Twenty-ten or two thousand ten?
Mxsmanic
QT
> Which way of saying 2010 is gaining the most ground?
Twenty-ten sounds like something a sports commentator would say.
Just my non-native speaker's opinion.
--
qt
HVS
> Which way of saying 2010 is gaining the most ground?
Twenty-ten, from what I've heard (and certainly from what I've found
myself using).
I suspect that for many people (or me, at least), the digits group
differently in the mind's eye: 2001-2009 look like "three-digits-
followed-by-one", while 2010 looks like "two-digits-plus-two".
(This didn't apply with the previous century: 1901 looks like "2+2
digits", not "3+1".)
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
GFH
Like nineteen-fifty? Who said "nineteen hundred-eighty"? Those are
the people who should say "two thousand ten"; the rest will say
"twenty ten".
Of course "two thousand and ten" is incorrect on several levels. And
remember to celebrate the end of the decade on January 1, twenty
eleven,
not twenty ten.
GFH
Chris R
GFH opined:
> On Dec 30, 5:56 am, "QT" <quicktransUNSPAMDES...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Which way of saying 2010 is gaining the most ground?
>>
>> Twenty-ten sounds like something a sports commentator would say.
>> Just my non-native speaker's opinion.
The BBC seems to have adopted "twenty-ten".
>
> Like nineteen-fifty? Who said "nineteen hundred-eighty"? Those are
> the people who should say "two thousand ten"; the rest will say
> "twenty ten".
>
> Of course "two thousand and ten" is incorrect on several levels.
What levels would those be? That's the normal form of saying the number in
British English, like "a hundred and one" or "one hundred and eighty".
So far I say "two thousand and ten" just as I said "two thousand and eight",
but it may change. In contrast I say "nineteen-oh-one".
Chris R
Glenn Knickerbocker
>Like nineteen-fifty? Who said "nineteen hundred-eighty"?
Or, more to the point, "one thousand nine hundred eighty"?
I still expect a mix of "twenty-ten" and "two thousand ten," though,
because the next year can't possibly be "twenty-'leven."
http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/arkville.html "I felt like I was in a
�R demented Wallace Stevens poem, with food poisoning." Spalding Gray
Opinicus
<No...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> I still expect a mix of "twenty-ten" and "two thousand ten," though,
> because the next year can't possibly be "twenty-'leven."
Why not?
1711
1811
1911
...
Even
711
;-)
I'm especially looking forward to 2020. I wonder if they'll designate
it Year of Optometrists...
--
Bob
http://www.kanyak.com
the Omrud
inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk says...
>
> In news:bf383463-c3f4-437d...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com,
> GFH opined:
> > On Dec 30, 5:56 am, "QT" <quicktransUNSPAMDES...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic wrote:
> >>> Which way of saying 2010 is gaining the most ground?
> >>
> >> Twenty-ten sounds like something a sports commentator would say.
> >> Just my non-native speaker's opinion.
>
> The BBC seems to have adopted "twenty-ten".
When we last discussed this, it came on Feedback - the head of
announcing (or whatever) said it was up to each newsreader and
announcer.
--
David
Cece
> In article <yKydnQPu1Yh_-abWnZ2dnUVZ7qSdn...@brightview.co.uk>,
> inva...@invalid.munge.co.uk says...
>
>
>
> > Innews:bf383463-c3f4-437d...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com,
> > GFH opined:
> > > On Dec 30, 5:56 am, "QT" <quicktransUNSPAMDES...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > >> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > >>> Which way of saying 2010 is gaining the most ground?
>
> > >> Twenty-ten sounds like something a sports commentator would say.
> > >> Just my non-native speaker's opinion.
>
> > The BBC seems to have adopted "twenty-ten".
>
> When we last discussed this, it came on Feedback - the head of
> announcing (or whatever) said it was up to each newsreader and
> announcer.
>
> --
> David
ABC has been using twenty-ten. Thank goodness! I've been using
"twenty-[number]" since 2001. (My mother told me she was born in
nineteen-oh-two.)
In my mouth, 2011 has five syllables; the middle one is a very short
schwa.
John Varela
Did you say "nineteen and fifty" or "nineteen and ninety-nine"?
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Patok
>
> Of course "two thousand and ten" is incorrect on several levels.
As saying the year, probably. Usually years don't have the 'and',
even if you say "nineteen-hundred xx" instead of "nineteen xx". But I
think he was talking about numbers in general, and there, the correct
form is "two thousand and ten".
> And
> remember to celebrate the end of the decade on January 1, twenty
> eleven,
> not twenty ten.
This is arguable. If you're talking about centuries or millennia,
yes, that would be the case. But since we don't have a formal definition
of 'decade', both are possible. If you said "celebrate the end of the
first decade of the 21-st century", you would have a point. But 'decade'
could be used to mean "the ten years that are written as 200x", and then
it would be this January 1st. The other day on BBC Match of the Day the
female commentator used it exactly in this sense, and called the decade
"the naughties". (Or maybe she said "noughties" and it just sounded like
"naughties" - I wouldn't know. Nought.)
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
mm
wrote:
It depends which decade you want to celebrate the end of, the one that
ends at midnight, Dec. 31, 2009, or midnight, Dec 31, 2010. Or the
one that ends at 4:35 PM, January 27, 2010.
>GFH
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
musika
John Varela <OLDl...@verizon.net> typed:
No, it's because of the "thousand". We would say "nineteen hundred and
fifty" and "fourteen hundred and ninety-two".
--
Ray
UK
HVS
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:41:48 -0800 (PST), GFH wrote:
>> Like nineteen-fifty? Who said "nineteen hundred-eighty"?
>
> Or, more to the point, "one thousand nine hundred eighty"?
>
> I still expect a mix of "twenty-ten" and "two thousand ten,"
> though, because the next year can't possibly be "twenty-'leven."
Why on earth not?
Curious minds wish to know, and all that.
HVS
> GFH wrote:
>>
>> Of course "two thousand and ten" is incorrect on several
>> levels.
>
> As saying the year, probably. Usually years don't have the
> 'and',
> even if you say "nineteen-hundred xx" instead of "nineteen xx".
"Nineteen hundred and fifty-two" sounds OK to me; a bit formal,
perhaps, but unremarkable.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On 30 Dec 2009, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote
>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:41:48 -0800 (PST), GFH wrote:
>>> Like nineteen-fifty? Who said "nineteen hundred-eighty"?
>>
>> Or, more to the point, "one thousand nine hundred eighty"?
>>
>> I still expect a mix of "twenty-ten" and "two thousand ten,"
>> though, because the next year can't possibly be "twenty-'leven."
>
>Why on earth not?
>
>Curious minds wish to know, and all that.
In a post that I parially composed and then discarded I attempted to
make the point that "Twenty Eleven" has the disadvantage in speech that
there are two successive vowel sounds: "y" and "e". This is not problem
in carefully articulated speech in which the words are distinct, but
things get more difficult in flowing (or mumbling) speech.
"Twenty-'leven" with the initial "e" dropped is a good way to avoid
having to stop between the "y" and the "e".
In some accents it might be impossible to distinguish between
"Twenty-'leven" and "Twent'-eleven".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>parially composed
That is a partially composed version of "partially composed"
HVS
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:11:51 GMT, HVS
> <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 30 Dec 2009, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:41:48 -0800 (PST), GFH wrote:
>>>> Like nineteen-fifty? Who said "nineteen hundred-eighty"?
>>> I still expect a mix of "twenty-ten" and "two thousand ten,"
>>> though, because the next year can't possibly be
>>> "twenty-'leven."
>>
>> Why on earth not?
>>
>> Curious minds wish to know, and all that.
>
> In a post that I parially composed and then discarded I
> attempted to make the point that "Twenty Eleven" has the
> disadvantage in speech that there are two successive vowel
> sounds: "y" and "e". This is not problem in carefully
> articulated speech in which the words are distinct, but things
> get more difficult in flowing (or mumbling) speech.
> "Twenty-'leven" with the initial "e" dropped is a good way to
> avoid having to stop between the "y" and the "e".
>
> In some accents it might be impossible to distinguish between
> "Twenty-'leven" and "Twent'-eleven".
Hmmm.... I honestly can't think of any situation at all where the
difference between those two -- when referring in context to a
calendar year -- would cause any misunderstanding at all (let alone
some sort of critically-important misunderstanding).
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
I was thinking purely of the sound. There is no difference in meaning.
HVS
Oh, OK. (It doesn't convince me that it'll make anyone hesitate to
adopt "twenty-eleven", though.)
Pat Durkin
"HVS" <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF286E2...@news.albasani.net...
> On 30 Dec 2009, Patok wrote
>
>> GFH wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course "two thousand and ten" is incorrect on several
>>> levels.
>>
>> As saying the year, probably. Usually years don't have the
>> 'and',
>> even if you say "nineteen-hundred xx" instead of "nineteen xx".
>
> "Nineteen hundred and fifty-two" sounds OK to me; a bit formal,
> perhaps, but unremarkable.
There is even an old style, informal and perhaps "country", or
regional.
Nineteen and fifty four. I haven't heard those speakers try it with
dates in this century, though. (Twenty and nine? twenty and ten?
Begins to sound like old fashioned counting: 2009=29=nine and
twenty?)
Pat Durkin
"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:tt9pj59hk9nlv7h10...@4ax.com...
so on.
John Varela
Do you actually say those dates that way?
musika
John Varela <OLDl...@verizon.net> typed:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:13:16 UTC, "musika"
> <mUs...@SPAMNOTexcite.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-XGTHw048CI@localhost,
>> John Varela <OLDl...@verizon.net> typed:
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:34:09 UTC, "Chris R"
>>> <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> So far I say "two thousand and ten" just as I said "two thousand
>>>> and eight", but it may change. In contrast I say "nineteen-oh-one".
>>>
>>> Did you say "nineteen and fifty" or "nineteen and ninety-nine"?
>>
>> No, it's because of the "thousand". We would say "nineteen hundred
>> and fifty" and "fourteen hundred and ninety-two".
>
> Do you actually say those dates that way?
It's probably a bit old-fashioned and certainly rather formal.
I chose the 1492 date because of the Columbus rhyme.
I assume most Americans would say:
"In fourteen hundred ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue"
(If they know the rhyme at all)
Most Brits would say:
"In fourteen hundred and ninety-two
Columbus sailed the ocean blue"
--
Ray
UK
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Not me.
I'd say "nineteen fifty" and "fourteen ninety-two".
The "hundred and" versions might appear in literary, poetic and
theatrical English. That style might occasionally be heard in
conversation from someone who decides to speak that way for effect.
I have heard a few people here in Northern Ireland use the "nineteen and
fifty" form. I would describe is as dialectal or regional (for some
values of "dialect" and "region").
John Varela
wrote:
> As saying the year, probably. Usually years don't have the 'and',
> even if you say "nineteen-hundred xx" instead of "nineteen xx". But I
> think he was talking about numbers in general, and there, the correct
> form is "two thousand and ten".
Not here it isn't. "And" is not used except to introduce a fraction.
Two thousand ten feet. Two thousand ten and a half feet.
Two thousand ten feet, six inches. Two thousand ten feet, six and a
half inches.
Glenn Knickerbocker
>Oh, shucks. Your earlier reply made me think of "'leventy-one", and
>so on.
Exactly. Eleventeen, 'leventy-seven--isn't twenty-'leven in most
people's vocabulary of folksy names of imaginarily large numbers?
"It's not the size of the boat, it's Matt McIrvin" -- Joe
�R / http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/ny2001.html / Manfre
Pat Durkin
"John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-ooxkJQmnLSOW@localhost...
Maybe in your region that is true, but I think not in mine. It is not
lost in memory that I learned or heard others learning to count: a
hundred and one, a hundred and two. Oh, sure, that is juvenile, but
some people never advance beyond that, and the carryover from counting
in a series to numbering items is natural.
In an earlier post I mentioned "nineteen and fifty-two" for a year's
label. But recall the words of the Gettysburg address: four score
and seven years ago. Nowadays we don't use the score kind of
counting, but the "and" is still a lasting memory. And I don't think
we really lose it after your "thousand ('n') ten", either. It may
disappear in your hearing, but not in mine. The "d" vanishes long
before the "'n'" is lost "two thousan ten dollars.
Oh, I'm talkin' "speech", not "writin'", you see.
Robin Bignall
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:39:24 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>parially composed
>
>That is a partially composed version of "partially composed"
Better that than totally decomposed.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Ian Jackson
Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
being expressed as "nineteen and fifty". However, in some English
regions (Hertfordshire and Essex, I think), some of the old folk might
still say "nine and fifty", meaning "59" (similar to "four and twenty
blackbirds").
--
Ian
Cece
<m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2009 16:26:10 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:13:16 UTC, "musika"
> ><mUs...@SPAMNOTexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >> Innews:dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-XGTHw048CI@localhost,
> >> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:34:09 UTC, "Chris R"
> >> > <inva...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> So far I say "two thousand and ten" just as I said "two thousand and
> >> >> eight", but it may change. In contrast I say "nineteen-oh-one".
>
> >> > Did you say "nineteen and fifty" or "nineteen and ninety-nine"?
>
> >> No, it's because of the "thousand". We would say "nineteen hundred and
> >> fifty" and "fourteen hundred and ninety-two".
>
> >Do you actually say those dates that way?
>
> Not me.
>
> I'd say "nineteen fifty" and "fourteen ninety-two".
>
> The "hundred and" versions might appear in literary, poetic and
> theatrical English. That style might occasionally be heard in
> conversation from someone who decides to speak that way for effect.
>
> I have heard a few people here in Northern Ireland use the "nineteen and
> fifty" form. I would describe is as dialectal or regional (for some
> values of "dialect" and "region").
>
> --
> Peter Duncanson, UK
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've heard it from older folks from rural areas of the U.S. And not
in quite a while. I grew up saying "nineteen fifty-five" (about the
earliest year I might have had occasion to say it, and about the time
I learned about years and their numbers).
The Columbus poem as I learned it (in Indiana) had the "and" stuck
in. But that's so it'll scan.
In the U.S., "and" does not go in whole numbers. "Fourteen hundred
and ninety-two" means 1400.92. I was taught this in sixth grade (age
11), and I've seen it since in accounting textbooks. I've also heard
it from sci-tech types. And in the official "how to read numbers
aloud" section of the SI publications. I hear it's different in BrE?
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<ceceliaa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>In the U.S., "and" does not go in whole numbers. "Fourteen hundred
>and ninety-two" means 1400.92. I was taught this in sixth grade (age
>11), and I've seen it since in accounting textbooks. I've also heard
>it from sci-tech types. And in the official "how to read numbers
>aloud" section of the SI publications. I hear it's different in BrE?
Yes. In my experience (in BrE) the ".92" in 1400.92 would be said as
"point nine two".
John Varela
We've trodden this ground before. I'll remark anyway that in
ordinary conversation I would read that decimal fraction as
"fourteen hundred point ninety-two" but as "point nine two" if I
were taking a meter reading.
If it were 1400 92/100 it would be "fourteen hundred and 92
hundredths".
Yvan Hall
Log on to Find out how you can make money by clicking PTC Sites, my Web
Site.
You will find good Affiiliates for health products, such as EDTA-Oral
Chelation,
Apricot kernels for cancer treament, Other affiliates are for Computers,
household products, Satellite TV (You may watch International Channel on
your Computer),
Download Commmercial Movies, Email, Free Horoscope.
"John Varela" <OLDl...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-XGTHw048CI@localhost...
Cece
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:41:37 UTC, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
>
I agree; that's the way I'd say it too. But folks with no science
training probably won't, and any scientist, engineer, or technician
will ask what is meant -- or make a mistake.
klm8203
<m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2009 16:26:10 GMT, "John Varela" <OLDla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:13:16 UTC, "musika"
> ><mUs...@SPAMNOTexcite.com> wrote:
>
> >> John Varela <OLDla...@verizon.net> typed:
> >> > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:34:09 UTC, "Chris R"
> >> > <inva...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >> So far I say "two thousand and ten" just as I said "two thousand and
> >> >> eight", but it may change. In contrast I say "nineteen-oh-one".
>
> >> > Did you say "nineteen and fifty" or "nineteen and ninety-nine"?
>
> >> No, it's because of the "thousand". We would say "nineteen hundred and
> >> fifty" and "fourteen hundred and ninety-two".
>
> >Do you actually say those dates that way?
>
> Not me.
>
> I'd say "nineteen fifty" and "fourteen ninety-two".
>
> The "hundred and" versions might appear in literary, poetic and
> theatrical English. That style might occasionally be heard in
> conversation from someone who decides to speak that way for effect.
>
> I have heard a few people here in Northern Ireland use the "nineteen and
> fifty" form. I would describe is as dialectal or regional (for some
> values of "dialect" and "region").
>
> --
> Peter Duncanson, UK
> (in alt.english.usage)
I have another question. I definitely agree that we should say 'twenty-
ten'. Even, despite not being a native speaker, having spent most of
my life studying English, it feels a more natural way. However,
recently I've come across 'two thousand and ten' in an intermediate-
level coursebook for teaching English published by Oxford University
Press. So, can you explain this anyhow??? Thanks a lot
Karol, Poland