the 1700s, 1800s 1900s - 1st decade or whole century?
mike.j...@gmail.com
first decade of the eighteenth century, followed by the eighteen tens,
twenties, etc. When did the current, (to me very irritating) very
prevalent alternative meaning arise? It always makes me jump when
people say that (for example) the American Civil War happened in the
"mid eighteen hundreds" or that the French Revolution happened in the
"late seventeen hundreds".
cybercypher
We didn't say it that way in the US when I was a boy. We said "the
nineteenth century", not "the 1800s". I can't remember ever saying
things like "the 1800s" or "the 1810s". The "1820s, "1830s", etc., yes,
however.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"If you are still not convinced of the ass-brain connection, finish
this sentence: 'It is easier to think after I … (a) get a haircut
(b) take a dump'." Scott Adams, The Dilbert Blog, 12 Jan 2007;
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/
teranews now charges a one-time US$3.95 setup fee
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
HVS
I didn't start it, but I'll raise my hand as an enthusiastically
guilty party.
When I first started working with historic buildings, I found the
use of the "Xth century" momentarily confusing for anything earlier
than about the 17th or 18th. My initial reaction on reading "a
13th-century house" was invariably to think of the 1300s, and I had
to stop and recalculate to get the correct century.
In architectural and art history, though, I'd encountered the
Italian use of "-cento" -- cinquecento means 1500s, not 15th
century -- and considered that to be a greatly superior convention
since it didn't require a mental shifting of gears to translate
"16th century" to "15xx".
In a few reports I then started using the cardinals rather than
ordinals, and the response was invariably positive: it turned out
that large numbers of my clients were also doing the "Xth-one"
calculation each time they came across a century name, and they
were grateful that I'd largely abandoned it.
So whilst I'm sorry it irritates you, I'll continue to use the form
that I've been told involves less rather than more mental stumbling
over the meaning of the text.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
Archie Valparaiso
wrought:
I agree, and the farther back you go the head-scratchier it gets (e.g.
305 BC was in "the 4th century BC"...I think). The same goes for
millennia -- the "third millennium" is right now, not the year 3000
(or for pedants 3001) onwards.
The only confusion -- and, I suppose, source of irritation -- from
preferring the "XX00s" form comes when people use "the 1700s" to refer
only to the first decade of the 18th century without making it clear
what they mean. (Would the same people call this decade the "2000s"? I
doubt it.)
--
Archie Valparaiso
mike.j...@gmail.com
Archie Valparaiso wrote:
> >I didn't start it, but I'll raise my hand as an enthusiastically
> >guilty party.
> >
For shame!
> >When I first started working with historic buildings, I found the
> >use of the "Xth century" momentarily confusing for anything earlier
> >than about the 17th or 18th. My initial reaction on reading "a
> >13th-century house" was invariably to think of the 1300s, and I had
> >to stop and recalculate to get the correct century.
I don't seem to have that particular problem. Is subtracting 1 such a
big deal?
> The only confusion -- and, I suppose, source of irritation -- from
> preferring the "XX00s" form comes when people use "the 1700s" to refer
> only to the first decade of the 18th century without making it clear
> what they mean. (Would the same people call this decade the "2000s"? I
> doubt it.)
Maybe they call it the twenty-hundreds?
Archie Valparaiso
Several years ago I was working with texts that contained a lot of
dates and periods, and I concluded that the "the XXX0s" structure only
works for periods between XX20 and XX99. So, although we can talk
about "the 1930s" and "the 1970s" with no problem, "the 1910s" looks
odd (probably because the sound "ten" doesn't appear in the name of
any of the years referred to -- they're "-teens" not "-tens", and
"eleven" and "twelve" don't get a look in), while -- as we've seen
above -- "the 1900s" is plain misleading. The only safe -- albeit
clunky -- ways to refer to 1910-1919 (or, for pedants, 1911-1920) seem
to be to either to say "the second decade of the 20th century" or,
better, to write out the years in question as a range.
--
Archie Valparaiso
HVS
>
> Archie Valparaiso wrote:
>
>>> I didn't start it, but I'll raise my hand as an
>>> enthusiastically guilty party.
>>>
>
> For shame!
>
>
>>> When I first started working with historic buildings, I found
>>> the use of the "Xth century" momentarily confusing for
>>> anything earlier than about the 17th or 18th. My initial
>>> reaction on reading "a 13th-century house" was invariably to
>>> think of the 1300s, and I had to stop and recalculate to get
>>> the correct century.
>
> I don't seem to have that particular problem. Is subtracting 1
> such a big deal?
When you're dealing with it frequently, throughout a report, and
it's constantly getting in the way of rapid comprehension? Yeah,
I'd classify that as a big deal.
Your mileage clearly varies, but I suspect you're in the minority
which is well-schooled in it. As I went on to mention, I
discovered that I wasn't alone in stumbling over this: even in a
specialist field that dealt with it all the time, it was, in fact,
a stumbling-block to ease of comprehension for many people.
Archie Valparaiso
wrought:
I'm with Harvey on this. It gets particularly messy when specific
dates are mentioned in the same block of text as centuries, sometimes
with quite weird results: "Although not completed until 1673, the
building stands as a fine example of the early-17th-century Spanish
Baroque" -- which on first reading seems to suggest that it was way
ahead of its time rather than what it actually was: a late developer.
--
Archie Valparaiso
Mark Brader
> I am sure that when I was at school, the "eighteen hundreds" meant
> the first decade of the eighteenth century, followed by the eighteen
I, on the other hand, don't remember ever encountering that
interpretation before the 1990s, when people started asking "what
are we ever going to call the next decade?" -- and the fact that
they had to ask should tell you that "the 2000s" was not considered
a possible answer.
I wonder if Mike might have picked this up from a particular teacher
(one more enamored of consistency than communication, say) without
realizing that it was nonstandard.
--
Mark Brader I'm not pompous; I'm pedantic.
Toronto Let me explain it to you.
m...@vex.net --Mary Kay Kare
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Donna Richoux
> I am sure that when I was at school, the "eighteen hundreds" meant the
> first decade of the eighteenth century, followed by the eighteen tens,
> twenties, etc.
Like Mark Brader, I have no memory of that. It could have happened
somewhere.
> When did the current, (to me very irritating) very
> prevalent alternative meaning arise? It always makes me jump when
> people say that (for example) the American Civil War happened in the
> "mid eighteen hundreds" or that the French Revolution happened in the
> "late seventeen hundreds".
I wish the Google Book search was a little better for publication dates,
but it indicates fairly numerous hits for these ranges:
"eighteen hundreds" dates 1900-1950 55
1800's dates 1900-1950 628
1800s dates 1900-1950 211
Those with good memories will recall that the plural form with the
apostrophe was the US standard in that era for numbers.
Some examples of those hits:
The Teaching of English in the High School - Page 49
by Clarence Stratton - 1923
The localization of the short story in modern times does not mean
that there were none before the eighteen hundreds.
Lake Pontchartrain - Page 122
by Walter Adolphe Roberts - 1946
In 1931 children playing on Shell Beach, Lake Borgne, picked up
coins dated in the early 1800's, of Spanish and United States
mintage, ...
Science & Society - Page 519
by EbscoHost, Bernhard Joseph Stern - 1936
The factors making for the many revolts of the 1790s and the early
1800s, the depression and ...
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
mike.j...@gmail.com
>
> > I am sure that when I was at school, the "eighteen hundreds" meant the
> > first decade of the eighteenth century
I have just noticed that I should have typed "nineteenth century"
there. Either nobody noticed, or more likely, nobody was unkind enough
to point it out...
Jeffrey Turner
>
>
> Science & Society - Page 519
> by EbscoHost, Bernhard Joseph Stern - 1936
> The factors making for the many revolts of the 1790s and the early
> 1800s, the depression and ...
This last usage is clearly ambiguous. Did he mean only up to 1804 or
would a revolt in 1814 have been included? Or is it just my memory of
history that's faulty?
--Jeff
--
The shepherd always tries to persuade
the sheep that their interests and
his own are the same. --Stendhal
Blinky the Shark
> Donna Richoux wrote:
>>
>>
>> Science & Society - Page 519
>> by EbscoHost, Bernhard Joseph Stern - 1936
>> The factors making for the many revolts of the 1790s and the early
>> 1800s, the depression and ...
>
> This last usage is clearly ambiguous. Did he mean only up to 1804 or
> would a revolt in 1814 have been included? Or is it just my memory of
> history that's faulty?
US midwestern education (1950s and 1960s) here: "early 1800s" would mean
the early part of the 19th century, not a decade, so your Revolution Of
1814 would most likely be included.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Oleg Lego
To this Canadian, "the 1800s" means either the century (anything
between 1800 and 1899, inclusive), or the decade, depending on
context. If I hear it, and it's ambiguous, I'll ask for clarification.
If I say it, and think it will be ambiguous, I'll clarify it.
I don't think it will be ambiguous for "the 2000s" for at least half a
century from now.
Robert Bannister
> The only confusion -- and, I suppose, source of irritation -- from
> preferring the "XX00s" form comes when people use "the 1700s" to refer
> only to the first decade of the 18th century without making it clear
> what they mean.
I don't believe I've ever come across this practice. The 1700s means all
the 17xxs including 1700 itself, even though that belongs to the
previous century.
--
Rob Bannister
Oleg Lego
I would disagree with that, but we've been through that before,
extensively.
Jeffrey Turner
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>>Donna Richoux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Science & Society - Page 519
>>> by EbscoHost, Bernhard Joseph Stern - 1936
>>> The factors making for the many revolts of the 1790s and the early
>>> 1800s, the depression and ...
>>
>>This last usage is clearly ambiguous. Did he mean only up to 1804 or
>>would a revolt in 1814 have been included? Or is it just my memory of
>>history that's faulty?
>
> US midwestern education (1950s and 1960s) here: "early 1800s" would mean
> the early part of the 19th century, not a decade, so your Revolution Of
> 1814 would most likely be included.
Normally, but juxtaposed with the 1790s it did give me pause.
Peacenik
news:1168935059.7...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I've always known "the 1800s" to mean 1800-1899; the "19th century" to mean
1801-1900. I'm from the US.