.

    – userr2684291
    16 hours ago











  • Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.

    – Michael Harvey
    15 hours ago













  • @MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago













  • Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.

    – Michael Harvey
    14 hours ago











  • @MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.

    – FumbleFingers
    14 hours ago
















-1














Yes. No problem in that usage. Make sure both a.m. and p.m. are properly written in lowercase with periods.



I have found an example sentence from NY Times website:




Over the past two weeks, however, a group of hooligans have made a routine of partying on my roof at 3:30 a.m.




And here's another one from Slate, showing something more akin to your example:




No prisoner is allowed under any circumstances to leave his cell after half-past five p.m.







share|improve this answer










New contributor




Lutfur Rahman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
















  • 2





    The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.

    – userr2684291
    16 hours ago











  • Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.

    – Michael Harvey
    15 hours ago













  • @MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago













  • Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.

    – Michael Harvey
    14 hours ago











  • @MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.

    – FumbleFingers
    14 hours ago














-1












-1








-1







Yes. No problem in that usage. Make sure both a.m. and p.m. are properly written in lowercase with periods.



I have found an example sentence from NY Times website:




Over the past two weeks, however, a group of hooligans have made a routine of partying on my roof at 3:30 a.m.




And here's another one from Slate, showing something more akin to your example:




No prisoner is allowed under any circumstances to leave his cell after half-past five p.m.







share|improve this answer










New contributor




Lutfur Rahman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










Yes. No problem in that usage. Make sure both a.m. and p.m. are properly written in lowercase with periods.



I have found an example sentence from NY Times website:




Over the past two weeks, however, a group of hooligans have made a routine of partying on my roof at 3:30 a.m.




And here's another one from Slate, showing something more akin to your example:




No prisoner is allowed under any circumstances to leave his cell after half-past five p.m.








share|improve this answer










New contributor




Lutfur Rahman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 16 hours ago









J.R.

100k8129248




100k8129248






New contributor




Lutfur Rahman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 18 hours ago









Lutfur RahmanLutfur Rahman

367




367




New contributor




Lutfur Rahman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Lutfur Rahman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Lutfur Rahman is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 2





    The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.

    – userr2684291
    16 hours ago











  • Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.

    – Michael Harvey
    15 hours ago













  • @MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago













  • Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.

    – Michael Harvey
    14 hours ago











  • @MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.

    – FumbleFingers
    14 hours ago














  • 2





    The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.

    – userr2684291
    16 hours ago











  • Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.

    – Michael Harvey
    15 hours ago













  • @MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.

    – FumbleFingers
    15 hours ago













  • Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.

    – Michael Harvey
    14 hours ago











  • @MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.

    – FumbleFingers
    14 hours ago








2




2





The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.

– userr2684291
16 hours ago





The punctuation of AM is not universally agreed upon, and largely depends on which style guide you subscribe to.

– userr2684291
16 hours ago













Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.

– Michael Harvey
15 hours ago







Lutfur Rahman - "properly written" for the UK Guardian is 1am, 6.30pm, full stop between hour and minute figures. No spacing, lower case, no "periods" in am or pm. Beware of assuming that a local convention (or what you are used to) is a universal rule.

– Michael Harvey
15 hours ago















@MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.

– FumbleFingers
15 hours ago







@MichaelHarvey: From The Guardian ...the school opened its doors at 7 am. That's just the first example I saw from a site-specific search (second, actually; the first was a user comment, not journalist's copy). But maybe that's just showing us why we used to call it The Grauniad :) There seem to be plenty of examples with both orthographies.

– FumbleFingers
15 hours ago















Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.

– Michael Harvey
14 hours ago





Yes, journalists do disregard their publication's style guide. You should take a look at some of the stuff in the Daily Express.

– Michael Harvey
14 hours ago













@MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.

– FumbleFingers
14 hours ago





@MichaelHarvey: I'll be seeing a journalist friend of mine in a couple of days (provincial newspaper, not the nationals), so if I remember, I'll ask him whether they advise on "preferred style" down to this level. FWIW though, my general impression is that over recent decades, BrE has moved more towards reduced punctuation than AmE, so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out Guardian / London Times writers are told to use am, whereas The New York Times might be still telling people to use a.m.

– FumbleFingers
14 hours ago










Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Mariya Damyanova is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f202507%2fquarter-to-five-p-m%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029