# half five



## andersxman

please help me to find out whether half five is a correct way of saying that it is half past five. A bet is on, and I am sure that not all English native speakers agree on whether or not it is to be considered correct English - it is probably a borderliner, so tell me  what you think and let's see what the majority think!


----------



## sloopjc

The time is spoken in this manner by many, and is fully understood. Whether it is correct to say, depends on who you listen to.


----------



## sound shift

Many people say it, but I don't.


----------



## Brave1

I have never heard the time told in that manner. I really makes no sense to me to say "half five" but I live in the U.S. and maybe this is used in some other English speaking countries?


----------



## la reine victoria

"Half five" would be understood by all native BE speakers.

"I finish work at half five." (5.30)

LRV


----------



## mgarizona

Yes, to AE ears makes no sense whatsoever. 

(My guess would have been that it meant 4:30, not 5:30. Oh well.)


----------



## kalamazoo

"Half five" for 5:30 wouldn't be understood by many (most?) US English speakers, and it might be interpreted as 4:30, not 5:30


----------



## liulia

I think everyone in Ireland - and probably most people in the UK - would understand "half five".


----------



## wildan1

"half five" is not AE--you would have to say "half _past_ five" to be understood in the US. Otherwise it sounds like a sort of strange way of saying 2 1/2.

(it left me clueless the first time I heard it in the UK--and because I speak German, confused. German _halb fünf_ does in fact mean 4:30!)


----------



## JamesM

mgarizona said:


> Yes, to AE ears makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> (My guess would have been that it meant 4:30, not 5:30. Oh well.)


 
I would have guessed the same thing.     I'm just another voice agreeing that in AE it would be very confusing.  I have never heard it before.


----------



## winklepicker

Certainly colloquial where I live. I would not expect to see it in writing - except perhaps in reported speech.


----------



## nychic47

JamesM said:


> I would have guessed the same thing.  I'm just another voice agreeing that in AE it would be very confusing. I have never heard it before.


 
I agree with this, not very many people that speak AE have heard of this quote and knows what it really means


----------



## andersxman

Great, thank you so much for your contributions. Now, I was the one claiming that using this phrase was correct, my counterpart said it was incorrect. I would now say that it is a split decision with no clear majority! But maybe it's one up for me because it is commonly used in both the UK and Downunder + Ireland!... He he...


----------



## haks

wildan1 said:


> "half five" is not AE--you would have to say "half _past_ five" to be understood in the US. Otherwise it sounds like a sort of strange way of saying 2 1/2.
> 
> (it left me clueless the first time I heard it in the UK--and because I speak German, confused. German _halb fünf_ does in fact mean 4:30!)


 

'Half five' is 4.30 in UK English and in most European languages, as in the Dutch 'half vijf'.

I've not heard this usage for time in Australian or NZ English, not by native speakers anyway.

Haks


----------



## natkretep

Half five is 5.30 for me - but then I have lived in the UK. I continue to use it here and it's never been misunderstood, as far as I'm aware!

It might be relevant also that the other major languages (Chinese, Malay) here - unlike German or Dutch - here have expressions that are similar to _half five_.


----------



## Loob

Welcome to the forums, haks


haks said:


> 'Half five' is 4.30 in UK English and in most European languages, as in the Dutch 'half vijf'.


Not so, I'm afraid.  Unlike the similar-sounding expressions in Dutch and German, "half X" in BrE means half an hour after X o'clock, not half an hour before it. So "half five" means half past 5, or 5:30.


----------



## ovlover

Five and half might be better for 5:30. Many local languages will understand half five as 4:30 although I believe some said it to say 5:30. It may potentially cause a hour of late on appointment..


----------



## Loob

ovlover said:


> Five and half might be better for 5:30. Many local languages will understand half five as 4:30 although I believe some said it to say 5:30. It may potentially cause a hour of late on appointment..


Sorry ovlover: I'm not aware of any variety of English that uses "five and a half" for 5:30. But you're right that "half five" may confuse people not accustomed to it...


----------



## natkretep

ovlover said:


> Five and half might be better for 5:30. Many local languages will understand half five as 4:30 although I believe some said it to say 5:30. It may potentially cause a hour of late on appointment..



I've never heard of 'five and half' ovlover. 

Your profile indicates you are a Malay speaker from Negri Sembilan. Surely 'lima setengah' (five half) means 5.30 in Malay! Is your Malay different from mine???


----------



## Rover_KE

Can we wrap this up by concluding that _half five_ is a colloquial expression and should only be said to people who we know for a fact will understand it?

If there's any doubt about that say _half past five._

_Rover_


----------



## e174043

I think Andersxman had been influenced German. Since in German you can say like this. I mean "halb acht"(7:30) , I think there is no usage of this in English. You can say "five thirty,  half past five "


----------



## Loob

Rover_KE said:


> Can we wrap this up by concluding that _half five_ is a colloquial expression and should only be said to people who we know for a fact will understand it?
> 
> If there's any doubt about that say _half past five._


Sounds good to me, Rover!


----------



## ewie

After reading this thread I'll certainly try to remember not to say it to Americans (unless I'm trying to appear charmingly British, that is).


----------



## Spira

Rover_KE said:


> Can we wrap this up by concluding that _half five_ is a colloquial expression and should only be said to people who we know for a fact will understand it?
> 
> If there's any doubt about that say _half past five._
> 
> _Rover_


 
You are not wrong Rover, but what should be said and to whom was not actually the question.
The original question was whether half-five is a correct expression.
It is quite clear from all the answers that the Brits use the expression extensively to mean 5.30 pm, and that the Americans never do. The jury seems out on other English speaking areas. Whether that is enough to win the bet, I'd be curious to know, andersxman


----------



## Kumpel

Half five
half past five
five thirty
05:30
17:30

To a native BEer, the above are all perfectly acceptable.
I'm reluctant to use the word "correct," as there are so many varieties of English, all of which have different 'rules.'


----------



## Sedulia

Half five is totally normal to British and Irish people and means 5:30. To Americans it sounds bizarre and might be thought to mean 4:30 (halfway to five). 

I am currently living in Amsterdam where "half five" means, in Dutch, 4:30.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Half-five etc. is _very_ widely used in Ireland. I always thought of it as more Irish than anything else. Good to see I was wrong. In any case, it's perfectly correct in my part of the world. I guess it probably sounds as strange to Americans as ''_quarter after_'' does to us.


----------



## natkretep

Sedulia said:


> Half five is totally normal to British and Irish people and means 5:30. To Americans it sounds bizarre and might be thought to mean 4:30 (halfway to five).
> 
> I am currently living in Amsterdam where "half five" means, in Dutch, 4:30.



Wouldn't an American who hasn't been exposed to Dutch or German be more likely to think that it means 5.30, given that you can say 'half past five' but not 'half to five' in English?


----------



## JamesM

I don't think so. It falls into the "half full", "half eaten", "half complete" pattern for me. My mind fills in the concept "of" with "half five", so "half of five" is either 4:30 or 2.5.


----------



## natkretep

JamesM said:


> I don't think so. It falls into the "half full", "half eaten", "half complete" pattern for me. My mind fills in the concept "of" with "half five", so "half of five" is either 4:30 or 2.5.



Thanks. I'll remember this when talking to Americans who haven't lived in the UK. I haven't encountered problems before - I suppose context often helps.


----------



## ovlover

People might still understand 'half filled, half eaten and half complete' if we say it 'filled half, eaten half and completed half', half five is very likely misinterpreted. 

I have $5 in my pocket, I will give you half five. >> half five = 2.5
I will meet her half five. >> half five = 5.30, some might understand it 4.30

English always have inversion against my local structure, I will understand half five as 5.30 if it refers to time. I don't have problem with this...


----------



## iskndarbey

natkretep said:


> Wouldn't an American who hasn't been exposed to Dutch or German be more likely to think that it means 5.30, given that you can say 'half past five' but not 'half to five' in English?



My guess is that if you did a straw poll in the US of what time "half five" means, 80% of respondents would stare at you blankly, 19% would say 4:30 and 1% would say 5:30.


----------



## Nunty

iskndarbey said:


> My guess is that if you did a straw poll in the US of what time "half five" means, 80% of respondents would stare at you blankly, 19% would say 4:30 and 1% would say 5:30.



You left out those who would say "Half five? Two and a half."


----------



## JulianStuart

iskndarbey said:


> My guess is that if you did a straw poll in the US of what time "half five" means, 80% of respondents would stare at you blankly, 19% would say 4:30 and 1% would say 5:30.



That 1% must be the TV weather forecasters!  They're always talking about the morning hours and afternoon hours (when  morning and afternoon would suffice) and to them, half five would mean half-way through the "5 o'clock hour"


----------



## JamesM

JulianStuart said:


> That 1% must be the TV weather forecasters! They're always talking about the morning hours and afternoon hours (when morning and afternoon would suffice) and to them, half five would mean half-way through the "5 o'clock hour"


 
Actually, they call it "the bottom of the hour".


----------



## haks

Fair dinkum, really ? 

Surely the facts are that in the UK, the home of the English language, 'half five' means 5.30 and everyone understands that to be so. In at least Dutch and German, and probably in other European countries, it means 4.30.

This way of telling the time is not used in the US, Canada (I assume ?) or in Australia and New Zealand. We all say 'half past five', right ?

This sort of thing is so difficult for some Americans to grasp that some of our best Australian films are shown in the US with "American English" sub titles !


----------



## Spira

In my experience few Americans actually verbalise the formula "half past", even though they have no trouble understanding it. They systematically say 5.30, 6.30 etc


----------



## Nunty

Spira said:


> In my experience few Americans actually verbalise the formula "half past", even though they have no trouble understanding it. They systematically say 5.30, 6.30 etc


My experience is different. Plenty of Americans say "half past".


----------



## JamesM

haks said:


> Fair dinkum, really ?
> 
> Surely the facts are that in the UK, the home of the English language, 'half five' means 5.30 and everyone understands that to be so. In at least Dutch and German, and probably in other European countries, it means 4.30.
> 
> This way of telling the time is not used in the US, Canada (I assume ?) or in Australia and New Zealand. We all say 'half past five', right ?
> 
> This sort of thing is so difficult for some Americans to grasp that some of our best Australian films are shown in the US with "American English" sub titles !


 
I think you must be exaggerating there, haks.  I have never seen subtitles on an Australian film.

Not to put too fine a point on it, I believe you were the one who was quite sure it meant 4:30 earlier in this thread.  

We can grasp it.  We are simply pointing out that it is not something that would have been heard by most Americans and that there is a possibility of confusion.


----------



## dec-sev

Spira said:


> ...
> The original question was whether half-five is a correct expression.


Exactly!


Spira said:


> It is quite clear from all the answers that the Brits use the expression extensively to mean 5.30 pm...


I'll re-formulate the original question. Is "half five" recommended to English learners by Cambridge University or other sources that can be considered reliable?
The thread reminds me of this one. Some there believe that "there _is_ things" is OK, some think that it's bad English. I'm trying to figure out if "half five" is as bad as "there is things" or not.


----------



## Gwan

haks said:


> Fair dinkum, really ?
> 
> Surely the facts are that in the UK, the home of the English language, 'half five' means 5.30 and everyone understands that to be so. In at least Dutch and German, and probably in other European countries, it means 4.30.
> 
> This way of telling the time is not used in the US, Canada (I assume ?) or in Australia and New Zealand. We all say 'half past five', right ?



I disagree. "Half five" is perfectly normal for me, and means 5:30.


----------



## Spira

@ Decsev: Nobody who thinks one second about grammar thinks that "there is things" is OK. The only people who say that have not been taught correctly, probably very young. The same with "them things" instead of "those things". Bad grammar is bad grammar, however frequently used;
"Half five", or any other hour, is not in the same category at all. It is not wrong, it is just a regional diminutive, not used everywhere.


----------



## Gwan

Spira said:


> @ Decsev: Nobody who thinks one second about grammar thinks that "there is things" is OK. The only people who say that have not been taught correctly, probably very young.



Off-topic, but I don't think the _only _people to say that are those who don't know any better. I wouldn't say 'there is things', but I say and even write 'there's things' all the time, and of course I know it's grammatically incorrect.


----------



## Spira

Gwan said:


> Off-topic, but I don't think the _only _people to say that are those who don't know any better. I wouldn't say 'there is things', but I say and even write 'there's things' all the time, and of course I know it's grammatically incorrect.


 
Then stop doing so at once


----------



## dec-sev

Gwan said:


> Off-topic, but I don't think the _only _people to say that are those who don't know any better. I wouldn't say 'there is things', but I say and even write 'there's things' all the time, and of course I know it's grammatically incorrect.


That's exactly what I as well as the thread starter wanted to know, namely if it's correct or not. Just put yourself in the place of an English learner and think if he needs something that grammatically  incorrect but "I say it all the time"? Thank you, Gwan. Now I'll think twice before believing you.


----------



## Gwan

dec-sev said:


> That's exactly what I as well as the thread starter wanted to know, namely if it's correct or not. Just put yourself in the place of an English learner and think if he needs something that grammatically  incorrect but "I say it all the time"? Thank you, Gwan. Now I'll think twice before believing to what you write.



Well, I don't know whether to laugh or to be offended. Rest assured, I wouldn't advise a learner of English that he or she should follow my example, but unfortunately in real life people both make mistakes (whether through ignorance or habit or for some other reason) and speak non-standard varieties of English.

PS I think 'there's things...' is a perfectly natural thing to say (still grammatically wrong of course). In a formal piece of writing, I'd correct it, but in an email or the like, I really don't care.

Now we really are miles off-topic...


----------



## Spira

Don't worry about it, Gwan!
Dec-sev, just note that "half-five" is NOT grammatically incorrect, but that in many places it is not used to shorten "half past five". OK?


----------



## dec-sev

Gwan said:


> ..., I really don't care.


Again, the question was asked by an English learner and he wanted to know if it was correct or not. Many here believe everything written by a native. I once came across a phrase on the Russian forum: "XXXX is an Enlgish native and I don't have any reason not to trust him". But actually the Englihs native wrote something like "*if *the weather *will be* fine, we will go...". 
If you write "It's perfectly OK to me" you should add, "but I care damn nothing about grammar". This will be the full answer. 
If you don't understand it you should neither laugh nor be offended but be ashamed of yourself.
Next time I ask something I'll ask a person if he thinks "there's things" to be OK or not and only then will go to the question itself 
Spira, thank you! Judging by what you write I believe I can trust you


----------



## Gwan

Well I'm not going to argue with you about it. I can't resist pointing out that even Shakespeare made grammatical errors, including plenty of instances of subject/verb agreement mistakes (interesting article here). I know that because I actually do care about grammar and the English language.


----------



## LV4-26

_Half five _is an abbreviation. It isn't any more or any less correct than any other abbreviation.

Abbreviations are basically slang, in the sense of a  "language peculiar to a group".
Some catch on, others don't. In other words, the initial group may enlarge to a variable extent.

_Afty_ for _afternoon_ did catch on, but only in North-West England.
_Half five_ is now (correctly) understood by most BE speakers.
_Zoo_ for _zoological garden_ caught on to the point that it's long become standard even in languages other than English.

If _incorrect_ means that it's derived from the alteration of some other preexisting phrase, then _half five_ is incorrect.
If _incorrect _means it isn't said nor understood by all English speakers, then here's a second reason for its being incorrect.

Still, I'm not sure the above reasons are sufficient.


----------



## sound shift

It would not be a good idea to use "half five" in an English language exam or test, because
1) the eaminer may be an AE speaker who has not been to this forum and has therefore never heard this expression; or
2) the examiner may be a BE speaker; if so, he/she is likely to regard it as colloquial/slang; or
3) the examiner might be in some doubt as to whether the intended meaning was 5:30 or 4:30 if the student was a speaker of Dutch or German.

My advice to students of English is "Avoid!"


----------



## Brioche

haks said:


> 'Half five' is 4.30 in UK English and in most European languages, as in the Dutch 'half vijf'.
> 
> I've not heard this usage for time in Australian or NZ English, not by native speakers anyway.
> 
> Haks




Half five is quite commonly used in UK and Ireland, and definitely means *half past five.*

It is absolutely not the equivalent of the German halb fünf or Dutch half vijf, both of which mean _half way into the fifth hour_ = 4:30.

In some regions of Germany they say 'quarter five' = 4:15, and 'three-quarter five' = 4:45.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

dec-sev said:


> That's exactly what I as well as the thread starter wanted to know, namely if it's correct or not. Just put yourself in the place of an English learner and think if he needs something that grammatically  incorrect but "I say it all the time"? Thank you, Gwan. Now I'll think twice before believing you.



Perhaps it might behoove you better to learn the meaning of the word _overreaction_.


----------



## natkretep

Why is it that we need to take a black and white position? Some learners might be interested in some of the subtleties of usage, and it might be useful to make them more discriminating and sensitive to the audience. Language is not like maths, and in my book if a particular usage has become regular it is indeed grammatical, regardless of how illogical it may appear. So I might say, 'there's things' is frowned upon my many but it is very frequent in informal speech. Or that 'half five' is regularly heard in informal contexts in the UK or Australia, but Americans might find it puzzling. Learners can process such information. When they know this they can judge whether they want to learn or use the expression themselves.


----------



## Spira

Tolerance is a good thing, but while we are discussing grammar it is probably wise to distinguish between abbreviations/slang which pose no problem grammatically (like half-five) and grammatical errors (like them things or there's things) which may or may not become incorporated into the accepted language over time.


----------



## dec-sev

Spira said:


> Tolerance is a good thing, but while we are discussing grammar it is probably wise to distinguish between abbreviations/slang which pose no problem grammatically (like half-five) and grammatical errors (like them things or there's things) which may or may not become incorporated into the accepted language over time.


Good point. I've always thought that "NATO" or "USSR" is an abbreviation, but "half five" is shortening. 


LV4-26 said:


> If _incorrect_ means that it's derived from the alteration of some other preexisting phrase, then _half five_ is incorrect.
> If _incorrect _means it isn't said nor understood by all English speakers, then here's a second reason for its being incorrect.


I'll give you an example. In Russian we have a verb that has no form in the future tense,1st person, singular. Technically one can put the verb into this form. It would be perfectly understood but it would be against the grammar rules of the Russian language. But how on earth can I get it what is correct or not in English if even the word "rules" is put in quotation marks by a native?


----------



## Spira

dec-sev said:


> Good point. I've always thought that "NATO" or "USSR" is an abbreviation, but "half five" is shortening.
> I'll give you an example. In Russian we have a verb that has no form in the future tense,1st person, singular. Technically one can put the verb into this form. It would be perfectly understood but it would be against the grammar rules of the Russian language. But how on earth can I get it what is correct or not in English if even the word "rules" is put in quotation marks by a native?


 
I would call NATO and USSR an acronym (using the initials to form a name).

If you want to grasp English really well, or any other language, you absolutely need to avoid making parallels with your own language. Each language has a life of itself, and most concepts or expressions can never really be translated, only adapted at best.
Tolstoy in English is not really Tolstoy.............


----------



## JamesM

dec-sev said:


> Good point. I've always thought that "NATO" or "USSR" is an abbreviation, but "half five" is shortening.
> But how on earth can I get it what is correct or not in English if even the word "rules" is put in quotation marks by a native?


 
I agree with Spira that you cannot always make parallels but I find it hard to imagine that you don't have similar words in Russian.

Do you not have shortened words in Russian that would be completely understandable to someone in Moscow and very unusual or possibly unknown to someone in Omsk? If so, is it incorrect? I would say it's not universal, in that case.

"Half five" is not universal in all varieties of English. That doesn't make it incorrect. From what I glean here it is somewhat informal, since BE speakers are recommending against using it in a formal paper. That also doesn't make it incorrect. 

As another example, "howdy" is a greeting in some parts of the U.S. It is an informal shortening of "how do you do?" It is not universal in all varieties of English (not even in all regions of the U.S.) It might be incomprehensible to some speakers of English in countries other than the U.S. and I wouldn't recommend using it when greeting the Queen of England. That doesn't make it incorrect.

If you insist on having everything classified as "correct" and "incorrect" you will end up with a headache. Even the most unconscious speaker of a language divides language up into "appropriate" and "inappropriate" based on context, community, age, tradition and other factors much more than a simple "correct" and "incorrect". Certainly there are words you would use with your friends that you would never use when speaking to your grandmother.  Does that make those words "incorrect"? What if it's a word like "modem" or "ringtone"? It might be perfectly correct but is not in the shared experience of you and your grandmother.

I didn't know before I read this thread that "half five" meant 'half past five". I associated it with the half five of German (4:30). I have read it in English books and have misunderstood it for decades. So, if you had told me to meet you at half five I would have been standing there for an hour before you got there.  Does that make it "incorrect"? It means that it is probably not the best phrase to use when setting an appointment with an American because of the likelihood of misunderstanding, but it doesn't mean it's incorrect.

p.s.  Off-topic, but I've learned here that NATO is an acronym (initials pronounced as a word) and USSR is an initialism.


----------



## Spira

JamesM said:


> Off-topic, but I've learned here that NATO is an acronym (initials pronounced as a word) and USSR is an initialism.


 
Oh yes, that's right.


----------



## dec-sev

Spira said:


> If you want to grasp English really well, or any other language, you absolutely need to avoid making parallels with your own language. Each language has a life of itself, and most concepts or expressions can never really be translated, only adapted at best.


 You seem to miss the point. I also post on German and Spanish forums, but I've never seen anybody write "rules" in quotation marks in the sense of "there are so many of them that you really don't know which one is corrrect". At least I understood "rules" used by Kumpel on this thread this way. 
To make my point: some days ago there was a thread on the Spanish forum, and there were contradicting posts. I asked there "what RAE says about it?" and got a link. I asked here if "half five" is recommened to the learners by the University of Cambridge and would appreciate it if somebody could give me a link. 
The only parallel I make is that on Russian or Geman forums everything or nearly everything can be supported by a reliable sourse like RAE on the Spanish forum. But English seems to be an exception, and one should content oneself with "It sounds OK to me". In most cases it works, but if one native says: "It's OK", but another disagrees, it's pretty hard for a non-native to make it out who is right and who is wrong. An "official sourse" would be a great help in such cases. I mentioned The University of Cambridge becase many here say that "half five" is OK in BE. Cambridge is in England, if I'm not mistaken. 
James, thanks for the post. To sum up:
1.  "half  five"  is used in informal language in BE. Still you'd better avoid it when you write a formal letter.
2. Not to be used making an appointment with Americans.
3. It's grammatically corrrect  and not as bad as "there's things"


----------



## JamesM

dec-sev said:


> You seem to miss the point. I also post on German and Spanish forums, but I've never seen anybody write "rules" in quotation marks in the sense of "there are so many of them that you really don't know which one is corrrect". At least I understood "rules" used by Kumpel on this thread this way.
> To make my point: some days ago there was a thread on the Spanish forum, and there were contradicting posts. I asked there "what RAE says about it?" and got a link. I asked here if "half five" is recommened to the learners by the University of Cambridge and would appreciate it if somebody could give me a link.
> The only parallel I make is that on Russian or Geman forums everything or nearly everything can be supported by a reliable sourse like RAE on the Spanish forum. But English seems to be an exception, and one should content oneself with "It sounds OK to me". In most cases it works, but if one native says: "It's OK", but another disagrees, it's pretty hard for a non-native to make it out who is right and who is wrong. An "official sourse" would be a great help in such cases. I mentioned The University of Cambridge becase many here say that "half five" is OK in BE. Cambridge is in England, if I'm not mistaken.
> James, thanks for the post. To sum up:
> 1. "half five" is used in informal language in BE. Still you'd better avoid it when you write a formal letter.
> 2. Not to be used making an appointment with Americans.
> 3. It's grammatically corrrect and not as bad as "there's things"


 
English is not a monolithic language. It is a collection of variants that spans the globe. When you ask a question here you get answers from many varieties of English.

If I had written "He gave it me" in an English paper in school here in the U.S. it would have been marked as incorrect with the correction marked as "He gave it *to* me". My English aunties said "He gave it me" all the time. It sounded fine to me, but I learned that it would be marked as incorrect here. As far as I know, it would not be marked as incorrect in England. I have read the construction many times in books from English authors over the years. 

There *are* different rules in different variations of the language. I don't think that applies in this case. Here we are talking about an idiomatic expression ("half five"). The meaning cannot be unambiguously discerned from the two words. Yet you are pressing for a label of correct or incorrect for this expression. Where is there an authority for whether an idiomatic expression is correct or incorrect?

If I wrote "half five" in a school essay here it might be marked as incorrect by a teacher who was unaware of the idiomatic expression in British English. 

Do you have authorities in Russian, Spanish or English that list "correct" idiomatic expressions?


----------



## LV4-26

If I say _give us a fag_, no one will think the word _fag_ is an incorrect version of the word _cigarette_. They'll just call it a slangy or colloquial equivalent. 

Actually, the only reason why you may wonder if _half five_ is incorrect is that it's so close to its universally accepted equivalent _half past five_.


----------



## Spira

Originally Posted by *dec-sev* To sum up:
1. "half five" is used in informal language in BE. Still you'd better avoid it when you write a formal letter.
2. Not to be used making an appointment with Americans.
3. It's grammatically corrrect and not as bad as "there's things"


There you are, then, you've understood, dec-sev.

The French have the Académie Française to officialise usage. We don't. We evolve naturally, savagely even, made even more savage by the English-speaking natives who live and evolve on different continents. 
Get used to it.


----------



## dec-sev

JamesM said:


> If I wrote "half five" in a school essay here it might be marked as incorrect by a teacher who was unaware of the idiomatic expression in British English.
> 
> Do you have authorities in Russian, Spanish or English that list "correct" idiomatic expressions?


I don't know.  What I know is that idiomatic expressions can be used in a school essay in Russian and using them won't be considered mistaken. But:


sound shift said:


> It would not be a good idea to use "half five" in an English language exam or test, because
> 1) the eaminer may be an AE speaker who has not been to this forum and has therefore never heard this expression; or
> 2) the examiner may be a BE speaker; if so, he/she is likely to regard it as colloquial/slang; or
> 3) the examiner might be in some doubt as to whether the intended meaning was 5:30 or 4:30 if the student was a speaker of Dutch or German.
> 
> My advice to students of English is "Avoid!"


 what you call "idiomatic expression" sound shift - an Englishman - says is likely to be regarded as colloquial/slang and adds that it should be avoided. And that's in a country where "half five" sounds OK. 

I'll also try to avoid using "correct" asking about something on the English Only


----------



## panjandrum

I can't believe there has been so much discussion about this topic 
But then a lot of the discussion has been about rules and the lack of them.
The "rules" of English accommodate variation by region and variation by context.
It is perfectly acceptable in conversational English in my world to refer to _5:30_ as _half five_.  It's a form that I use in conversation as a matter of routine.
It would be considered wrong in a formal notice.
It would be considered wrong in other parts of the world.

There is no escaping this  flexibility.

_[The side-references to "there is things" really belong in another thread, and there are several. But just to make one point - there is a huge difference in acceptability between "there is things" and "there's things".
Both expressions have been referred to in this thread, as if they are equally acceptable or unacceptable.]_


----------

