Singular "Mile" or Plural "Miles" for 1+ to 2-

[michravera]

I am getting annoyed that California, which was laid out on the metric system, uses old worn out units on its highway signs, but I did get some fodder for a topic here.

Many BGSs in California (and I suspect elsewhere) spell out the units for the next exit on a single sign by it itself. Because California was laid out on the metric system, it is very common for the distance to be either 2 km or 3 km which is often rendered and signed as the equivalent of 1.25mi or 1.75mi with fractions like "1¹/₄ MILE" or "1³/₄ MILE" or "1¹/₄ MILES" or "1³/₄ MILES". My linguistic background leaves me tolerant of whether to use a plural for "more than one" or for "two or more". What is the practice in your Fred Flintstone Unit location? Or in other location where the entire units are spelled out?

[Big John]

I have seen both used in Wisconsin, though 1 1/4 MILE does bother me as I was taught the plural is used for "more than one"

[theroadwayone]

Seen a lot of both used where I am; for distances of a 1.25 miles or greater, it's "miles." For a mile or less, it's "mile" in the singular.

[michravera]

Seen a lot of both used where I am; for distances of a 1.25 miles or greater, it's "miles." For a mile or less, it's "mile" in the singular.

Around here it's always "³/₄ MILE", The question is what to do with more than one and less than two. "Three-quarters of a mile" and "a mile and a quarter" as well as "one and a quarter miles".

[Brandon]

I am getting annoyed that California, which was laid out on the metric system, uses old worn out units on its highway signs, but I did get some fodder for a topic here.

Utterly wrong, California was laid out on the Public Land Survey System (PLSS), using links, chains, and miles, not the metric system.
Note the three meridians that California uses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Land_Survey_System#/media/File:Meridians-baselines.png
The Mexican land grants were grafted into the PLSS system in California (and used Spanish leagues).
The three meridians of California are: San Bernardino Meridian, Mt. Diablo Meridian, and Humboldt Meridian.

Hence, what's on the signs matches what's on the ground.

[myosh_tino]

I am getting annoyed that California, which was laid out on the metric system, uses old worn out units on its highway signs, but I did get some fodder for a topic here.

Many BGSs in California (and I suspect elsewhere) spell out the units for the next exit on a single sign by it itself. Because California was laid out on the metric system, it is very common for the distance to be either 2 km or 3 km which is often rendered and signed as the equivalent of 1.25mi or 1.75mi with fractions like "1¹/₄ MILE" or "1³/₄ MILE" or "1¹/₄ MILES" or "1³/₄ MILES". My linguistic background leaves me tolerant of whether to use a plural for "more than one" or for "two or more". What is the practice in your Fred Flintstone Unit location? Or in other location where the entire units are spelled out?

Not sure where you got the notion that California was "laid out on the metric system" but that's for a different discussion that will probably lead to a flame war.

But to address the gist of your post, I believe the standard practice is for distances 1 mile or less it's "X MILE" (i.e. 1/4 MILE, 1/2 MILE, 3/4 MILE, 1 MILE).  Anything over 1 mile is "X MILES" (i.e. 1 1/4 MILES, 2 MILES, etc).  In fact, in a recent sign replacement project on I-280 near my home the signing plans had a sign that read "3/4 MILES" but the error was caught and the actual sign installed reads "3/4 MILE".

[english si]

old worn out units

What is the practice in your Fred Flintstone Unit location?

The survey Mile used to survey in the US was defined in 1893, a century after the metre was defined.

And the definition of "one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole" for a metre is fit for neither man nor beast - the thing measuring that definition has got more refined (now a 299782458th of a light second), but it's the same thing - something that cannot be sensibly measured or easily imagined. As you suggest, via your reasoning that California is laid out on the metric system (wrong) and thus metric units make sense to use, it's better to have units that match the humdrum reality of the real world rather than units that don't. I totally agree (and if CA was laid out in kilometres having miles on road signs would be silly), however that is the antithesis of metric, which seeks its units to be arbitrary, abstract and above the real world.


In answer to the main question - it depends on whether fractions or decimals. 3/4 mile, or 0.75 miles. This is as fractions are 'of a mile' so the singular unit comes up, but decimals are usually not (you can, of course, have "point four of a kilometre", but that's a weird formation). Obviously you can phrase decimals between 1 and 2 as "1 unit xy" like "1 metre 80" for someone's height, but the typical formation is <number><units plural>.

[Aaron Camp]

I tend to be very strict on using the plural form for anything greater than one, even if it's between one and two. It's important to note that the English language lacks a dual grammatical number aside from a handful of words like "both" and "either", although I would consider expressions like "both of the one and a half miles" or "both of the two and a half miles" to be grammatically valid and referring to the entire length in question, even if it comes across as awkward.

[Road Hog]

Anything greater than one, including fractions, is by definition plural and should get "miles."  Spelled out, it's one AND a half or one AND a quarter. The AND makes it plural.