-1

What is the correct way to express the following? The original meeting time was 9 AM. And it was later re-scheduled to 16 PM.

Is the following expression correct, if not, what would it be?

The meeting was re-scheduled for 16 to 17PM.

  • 3
    You are confusing two time formats. In the 12-hour time format, you use a.m. and p.m. to indicate before and after midday (Latin ante meridian and post meridian). In the 24-hour format, 4 p.m. becomes 16:00, not 16:00 p.m. If the original time was 9 a.m. the meeting was rescheduled to 4 p.m. If the original time was 09:00, it was rescheduled to 16:00. – Ronald Sole Feb 16 '17 at 15:13
  • The meeting was re-scheduled from 1600 to 1700 hours. Or, The meeting scheduled for 9 AM was rescheduled for 5 PM. – WRX Feb 16 '17 at 18:51
  • 2
    Just to be precise here: it's ante meridiem and post meridiem. – someasw Mar 27 '17 at 15:01
2

No. This first problem is that, as stated in another answer, PM and AM are only necessary when using the 12-hour model (instead of the 24-hour "train time").

The second problem is with prepositions. It would be much better and expressive/concise to write "the meeting was re-scheduled from 16:00 to 17:00".

My last suggested improvement is stylistic. Depending on audience, you may find it better to refer to the times you're referring to as 4 PM and 5 PM. This is especially true if you're writing to an American audience, as the 24-hour model isn't widely used here.

  • 1
    The preposition depends on the context. It can be "The meeting was re-scheduled for 16:00 to (last until) 17:00" – SovereignSun Mar 27 '17 at 15:19
  • 1
    You could be correct. I assume that because of the verb used (re-scheduled), that we're discussing a change in times. if the context you're proposing is true, then a more concise sentence would read, "The 9:00-10:00 meeting is rescheduled to 16:00-17:00". If written this way, you'd no longer have to worry about people showing up an hour late. – joseph.glover Mar 27 '17 at 15:24
  • 2
    The from ... to wording could indicate that the original time was 16:00 and the new time is 17:00. – Lawrence Mar 27 '17 at 17:02
  • 1
    @Lawrence, that's exactly how I'd read it unless it were phrased either as "…rescheduled to be from 16:00 to 17:00" or "the 9:00 meeting was rescheduled…" – Gossar Mar 31 '18 at 1:51
1

No. AM/PM are only used when using the 12-hour time format, to indicate morning or afternoon/evening. If one is using the 24-hour format, one does not use AM/PM at all. The sentence would be:

The meeting was re-scheduled for 16:00 to 17:00

It would be spoken as:

"The meeting was re-scheduled for sixteen-hundred to seventeen-hundred."

  • "for" is definitely incorrect here. – SovereignSun Mar 27 '17 at 15:08
  • 2
    @SovereignSun: Why do you think that? The sentence doesn't mean that it was changed from 16:00 to 17:00, it means that it was rescheduled to start at 16:00 and last until 17:00. As in the question, the meeting was originally at 09:00. – LMS Mar 27 '17 at 15:12
  • @LMS Not in this context! – SovereignSun Mar 27 '17 at 15:13
  • 1
    @SovereignSun: Yes, from 09:00 to 16:00. It appears that you've interpreted it as the time changing from 16:00 to 17:00, which isn't correct. "From" would be correct in "...rescheduled from 09:00 to 16:00," but that isn't the sentence. The sentence is saying that the schedule has been changed such that the meeting now starts at 16:00 and ends at 17:00, without mention of its previously-scheduled time. – LMS Mar 27 '17 at 16:42
  • 2
    @SovereignSun: Given that the OP says "The original meeting time was 9 AM. And it was later re-scheduled to 16 PM" and the only mention of 17:00 is in the example, I'd wager yes. – LMS Mar 27 '17 at 16:49
-3

Your sentence "The meeting was re-scheduled for 16 to 17PM." is incorrect if the time the meeting takes place changes because:

  1. You have two different times. One is 4pm and the other is 5pm. So you need to say from and to.
  2. There is no such thing as 16PM or 17PM. There's 1AM to 12AM and 1PM to 12PM and that makes 24 hours.

Since you say that the original time was 9am and was re-scheduled to 4pm. And you are speaking about the duration of time the meeting will take then it should be:

The meeting was re-scheduled for 4pm (16:00) to (last until) 5pm (17:00).

If you mean the time when the meeting starts has changed then:

The meeting was re-scheduled from 9am to 5pm.

You can also say:

The meeting was re-scheduled for 4pm and will last for an hour.

  • 4
    I disagree that the phrasing is "incorrect." It is unexceptional, at least in American English, to say the meeting has been rescheduled for [the hour from] 4pm to 5pm; either to or for may be used if only the start time is given. – choster Mar 27 '17 at 15:38
  • @choster Could you please show me some grammar? – SovereignSun Mar 27 '17 at 15:39
  • Anywhere i look the correct prepositions for two dates or times are from and to. I dusagree with your downvotes until you give prove from grammar books. – SovereignSun Mar 27 '17 at 16:02
  • 2
    You may disagree all you like, and you don't have to use it in your own writing, but I guarantee that you won't be able to read the community calendar in any American newspaper without coming across rescheduled for [date/time range]. – choster Mar 27 '17 at 16:14
  • @choster Perhaps, but I'm in need of examples. So please, would you be so kind as too provide me with a few? – SovereignSun Mar 27 '17 at 16:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.