Comments on: 10:30 o’clock

By: Barney

Barney — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:02:01 +0000

I don’t think you have to look at the history. I think O’clock is used after single numbers to indicate that they refer to a time, since they could as easily refer to many other things, and three of them (1,2,4) are pronounced the same or similarly as other words.

Phrases like “six-thirty” on the other hand don’t need any extra word to indicate that they refer to times, since there’s little else they could refer to. Possibly a sports score, but its unlikely.

By: Sue

Sue — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 21:04:51 +0000

I’ve heard, though I don’t remember where, that the preferred method would be “half after 10 o’clock.”

By: DebWa

DebWa — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:22:09 +0000

If o’clock is to mean on the clock, and if bells were/are used to signal increments on the clock, then 10:30 o’clock would be appropriate, given the following. My grandmother’s grandfather clock chimed on the hour and on each quarter hour. A smaller bell with a distinct tinny sound signaled one bell for a quarter after, two bells for half past, and three bells for a quarter til. A bolder, louder bell chimed once for each hour.

But if a formal invitation should be written in an affected style, it would seem that “half past”, “quarter past”, “in the morning”, or “in the evening” would be more appropriate than “o’clock”. Today, we have shortened o’clock even further to AM and PM, and either of these would be acceptable, even on the most formal of invitations.

By: sweavo

sweavo — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:07:46 +0000

… “I will come around at ten-thirty o’clock, more later in time than the present now.”

By: sweavo

sweavo — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:06:15 +0000

Jonathon’s wife wins it for me. Ten-thirty o’clock is redundant, hence it hasn’t passed into common usage and sounds clunky.

It’s probably a bad thing I’ve found this blog; I can imagine coming back here a lot to throw time at trivial details… nice work!

By: Melinda

Melinda — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 11:00:05 +0000

Could it be that ‘on the clock’ or ‘of the clock’ is referring to the physical presence of a numeral 10 on the clock? That 10 is ‘of’ or ‘from’ the clock in the same way that Mr Smith may be ‘of’ or ‘from’ London? As in ‘the hour is 10, as indicated by the hour hand pointing at the ten which is of the clock face.’ 10.30 is then an interpretation of time arrived at by noting the relative position of the hands to the 10, rather than 10.30 being a specific location upon a clock face.

By: Jonathon

Jonathon — Thu, 13 May 2010 17:34:19 +0000

I think you’re right that very few people know the etymology, so it’s not the etymology that governs current usage. But it could be that the etymology established the pattern of usage, which has continued throughout the centuries even though the original reason is now irrelevant.

For example, go is missing its original past tense, and we use the suppletive form went instead. We could conceivably say goed, but this sounds strange and wrong, not for etymological reasons, but simply because no one else says it.

My wife also pointed out that “ten-thirty” is unambiguously a time, while “ten” is not, so perhaps there’s some extra justification for using “o’clock” only with whole hours.

By: goofy

goofy — Thu, 13 May 2010 16:28:31 +0000

The etymology of “clock” explains why “o’clock” was used to not refer to fractions of hours, but I don’t think it explains why it sounds strange now to use it with fractions. After all I’ll bet that very few people know the etymology. Or am I being too arrantly pedantic?

By: Esther Sherr

Esther Sherr — Thu, 13 May 2010 05:29:05 +0000

Saying “ten-thirty o’clock” sounds wrong, or at least affected, and if the language on formal invitations is anything, it’s affected. So I suppose it’s OK for formal invitations, since “affected” is the tone they’re shooting for.

I have heard “half past ten o’clock”, though, and that doesn’t jar on the ears nearly as much.