When memorizing and recalling the times table, I learned to say "six sevens are forty-two", and always wondered what it would be like to learn to say "six times seven equals forty-two" and whether it would be harder. Likewise, of course, with all the other ones e.g. "seven eights are fifty-six".
Not a proper acceptable answer, just an expansion of my original comment:
A literal/direct/mechanistic recitation probably involves a lighter cognitive load than a quirkier sentence-translated recitation. So:
- one times five equals five
- six times seven equals forty-two
- eleven times twelve equals one-hundred-and-thirty-two;
- one (copy of) five is five
- six (lots of) sevens are forty-two
- eleven twelves are one-hundred-and-thirty-two.
Native English-language speakers may prefer the latter, while non-native English-language speakers may prefer the former.
@DanielRCollins: I would certainly not want to hear something like "twenty fives is one hundred".
Yes, in the sentence-translation (as opposed to mechanistic recitation),
- the fact that "twenty fives" and "twenty-five" are almost homophonous,
- the asymmetrical adverb(twenty)-noun(fives) structure,
- the pluralisation,
- the fact that the noun but not the adverb is pluralised,
- the option between "is" & "are" ("20 fives is 100" and "20 fives are 100" are differently meaningful),
- the natural-language ambiguity of in what sense 20 fives is/are/becomes 100,
all impose cognitive burdens. The process is more akin to a narration than a streamlined recitation, and furthermore detracts from the commutativity of the multiplication operation.
I think for first learning, it is easier to think of the former, not the latter. So two twos make a four. After all, what is "times", for someone new to it.
But by the time you are doing the whole multiplication table (and six sevens is pretty high up into it), you've got more familiarity with multiplication and can just start saying "times", which is more efficient (to say or to think about).