The new decade
Chuck Riggs
People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013.
With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
upcoming decade even have a name?
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
R H Draney
>
>
>People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013.
>With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>upcoming decade even have a name?
The one in the previous century was called "the teens"...still is, by those of
us who have occasion to speak of it in connection with silent movies....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
John O'Flaherty
wrote:
>
>People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013.
>With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>upcoming decade even have a name?
Maybe just "the tens", by analogy with "the twenties".
--
John
Nick
> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed.
How are we going to refer to dates in the Noughties? At least one book from the
(19)30s I've read recently has characters talking about "Nought five". I
think we're mote likely to say "Oh five".
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Prai Jei
> Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed.
>
> How are we going to refer to dates in the Noughties? At least one book
> from the (19)30s I've read recently has characters talking about
> "Nought five". I think we're mote likely to say "Oh five".
Another usage, now even more antique-sounding, is to say "nineteen five"
etc., the zero being passed over in silence.
To us Brits the years 1901 to 1910 are referred to as "The Edwardian Age"
referring to the reign of Edward VII so we don't have a word for the 190X's
that can be recycled for the 200X's.
The next decade, 1910-1919, was of course dominated by WW1 so it is
automatically dissected into three: the run-up to WW1, the years of WW1
itself, and the aftermath, so again there is no word to refer to the 191X's
as a whole that can be recycled for the 201X's. Heaven forbid that such a
global conflict breaks out in the decade to come.
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Someone in a discussion on this topic in forum elsewhere a couple of
weeks ago suggested that "tenties" might catch on:
noughties
tenties
twenties
thirties
et other-ties
I'm not betting for or against it.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Roland Hutchinson
> Chuck Riggs filted:
>>
>>
>>People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years 2000
>>to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on the
>>decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up calling
>>it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That cannot
>>be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the 2020s and
>>onwards there will be no problem, but will the upcoming decade even have
>>a name?
>
> The one in the previous century was called "the teens"...still is, by
> those of us who have occasion to speak of it in connection with silent
> movies....r
Historians will gladly speak of the teens of any century past, for that
matter. There's still no consensus on the '00s in these parts.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Robert Bannister
> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013.
> With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
> upcoming decade even have a name?
Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given names; in
fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the
sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names. Do we have a name for
the period 1910-1919? � I don't think so.
--
Rob Bannister
James Hogg
The 1910s.
--
James
R H Draney
>
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>> upcoming decade even have a name?
>
>Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given names; in
>fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the
>sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names. Do we have a name for
>the period 1910-1919? � I don't think so.
The years 189x were designated Gay, 192x were Roaring, and if some sources are
to be believed, 196x were Swinging....
annily
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the 2020s
>> and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>> upcoming decade even have a name?
>
> Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given names; in
> fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the
> sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names.
Why not? Isn't that exactly the sort of naming we're talking about? What
is the name for the 1890s you mention?
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
HVS
> Robert Bannister filted:
>>
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>>> With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will
>>> the upcoming decade even have a name?
>>
>> Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given
>> names; in fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I
>> don't count "the sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being
>> names. Do we have a name for the period 1910-1919? � I don't
>> think so.
>
> The years 189x were designated Gay, 192x were Roaring, and if
> some sources are to be believed, 196x were Swinging....
The years 193x are often referred to as Dirty.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Jonathan Morton
news:00aeabe2$0$8062$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>>> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>>> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the 2020s
>>> and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>>> upcoming decade even have a name?
>>
>> Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given names; in fact,
>> the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the sixties",
>> "the seventies", etc. as being names.
>
> Why not? Isn't that exactly the sort of naming we're talking about? What
> is the name for the 1890s you mention?
I think they were the "naughty nineties".
Regards
Jonathan
Steve Hayes
<pvstownse...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Another usage, now even more antique-sounding, is to say "nineteen five"
>etc., the zero being passed over in silence.
That's what I say, but it doesn't work with twenty-five because that can be
confused with 25, so I say "two thousand and five"
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Bertel Lund Hansen
> >Another usage, now even more antique-sounding, is to say "nineteen five"
> >etc., the zero being passed over in silence.
> That's what I say, but it doesn't work with twenty-five because that can be
> confused with 25, so I say "two thousand and five"
You might say "twenty oh five" - but of course it might be
understood as "twenty - oh no, five".
--
Bertel, Denmark
Nick
It didn't cause any problems when people spoke about nineteen oh five.
Chuck Riggs
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:02:23 -0800, R H Draney wrote:
>
>> Chuck Riggs filted:
>>>
>>>
>>>People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years 2000
>>>to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on the
>>>decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up calling
>>>it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That cannot
>>>be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the 2020s and
>>>onwards there will be no problem, but will the upcoming decade even have
>>>a name?
>>
>> The one in the previous century was called "the teens"...still is, by
>> those of us who have occasion to speak of it in connection with silent
>> movies....r
>
>Historians will gladly speak of the teens of any century past, for that
>matter. There's still no consensus on the '00s in these parts.
But do you think we will call this decade the teens before 2013
arrives?
Chuck Riggs
That would work, even from today, but since it sounds uglier to me,
somehow, than the teens, I doubt if it will catch on.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Robert Bannister filted:
>>
>>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>>> With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>>> upcoming decade even have a name?
>>
>>Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given names; in
>>fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the
>>sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names. Do we have a name for
>>the period 1910-1919? � I don't think so.
>
>The years 189x were designated Gay, 192x were Roaring, and if some sources are
>to be believed, 196x were Swinging....
That works in hindsight, but what will we call this decade, today? I
think teens.
Chuck Riggs
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013.
>> With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>> upcoming decade even have a name?
>
>Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given names; in
>fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the
>sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names.
Labels are names, are they not? Since we had the teens, the twenties,
the thirties, the forties, the fifties, the sixties, the seventies,
the eighties, the nineties and the noughties, at least in BrE, I have
no idea what you're on about, Rob.
>Do we have a name for
>the period 1910-1919? � I don't think so.
The teens, others have said.
Redshade
OK people time to pickup those brickbats, empty bottles, TV remotes,
shoes and anything else handy and small enough to throw because it's
time for... Pedant's Corner.
If 2000 was the last year of the old decade/millennium then 2010 (I
agree with "twenty ten") is the last year of this decade and the new
one does not start until next year.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>>> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>>> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the 2020s
>>> and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>>> upcoming decade even have a name?
>>
>> Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given names; in
>> fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the
>> sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names.
>
>Why not? Isn't that exactly the sort of naming we're talking about?
Yes, at least it is what I asked about.
>What
>is the name for the 1890s you mention?
The Gay Nineties.
Ian Dalziel
<starts> Did someone call for a pedant?
A decade is ten years - any ten years.
The second millennium AD ended with 2000, sure, but there would only
be a problem if people were talking about the 201st decade AD. They
are not, they are talking about the decade with years numbered 200x.
--
Ian D
James Hogg
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 08:19:46 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>>> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>>> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013.
>>> With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>>> upcoming decade even have a name?
>> Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given names; in
>> fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the
>> sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names.
>
> Labels are names, are they not? Since we had the teens, the twenties,
> the thirties, the forties, the fifties, the sixties, the seventies,
> the eighties, the nineties and the noughties, at least in BrE, I have
> no idea what you're on about, Rob.
>
>> Do we have a name for
>
> The teens, others have said.
I have never heard of the 1910s being called "the teens". Has anyone else?
--
James
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 08:19:46 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>>>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>>>> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>>>> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013.
>>>> With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>>>> upcoming decade even have a name?
>>> Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given names; in
>>> fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the
>>> sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names.
>>
>> Labels are names, are they not? Since we had the teens, the twenties,
>> the thirties, the forties, the fifties, the sixties, the seventies,
>> the eighties, the nineties and the noughties, at least in BrE, I have
>> no idea what you're on about, Rob.
>>
>>> Do we have a name for
>>> the period 1910-1919? � I don't think so.
>>
>> The teens, others have said.
>
>I have never heard of the 1910s being called "the teens". Has anyone else?
I don't recall meeting that.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> <starts> Did someone call for a pedant?
May I join the chorus?
> A decade is ten years - any ten years.
> The second millennium AD ended with 2000
A millenium is a thousand years - any thousand years.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<stephe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think you would approve of this letter to the editor of The Times (of
London) in 1900 and reprinted today:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6972818.ece
From The Times
January 1, 2010
A new century?
January 1, 1900
Sir, ....
....
So we shall not commence our 20th century until we commence out
1901st year � a year hence.
JOHN ATTFIELD
James Hogg
The pedants who waited until 1 January 2001 to celebrate the new
millennium (alone) only have themselves to blame. Those of us who
watched the four digits 1999 change to 2000 saw something much more
dramatic.
On the subject of spelling, however, I would be pedantic and insist that
there are two n's in "millennium". It comes from Latin "mille" +
"annus", not "mille" + "anus", and it has nothing to do with the sign of
the swinging tit in that famous Chinese street.
--
James
Ian Dalziel
Indeed. The second millennium AD, however is one specific millennium.
--
Ian D
aquachimp
> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013.
> With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
> upcoming decade even have a name?
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Chuck Riggs,
> An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
The one letter common to all between 10 to 19 is the E
The E-ies?
As far as 3tenties" as someone mentioned? what do tents have to do
with this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I think the idea behind "tenties" is that is rhymes with (or fits the
pattern of) twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, seventies,
eighties and nineties.
aquachimp
wrote:
Er, apologies for the cock-ups.
That should have read;
As far as "tenties" as someone mentioned? What do tents have to do
with this? Surely Tenies, No?
Or even the Tennies or Tennees?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to continue;
I prefer Tennies
It has the common"...ies" bit common
And since all but ten have at least two Es, the two Ns reflect that
quality whilst placing the lone Ten to the fore, acknowledging it
thus.
aquachimp
wrote:
Ah. Understood. Thanks.
Tennties?
Jonathan Morton
news:hhkvv3$bde$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Ian Dalziel skrev:
>>
>>> <starts> Did someone call for a pedant?
>>
>> May I join the chorus?
>>
>>> A decade is ten years - any ten years.
>>
>>> The second millennium AD ended with 2000
>>
>> A millenium is a thousand years - any thousand years.
>
> The pedants who waited until 1 January 2001 to celebrate the new
> millennium (alone) only have themselves to blame.
1 January 2001? Pah. The true pedants waited until the night of 24 March
2001. I was one of them. We had an excellent party.
Regards
Jonathan
James Hogg
I've seen one complaint to the effect "that it sounds rather too much
like a trousered erection".
--
James
Bertel Lund Hansen
> On the subject of spelling, however, I would be pedantic and insist that
> there are two n's in "millennium". It comes from Latin "mille" +
> "annus", not "mille" + "anus",
I'm sure you have helped med remember it now.
--
Bertel, Denmark
aquachimp
Well, the noughties sound a bit like the naughties so how about the
teeties (teetees) to suggest an after prank giggle.
R H Draney
>
>"James Hogg" <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote in message
>news:hhkvv3$bde$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> millennium (alone) only have themselves to blame.
>
>1 January 2001? Pah. The true pedants waited until the night of 24 March
>2001. I was one of them. We had an excellent party.
Those who kept in mind with what event the calendar supposedly starts should
have celebrated some time in the Spring of 1992....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
R H Draney
>
>The one letter common to all between 10 to 19 is the E
>The E-ies?
>
>As far as 3tenties" as someone mentioned? what do tents have to do
>with this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees
The one *digit* all those years share is the "1" in third position...perhaps we
should call our newborn decade "the Onesies"....r
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>aquachimp filted:
>>
>>The one letter common to all between 10 to 19 is the E
>>The E-ies?
>>
>>As far as 3tenties" as someone mentioned? what do tents have to do
>>with this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees
>
>The one *digit* all those years share is the "1" in third position...perhaps we
>should call our newborn decade "the Onesies"....r
A columnistr in our local evening paper has suggested that the 2010s be
called the "twenteens", adding "(got anything better?)".
aquachimp
Hmm. Definetly has some charm of childish appeal. If we could then
just get everyone to say the Ohsies, Onesies, Twosies, Threesies etc,
with the option of the woopsies for the ones deemed do have been a bit
shitty.
But just between us, I don't think it'll catch on with the grown ups
(-:
aquachimp
wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2010 08:26:10 -0800, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >aquachimp filted:
>
> >>The one letter common to all between 10 to 19 is the E
> >>The E-ies?
>
> >>As far as 3tenties" as someone mentioned? what do tents have to do
> >>with this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees
>
> >The one *digit* all those years share is the "1" in third position...perhaps we
> >should call our newborn decade "the Onesies"....r
>
> A columnistr in our local evening paper has suggested that the 2010s be
> called the "twenteens", adding "(got anything better?)".
Humph!
There is no "teen" in 10, 11, or 12.
"Got any better,?"
Tenties
Tennties
Tennies
and Onesies are 4 already.
Don Phillipson
news:d5fpj5l3vli1uflmc...@4ax.com...
> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning?
This problem is a granfalloon: at least it did not matter to our
ancestors who called 1800-1810 either "the Napoleonic Wars"
or perhaps "the Regency" and definitely called 1901-1910
the Edwardian era. Perhaps nomenclature has been made
a problem only by journalists who envy the successful coinages
of the Roaring Twenties and the Dirty Thirties. Perhaps the
problem is made worse because we now have so few
monarchs and they live so long . . .
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Skitt
Actually, that's a millennium, as Ian wrote it.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Fred
"Redshade" <stephe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:93358fad-8bc6-41c1...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Correct. But for some strange reason most countries marked January 1st 2000
as the first day of this millenium, and it follows from that. The old
millenium didn't really end of course until the last day of 2000.
Garrett Wollman
James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>I have never heard of the 1910s being called "the teens". Has anyone else?
Absolutely. More commonly "the nineteen-teens", I think, but that's
only a vague perception I wouldn't give much credence to.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Garrett Wollman
Don Phillipson <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>This problem is a granfalloon: at least it did not matter to our
>ancestors who called 1800-1810 either "the Napoleonic Wars"
>or perhaps "the Regency" and definitely called 1901-1910
>the Edwardian era.
Maybe your ancestors did, but mine certainly did not. (I can't say
what French-speaking people in northern Maine, or German- and
Polish-speaking immigrants in New York City, actually would have
called that decade, but I feel fairly certain that they would not have
named it after the King of England.)
James Hogg
> In article <hhkutp$767$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, James Hogg
> <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have never heard of the 1910s being called "the teens". Has
>> anyone else?
>
> Absolutely. More commonly "the nineteen-teens", I think, but that's
> only a vague perception I wouldn't give much credence to.
Believe it or not, it can be found in Google Books. I would hazard a
guess that it never crossed the Atlantic eastwards. That's the first
time I've ever heard it.
--
James
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>OK people time to pickup those brickbats, empty bottles, TV remotes,
>shoes and anything else handy and small enough to throw because it's
>time for... Pedant's Corner.
>
>If 2000 was the last year of the old decade/millennium then 2010 (I
>agree with "twenty ten") is the last year of this decade and the new
>one does not start until next year.
If you're talking about the first decade of the 21st century, yes, it ends
next year.
But most people talk about decades in terms of the last two digits of the
year.
The Fifties of the 20th century were the years from 1950 to 1959, but the
sixth decade of the 20th century was the years 1951-1960.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Fred
"Don Phillipson" <e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:hhleh5$cn3$2...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
Peter Moylan
> On the subject of spelling, however, I would be pedantic and insist that
> there are two n's in "millennium". It comes from Latin "mille" +
> "annus", not "mille" + "anus", and it has nothing to do with the sign of
> the swinging tit in that famous Chinese street.
>
Somehow it never occurs to me to translate street names into Latin.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
annily
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:06:13 +1030, annily <ann...@annily.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>>>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>>>> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the 2020s
>>>> and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>>>> upcoming decade even have a name?
>>> fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the
>>> sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names.
>> Why not? Isn't that exactly the sort of naming we're talking about?
>
> Yes, at least it is what I asked about.
>
>> What
>> is the name for the 1890s you mention?
>
> The Gay Nineties.
Ah, yes, of course. Wouldn't work for the 1990s though (at least not
with the same meaning).
-
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which may or may not influence my opinions.
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>>> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>>> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the
>>> 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>>> upcoming decade even have a name?
>>
>> Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given names; in
>> fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the
>> sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names.
>
>
Mr Draney says "the Gay Nineties", but I'm more familiar with the
"Naughty Nineties". He also came up with a couple of others that I'd
forgotten. Those are what I would call names. The sort you appear to be
talking about might as well be written in numerical form - see James'
post: 1910s, so 2010s. Pronunciation optional.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> I think the idea behind "tenties" is that is rhymes with (or fits the
> pattern of) twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, seventies,
> eighties and nineties.
>
But when I'm doing rough and ready counting, "tenty" comes after
"ninety": ninety-eight, ninety-nine, tenty, tenty-one, tenty-two... I
only seem to fall into this way of counting when scoring board games.
--
Rob Bannister
Roland Hutchinson
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>>> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>>> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the 2020s
>>> and onwards there will be no problem, but will the upcoming decade
>>> even have a name?
>>
>> Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given names; in
>> fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the
>> sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names. Do we have a name for
>> the period 1910-1919? — I don't think so.
>
> The 1910s.
Or "the nineteen-teens".
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Roland Hutchinson
The iDecade. Not to be confused with The Me Decade.
Roland Hutchinson
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 06:22:18 -0800 (PST), aquachimp
> <aqua...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 31 2009, 4:18 pm, Chuck Riggs <chri...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>>> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>>> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the 2020s
>>> and onwards there will be no problem, but will the upcoming decade
>>> even have a name?
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Chuck Riggs,
>>> An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
>>
>>
>>The one letter common to all between 10 to 19 is the E The E-ies?
>>
>>As far as 3tenties" as someone mentioned? what do tents have to do with
>>this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees
>
> I think the idea behind "tenties" is that is rhymes with (or fits the
> pattern of) twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, seventies,
> eighties and nineties.
Not rhyme, fer sure. Homoeoteleuton or sommat.
I'm still holding out for "teens".
Roland Hutchinson
> Steve Hayes skrev:
>
>> >Another usage, now even more antique-sounding, is to say "nineteen
>> >five" etc., the zero being passed over in silence.
>
>> That's what I say, but it doesn't work with twenty-five because that
>> can be confused with 25, so I say "two thousand and five"
>
> You might say "twenty oh five" - but of course it might be understood as
> "twenty - oh no, five".
One might try "two thousand five" -- like the number[1] -- on for size.
[1] I know, I know, we _all_ know: another well-boiled kettle of fish
around these parts: "two thousand [and] five".
Roland Hutchinson
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:49:14 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:02:23 -0800, R H Draney wrote:
>>
>>> Chuck Riggs filted:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>>>>2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>>>>the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>>>>calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>>>>cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the 2020s
>>>>and onwards there will be no problem, but will the upcoming decade
>>>>even have a name?
>>>
>>> The one in the previous century was called "the teens"...still is, by
>>> those of us who have occasion to speak of it in connection with silent
>>> movies....r
>>
>>Historians will gladly speak of the teens of any century past, for that
>>matter. There's still no consensus on the '00s in these parts.
>
> But do you think we will call this decade the teens before 2013 arrives?
For my own part, I do already, and I see nothing extraordinary in doing
so.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 08:19:46 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>> Do we have a name for the period 1910-1919? -- I don't think so.
>> The teens, others have said.
>
> I have never heard of the 1910s being called "the teens". Has anyone else?
I have. Checking Google Books, I see 510 hits for "back in the
teens", and the first several hits, at least, appear to be referring
to that decade. Except for a few in the 1880s and 1890s that talk
about "back in the teens of the [present] century".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You gotta know when to code,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Know when to log out,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Know when to single step,
| Know when you're through.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |You don't write your program
(650)857-7572 | When you're sittin' at the term'nal.
|There'll be time enough for writin'
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | When you're in the queue.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 15:03:36 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen
> <splittemi...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>
>>Ian Dalziel skrev:
>>
>>> <starts> Did someone call for a pedant?
>>
>>May I join the chorus?
>>
>>> A decade is ten years - any ten years.
>>
>>> The second millennium AD ended with 2000
>>
>>A millenium is a thousand years - any thousand years.
>
> Indeed. The second millennium AD, however is one specific millennium.
Indeed. Is that the specific millennium that's 13 days shorter than
its predecessor or the one that's 353 days longer?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A handgun is like a Lawyer. You
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |don't want it lying around where
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the children might be exposed to
|it, but when you need one, you need
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |it RIGHT NOW, and nothing else will
(650)857-7572 |do.
| Bill McNutt
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Correct. But for some strange reason most countries marked January
> 1st 2000 as the first day of this millenium, and it follows from
> that. The old millenium didn't really end of course until the last
> day of 2000.
Lest anybody think that this is a modern dispute:
Several dissertations have appeared in the public journals on the
question, whether the year 1800 begins the nineteenth century. In
1700 there were many papers on the same subject; but it is
sufficient to consider that centuries are counted like everything
else, from one to a hundred, and therefore it is 1801 that must
begin the new century. The only thing that could occasion this
error is, the transition from 17 to 18 hundreds. It has appeared
to many people that this is changing the century.
_The Philosophical Magazine_, 2/1800
It is a singular circumstance that Dryden, as well as some other
eminent men of that day, should have follen into the errour
respecting the beginning of the century, which has found some
partisans in our own time; conceiving that the seventeenth century
closed on the 24th of March, 1699, and that the new century began
on the following day: in conformity to which notion a splendid
Jubilee was celebrated at Rome in the year 1700. By this kind of
reckoning, the second century began in the year 100 and the first,
in opposition to the decisive evidence furnished by the word
itself, consisted of only _ninety-nine_ years!
Edmond Malone, _The Critical and MIscellaneous
Prose Works of John Dryden_, 1800
That the first century, during which time nobody thought of it as the
first century and which, when first described as such, used a calendar
that was later discovered to be incorrect, was 1% short doesn't bother
me all that much.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The bathwater, in this case, does
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not appear to ever have contained
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |any baby.
|
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | ronniecat
(650)857-7572
James Hogg
There are some countries where they seldom use ordinal numbers for the
centuries but instead talk about the 1800s etc. In Sweden, for example,
there can be no disputing that the 1900s started on 1 January 1900, even
though the Swedes had to wait another year for the twentieth century to
begin.
--
James
Mike Barnes
>There are some countries where they seldom use ordinal numbers for the
>centuries but instead talk about the 1800s etc.
How sensible. I can't be the only one here who finds the whole "15th
century started in 1401" thing needlessly confusing and error-prone.
What's the point?
>In Sweden, for example, there can be no disputing that the 1900s
>started on 1 January 1900,
Good. I like it. The same applies here of course, the difference being
that people there don't bang on about the so-called "twentieth century".
>even though the Swedes had to wait another year for the twentieth
>century to begin.
So none of those centuries BC count?
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
aquachimp
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:28:20 +0000, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 06:22:18 -0800 (PST), aquachimp
> > <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 31 2009, 4:18 pm, Chuck Riggs <chri...@eircom.net> wrote:
> >>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
> >>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
> >>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
> >>> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
> >>> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the 2020s
> >>> and onwards there will be no problem, but will the upcoming decade
> >>> even have a name?
> >>> --
>
> >>> Regards,
>
> >>> Chuck Riggs,
> >>> An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
>
> >>The one letter common to all between 10 to 19 is the E The E-ies?
>
> >>As far as 3tenties" as someone mentioned? what do tents have to do with
> >>this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees
>
> > I think the idea behind "tenties" is that is rhymes with (or fits the
> > pattern of) twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, seventies,
> > eighties and nineties.
>
> Not rhyme, fer sure. Homoeoteleuton or sommat.
>
> I'm still holding out for "teens".
>
>
from
aquachimp
wrote:
(Sigh)
I thought I'd check out something, but to my surprise the answer, from
a quick glance it seems what I'm looking for is not to be found in
Numismatics (or the "Money" section, though did find that according to
wiki, "the refusal of an offer to pay in legal tender extinguishes the
debt in the same way acceptance does")
I thought thee would be a categorisation for sub units; like cents/
pence like "fifty-three pounds and thirty-five pence". it pounds
remain pounds long after the first.
And then I was thinking of "decade" and somehow thought of a deck of
cards. The deck is like the pound, made up of the cards.. and so I
offer the Deckties.
Philip Eden
I thought I'd check out something, but to my surprise the answer, from
a quick glance it seems what I'm looking for is not to be found in
Numismatics (or the "Money" section, though did find that according to
wiki, "the refusal of an offer to pay in legal tender extinguishes the
debt in the same way acceptance does")
I thought thee would be a categorisation for sub units; like cents/
pence like "fifty-three pounds and thirty-five pence". it pounds
remain pounds long after the first.
And then I was thinking of "decade" and somehow thought of a deck of
cards. The deck is like the pound, made up of the cards.. and so I
offer the Deckties.
+++++++++++++++++++++
But that looks as though it ought to rhyme with "neckties".
pe
Jonathan Morton
news:hhl7j...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Jonathan Morton filted:
>>
>>"James Hogg" <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:hhkvv3$bde$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> The pedants who waited until 1 January 2001 to celebrate the new
>>> millennium (alone) only have themselves to blame.
>>
>>1 January 2001? Pah. The true pedants waited until the night of 24 March
>>2001. I was one of them. We had an excellent party.
>
> Those who kept in mind with what event the calendar supposedly starts
> should
> have celebrated some time in the Spring of 1992....r
Possibly so, but what one can say with certainty is that 24 March 2001 was
the last day of the 2000th year of the Gregorian calendar.
Regards
Jonathan
Nick
> On 02/01/10 01:13, James Hogg wrote:
>
>> On the subject of spelling, however, I would be pedantic and insist that
>> there are two n's in "millennium". It comes from Latin "mille" +
>> "annus", not "mille" + "anus", and it has nothing to do with the sign of
>> the swinging tit in that famous Chinese street.
>>
> Somehow it never occurs to me to translate street names into Latin.
I speak no Russian, but before visiting St Petersburg taught myself
Cyrillic. Being able to transliterate street names in my head made it
much easier to remember my way around as once I'd done that I had a word
I could remember.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Chuck Riggs
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:27:56 +0000, Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:49:14 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:02:23 -0800, R H Draney wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chuck Riggs filted:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>>>>>2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>>>>>the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>>>>>calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>>>>>cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the 2020s
>>>>>and onwards there will be no problem, but will the upcoming decade
>>>>>even have a name?
>>>>
>>>> The one in the previous century was called "the teens"...still is, by
>>>> those of us who have occasion to speak of it in connection with silent
>>>> movies....r
>>>
>>>Historians will gladly speak of the teens of any century past, for that
>>>matter. There's still no consensus on the '00s in these parts.
>>
>> But do you think we will call this decade the teens before 2013 arrives?
>
>For my own part, I do already, and I see nothing extraordinary in doing
>so.
Then can we assume you call ten-year-olds teenagers?
Chuck Riggs
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>annily wrote:
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>>>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>>>> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>>>> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the
>>>> 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>>>> upcoming decade even have a name?
>>>
>>> Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given names; in
>>> fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the
>>> sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names.
>>
>> Why not? Isn't that exactly the sort of naming we're talking about? What
>> is the name for the 1890s you mention?
>>
>
>Mr Draney says "the Gay Nineties",
If he did, I believe I reported the fact first.
<snip>
Stan Brown
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com>:
>
> Ian Dalziel <ianda...@lineone.net> writes:
> > Indeed. The second millennium AD, however is one specific millennium.
>
> Indeed. Is that the specific millennium that's 13 days shorter than
> its predecessor or the one that's 353 days longer?
And let's not even get into the problems with "second millennium AD".
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Chuck Riggs
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On 1 Jan 2010 08:26:10 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>aquachimp filted:
>>>
>>>The one letter common to all between 10 to 19 is the E
>>>The E-ies?
>>>
>>>As far as 3tenties" as someone mentioned? what do tents have to do
>>>with this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees
>>
>>The one *digit* all those years share is the "1" in third position...perhaps we
>>should call our newborn decade "the Onesies"....r
>
>A columnistr in our local evening paper has suggested that the 2010s be
>called the "twenteens", adding "(got anything better?)".
If he is about to suggest the twentwents for the 2020s, I'm not
listening.
Chuck Riggs
<e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>"Chuck Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
>news:d5fpj5l3vli1uflmc...@4ax.com...
>
>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning?
>
>This problem is a granfalloon: at least it did not matter to our
>ancestors who called 1800-1810 either "the Napoleonic Wars"
>or perhaps "the Regency" and definitely called 1901-1910
>the Edwardian era. Perhaps nomenclature has been made
>a problem only by journalists who envy the successful coinages
>of the Roaring Twenties and the Dirty Thirties. Perhaps the
>problem is made worse because we now have so few
>monarchs and they live so long . . .
You're complicating my question needlessly. While you are probably
safe in betting your last dollar that the next decade will be called
the twenties, my question to the group was what will we call this one.
The "teens" has nearly won the day, it seems.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:47:56 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>On 1 Jan 2010 08:26:10 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>>aquachimp filted:
>>>>
>>>>The one letter common to all between 10 to 19 is the E
>>>>The E-ies?
>>>>
>>>>As far as 3tenties" as someone mentioned? what do tents have to do
>>>>with this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees
>>>
>>>The one *digit* all those years share is the "1" in third position...perhaps we
>>>should call our newborn decade "the Onesies"....r
>>
>>A columnistr in our local evening paper has suggested that the 2010s be
>>called the "twenteens", adding "(got anything better?)".
>
>If he is about to suggest the twentwents for the 2020s, I'm not
>listening.
I didn't mention that he is a she.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
aquachimp
wrote:
> "aquachimp" <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote :
Hmm, true;
The Decksies? But then some might wonder about why boats (on deck) are
involved.
So how about Decsies? (from decade) Though I have to confess I don't
know what that sound like.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Sometime in the future in the UK a period might in retrospectr be dubbed
the "Ant 'n' Decsies" for the activities of two TV presenters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_and_Dec
R H Draney
Only because they backdated it...this is only the 428th year of its use....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
aquachimp
wrote:
>
> --
> Peter Duncanson, UK
> (in alt.usage.english)
(-:
As anyone who cares to find out will have discovered, in some parts of
the world (inc. UK) I'm known PJ and it was a matter of great
amusement for a number of people to be introduced to my colleague of
the time who's name really was Duncan.
But, I am neither Any or Dec.
But more back on topic; Is there a useful classification in writing
that might help, like a term to distinguish symbols which provide no
meaning on their own until combined to create a "word" and I don't
mean letters or the alphabet?
Other than that, I notice that a group called Pearl Jam had an album
called Ten.. there's no reason why a name referencing an individual or
band or whatever can't be used for this decade. The Jammies.
Or given the logic of "...ties"
ahrm... The Aquaties? (but unsure when the age of Aquarius actually
begins/began.)
Or, from 10th ... The Tenthzies?
Or decagon-ties?
Garrett Wollman
R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Jonathan Morton filted:
>>Possibly so, but what one can say with certainty is that 24 March 2001 was
>>the last day of the 2000th year of the Gregorian calendar.
That's the "proleptic Gregorian calendar", TYVM.
>Only because they backdated it...this is only the 428th year of its use....r
Only the 257th year in the English-speaking world. (Parliament
adopted the new calendar to take effect from (O.S.) September 3,
1752.)
The most recent adoption in Europe, FWIW, appears to have been in
Turkey (if you call Turkey part of Europe), which my reference gives
as December 19, 1926 (which corresponds to 1927-01-01).[1] The most
recent adoption in North America was 1867-10-18, when Alaska became
part of the U.S. (and, at the same time, moved the as-yet-unrecognized
International Date Line from the Russia-Canada border to the new
Russia-U.S. border along the Bering Strait).
-GAWollman
[1] ISO 8601 requires the proleptic Gregorian calendar, so you can't
use it for dates in the Julian calendar. Perhaps that Julian date
might be written as MCMXXVI-XII-XIX.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
R H Draney
>
>Other than that, I notice that a group called Pearl Jam had an album
>called Ten.. there's no reason why a name referencing an individual or
>band or whatever can't be used for this decade. The Jammies.
If you're going to invoke pop culture, you'd do better with Bo Derek....
>Or given the logic of "...ties"
>ahrm... The Aquaties? (but unsure when the age of Aquarius actually
>begins/began.)
>
>Or, from 10th ... The Tenthzies?
>Or decagon-ties?
Most of those carry bits of additional concepts, not just the number ten....
How about The Dixies?...r
aquachimp
> aquachimp filted:
>
>
>
> >Other than that, I notice that a group called Pearl Jam had an album
> >called Ten.. there's no reason why a name referencing an individual or
> >band or whatever can't be used for this decade. The Jammies.
>
> If you're going to invoke pop culture, you'd do better with Bo Derek....
>
> >Or given the logic of "...ties"
> >ahrm... The Aquaties? (but unsure when the age of Aquarius actually
> >begins/began.)
>
> >Or, from 10th ... The Tenthzies?
> >Or decagon-ties?
>
> Most of those carry bits of additional concepts, not just the number ten....
>
> How about The Dixies?...r
>
Search engine suggested I also try "The pixies"
No such confusion with The Tenthzies.
Robin Bignall
<my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:27:56 +0000, Chuck Riggs wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:49:14 +0000 (UTC), Roland Hutchinson
>> <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:02:23 -0800, R H Draney wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chuck Riggs filted:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years
>>>>>2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>>>>>the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>>>>>calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>>>>>cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the 2020s
>>>>>and onwards there will be no problem, but will the upcoming decade
>>>>>even have a name?
>>>>
>>>> The one in the previous century was called "the teens"...still is, by
>>>> those of us who have occasion to speak of it in connection with silent
>>>> movies....r
>>>
>>>Historians will gladly speak of the teens of any century past, for that
>>>matter. There's still no consensus on the '00s in these parts.
>>
>> But do you think we will call this decade the teens before 2013 arrives?
>
>For my own part, I do already, and I see nothing extraordinary in doing
>so.
You are in line with what readers say in feedback to The Times, so
they say today.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
R H Draney
>> >Or decagon-ties?
>>
>...
>>
>> How about The Dixies?...r
>>
>
>
>Search engine suggested I also try "The pixies"
>No such confusion with The Tenthzies.
Knowing the trouble some people have with adjacent fricatives (try to get people
to pronounce "sixths"), I'd expect that to mutate into something like
"tent-disease"....r
Robert Bannister
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 13:06:13 +1030, annily <ann...@annily.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>>>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on
>>>>> the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up
>>>>> calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That
>>>>> cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the
>>>>> 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the
>>>>> upcoming decade even have a name?
>>>> fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the
>>>> sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names.
>>> Why not? Isn't that exactly the sort of naming we're talking about?
>>
>>
>>> What is the name for the 1890s you mention?
>>
>
> Ah, yes, of course. Wouldn't work for the 1990s though (at least not
> with the same meaning).
>
> -
> Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
> which may or may not influence my opinions.
I don't know - most of the music was pretty gay.
--
Rob Bannister
Jonathan Morton
news:hho5f7$2mqb$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
> In article <hho24...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>Jonathan Morton filted:
>>>Possibly so, but what one can say with certainty is that 24 March 2001
>>>was
>>>the last day of the 2000th year of the Gregorian calendar.
>
> That's the "proleptic Gregorian calendar", TYVM.
>
>>Only because they backdated it...this is only the 428th year of its
>>use....r
True, of course.
> Only the 257th year in the English-speaking world. (Parliament
> adopted the new calendar to take effect from (O.S.) September 3,
> 1752.)
More significantly, the Act of 1750 moved the beginning of the year (in
England) from 25 March to 1 January, with effect from 1 January 1752. I
believe Scotland had adopted this practice earlier. Both 1751 (25 March to
31 December) and 1752 (1 January to 2 September and 14 September to 31
December) were short years. The first fully-modernised year was therefore
1753.
It is quite common - especially on gravestones - to see references to early
18th century dates between 1 January and 24 March rendered as 1724/5 or
whatever.
> The most recent adoption in Europe, FWIW, appears to have been in
> Turkey (if you call Turkey part of Europe), which my reference gives
> as December 19, 1926 (which corresponds to 1927-01-01).[1] The most
> recent adoption in North America was 1867-10-18, when Alaska became
> part of the U.S. (and, at the same time, moved the as-yet-unrecognized
> International Date Line from the Russia-Canada border to the new
> Russia-U.S. border along the Bering Strait).
Interesting.
Regards
Jonathan
Nick
writes:
> It is quite common - especially on gravestones - to see references to early
> 18th century dates between 1 January and 24 March rendered as 1724/5 or
> whatever.
There's on in the churchyard at Newbold on Avon that threw me when I saw
it: it's written as 172¾ (that's with the 3 and 4 written small). It
took me a minute or so to realise what was going on and that it wasn't a
fractional year.
aquachimp
"Some" will call it a dickade to.
But sinse Tenthzies doesn't float your boat, and you've not commented
on Tennies, or Tennties, how about Tennyties?
James Silverton
>> It is quite common - especially on gravestones - to see
>> references to early 18th century dates between 1 January and
>> 24 March rendered as 1724/5 or whatever.
> There's on in the churchyard at Newbold on Avon that threw me
> when I saw it: it's written as 172¾ (that's with the 3 and 4
> written small). It took me a minute or so to realise what was
> going on and that it wasn't a fractional year.
That's interesting. It's perhaps OT (or more relevant to another
discusssion) but, tho I've never seen such dates, your comment does
emphasize that people used arabic numerals in the 18th century. I've
certainly seen arabic numerals for building dates on houses. The later
popularity of Roman numerals seems atavistic.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
There may be material for a poem in this -- in the style of Tennyson, of
course)
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:37:10 -0000:
The version of BASIC I use stores dates and times together as double
precision floating point numbers with the date as the integer portion
and the time as fractions of a day. It only handles back to 1/1/1753
and gives up after 31/12/2072. Interestingly it's zero point is a day
earlier than one might expect, on 30/12/1899. I suspect this may be
something to do with 1900 not being a leap year.
Obviously they avoid 1752 and earlier because of the Julian/Gregorian
change, and they avoid 2079 and later because the number would exceed
65535 during that year.
01 Jan 1753 -53688
02 Jan 1753 -53687
03 Jan 1753 -53686
04 Jan 1753 -53685
05 Jan 1753 -53684
06 Jan 1753 -53683
27 Dec 1899 -3
28 Dec 1899 -2
29 Dec 1899 -1
30 Dec 1899 0
31 Dec 1899 1
01 Jan 1900 2
02 Jan 1900 3
26 Dec 2078 65375
27 Dec 2078 65376
28 Dec 2078 65377
29 Dec 2078 65378
30 Dec 2078 65379
31 Dec 2078 65380
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>The version of BASIC I use stores dates and times together as double
>precision floating point numbers with the date as the integer portion
>and the time as fractions of a day. It only handles back to 1/1/1753
>and gives up after 31/12/2072.
Prepare for Y2K72 asap.
--
Chuck Riggs
Since we won't actually be in the teens until 1 January 2013, I find
that to be mildly interesting.
Chuck Riggs
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:47:58 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:47:56 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
>><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 1 Jan 2010 08:26:10 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>aquachimp filted:
>>>>>
>>>>>The one letter common to all between 10 to 19 is the E
>>>>>The E-ies?
>>>>>
>>>>>As far as 3tenties" as someone mentioned? what do tents have to do
>>>>>with this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees
>>>>
>>>>The one *digit* all those years share is the "1" in third position...perhaps we
>>>>should call our newborn decade "the Onesies"....r
>>>
>>>A columnistr in our local evening paper has suggested that the 2010s be
>>>called the "twenteens", adding "(got anything better?)".
>>
>>If he is about to suggest the twentwents for the 2020s, I'm not
>>listening.
>
>I didn't mention that he is a she.
At home or only when dressing up for town?
Nick Spalding
<dc91k59u9md2iat8d...@4ax.com>
on Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:12:15 +0000:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:05:45 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
> wrote:
>
>
> >The version of BASIC I use stores dates and times together as double
> >precision floating point numbers with the date as the integer portion
> >and the time as fractions of a day. It only handles back to 1/1/1753
> >and gives up after 31/12/2072.
>
> Prepare for Y2K72 asap.
It will still be going when Unix gives up.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Nick
> Nick wrote on Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:50:24 +0000:
>
>>> It is quite common - especially on gravestones - to see
>>> references to early 18th century dates between 1 January and
>>> 24 March rendered as 1724/5 or whatever.
>
>> There's on in the churchyard at Newbold on Avon that threw me
>> when I saw it: it's written as 172¾ (that's with the 3 and 4
>> written small). It took me a minute or so to realise what was
>> going on and that it wasn't a fractional year.
>
> That's interesting. It's perhaps OT (or more relevant to another
> discusssion) but, tho I've never seen such dates, your comment does
> emphasize that people used arabic numerals in the 18th century. I've
> certainly seen arabic numerals for building dates on houses. The later
> popularity of Roman numerals seems atavistic.
They seemed to use them in different ways. A house just up the road is
timber framed (it's got a Georgean front on it, but from the side/back
it's all half-timbered) and predates the Civil War. You can see where
the beams were numbered for assembly (it was standard practice to make
the frames in a yard somewhere, then take them to site and assemble
them) because someone has picked them out in white paint. They are
Roman numbers. That might be of course because it's a lot easier to cut
combinations of IVX into timber with a chisel than 3,5,8 and 9 (for
example).
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in
><dc91k59u9md2iat8d...@4ax.com>
> on Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:12:15 +0000:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:05:45 +0000, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >The version of BASIC I use stores dates and times together as double
>> >precision floating point numbers with the date as the integer portion
>> >and the time as fractions of a day. It only handles back to 1/1/1753
>> >and gives up after 31/12/2072.
>>
>> Prepare for Y2K72 asap.
>
>It will still be going when Unix gives up.
And where Unix goes, Linux follows.
Garrett Wollman
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> wrote:
>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in
><dc91k59u9md2iat8d...@4ax.com>
> on Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:12:15 +0000:
>
>It will still be going when Unix gives up.
If anyone is still running a 32-bit Unix in 2038, I expect to make a
mint helping them to upgrade to something more modern.
Nearly all flavors of *ix on nearly all 64-bit platforms use a 64-bit
time_t, which will still be going long after the sun has left the main
sequence.
-GAWollman
Leslie Danks
> "James Silverton" <not.jim....@verizon.net> writes:
[...]
>> That's interesting. It's perhaps OT (or more relevant to another
>> discusssion) but, tho I've never seen such dates, your comment does
>> emphasize that people used arabic numerals in the 18th century. I've
>> certainly seen arabic numerals for building dates on houses. The later
>> popularity of Roman numerals seems atavistic.
>
> They seemed to use them in different ways. A house just up the road is
> timber framed (it's got a Georgean front on it, but from the side/back
> it's all half-timbered) and predates the Civil War. You can see where
> the beams were numbered for assembly (it was standard practice to make
> the frames in a yard somewhere, then take them to site and assemble
> them) because someone has picked them out in white paint. They are
> Roman numbers. That might be of course because it's a lot easier to cut
> combinations of IVX into timber with a chisel than 3,5,8 and 9 (for
> example).
I believe that's true. We have some old, hand-made furniture in which
chiselled Roman numerals are used for marking which drawer is which, and
which way round the sides of beds join to the heads and feet.
--
Les (BrE)
Jonathan Morton
news:7381k5p23rm7ntaan...@4ax.com...
>
> The version of BASIC I use stores dates and times together as double
> precision floating point numbers with the date as the integer portion
> and the time as fractions of a day. It only handles back to 1/1/1753
> and gives up after 31/12/2072. Interestingly it's zero point is a day
> earlier than one might expect, on 30/12/1899. I suspect this may be
> something to do with 1900 not being a leap year.
Isn't it the case that - to this day - Excel and Lotus 1-2-3 wrongly treat
1900 as a leap year because the writers of the early spreadsheets thought
that it was? The explanation I recall said that it is simpler for
compatibility purposes to replicate the error than to correct it.
Surprisingly little fuss was made on 29 February 2000 - the first xx00 leap
year since the reform of the calendar.
Regards
Jonathan