Decades
Jamey
'90s and 80's?
Thanks
Jamey
JNugent231
A really good question!
From what I know of the period 1900 - 1909 (and 1910 - 1919 for that matter),
we don't seem to have a proper term for that/those decade(s). Perhaps "turn of
the century" for the first one?
Lisa
jnuge...@aol.com (JNugent231) wrote:
What about the "oughts?" As in "I bought that in ought-7" or "She was
born in ought-2." I don't recall seeing the phrase in writing, but have
heard it many times. It always sounds very old-fashioned, but I suppose
it would gain a current sound if resurrected for 2001 through 2009.
As for the 1910-1919 (or 2010-2019), I suppose "the teens" would work.
Lisa in Illinois
co...@soltec.net
Garry J. Vass
writes
>Is there a word that means the '00s as Nineties or Eighties refer to the
>'90s and 80's?
There are at least three implied catanations in use now.
When the U. S. Treasury issued the long bond in 1970, investment banks
in the states called it the "aught", as in "the 7's of Oct-aught". Long
bonds issued in 1971 were called "aught-one", and so on. The Brits use
the same convention, but (being somewhat more ephectic) prefer the more
familiar, "naught", "naught-one", and so on.
City planners, mathematicians, nurses, and so on would say that it is
also legitimate to call the next decade, "the units" (as in the series
that precedes the "the teens").
--
Garry J. Vass
Fiona Webster
> What about the "oughts?" As in "I bought that in ought-7" or "She was
> born in ought-2." I don't recall seeing the phrase in writing, but have
> heard it many times. It always sounds very old-fashioned, but I suppose
> it would gain a current sound if resurrected for 2001 through 2009.
When I was in college, there were still alumni alive who had graduated
in the first decade of this century. They referred to their class
years as "oughty-one," "oughty-two," and so on. And they called that
decade the "oughties." The vowel sound (this was in New Jersey) was
pronounced like "aw" as in "saw," so "oughties" rhymed with "naughties".
--Fiona
Simon R. Hughes
The precedent of this century:
1900-1909: "The first decade of this century"
1910-1919: "The nineteen-tens"
etc.
--
Simon R. Hughes
| Mail not sent directly to | http://skrik.home.ml.org |
| my reply address will be | |
| deleted without being read. |(Last updated 10th July 1998) |
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
<Ga...@gvass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>When the U. S. Treasury issued the long bond in 1970, investment banks
>in the states called it the "aught", as in "the 7's of Oct-aught". Long
>bonds issued in 1971 were called "aught-one", and so on. The Brits use
>the same convention, but (being somewhat more ephectic) prefer the more
>familiar, "naught", "naught-one", and so on.
>
While it's nice to see 'ephetic' in play again I do not think
that the British intinct for exactitude in financial matters
should be so described: the aim is not authority but keeping the
books straight.
There is no longer, for example, a KENsington 9990 I know, but do
Londoners say 'zero' for that final '0'? Of course in your bond
world 'zero' has a special application and in any case you may
use the American 'aught'.
>City planners, mathematicians, nurses, and so on would say that it is
>also legitimate to call the next decade, "the units" (as in the series
>that precedes the "the teens").
>Garry J. Vass
Gor blimey!
Garry J. Vass
writes
>>bonds issued in 1971 were called "aught-one", and so on. The Brits use
>>the same convention, but (being somewhat more ephectic) prefer the more
>>
>that the British intinct for exactitude in financial matters
>should be so described: the aim is not authority but keeping the
>books straight.
Close. "Ephectic" describes the skeptical and unconvined attitude
towards words coined by their migrant cousins in Leftpondia, rather than
"instinct for exactitude".
>
>There is no longer, for example, a KENsington 9990 I know, but do
>Londoners say 'zero' for that final '0'?
They would say, "treble nine oh". But that is a phone number. A soccer
score of 1 - 0 would be reported as "one nil". A bond maturing in 2005
would be "naught five".
>Of course in your bond
>world 'zero' has a special application and in any case you may
>use the American 'aught'.
"Zeroes" and "Zero bonds" as an instrument class are referred to in the
same way in the City as on Wall Street. It is only in the case of bond
maturities where the aught/naught business arises.
>Gor blimey!
As always, it is a delight to hear from a1a51640!
--
Garry J. Vass
Carl Steiger
Jamey wrote in message <01bdb2b0$caa8f2e0$5f1073cf@1>...
>Is there a word that means the '00s as Nineties or Eighties refer to the
>'90s and 80's?
>Thanks
>Jamey
Piddie
You want me, I want you. Let's get it on. We really aught to.
Hollenberg/Steeck
Jamey <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in article
Ian Osborne
>it would gain a current sound if resurrected for 2001 through 2009.
>
unofficial consensus?
-------------------
Ian Osborne
ia...@quaynet.co.uk
-------------------
Sasha Newborn
indefinite -- it's logical to me, and I have used it in several
translations, used in college classes over the past twelve years.
There's actually a set: hu (for he/she), hus (for her/his), hum (for
her/him), humself (for herself/himself). I call them the Humanist pronouns
(or Hoo-manist pronouns), and they are pronounced exactly the same as (are
homonyms of) another set of gender indefinite pronouns: who, whose, whom.
These work for me, since they are nested into current usage by sound, they
are unmistakable as to meaning even if you've never encountered them
before, and they do not conflict with currently existing words.
I'm open to suggestions, but I'm not inclined to go back to he, his, and
him to represent everybody.
--
Sasha Newborn
Most learning is done alone in a room with a book.
Bandanna Books: Texts for the Freshman Year
<http://www.bandannabooks.com>
Truly Donovan
Newborn) wrote:
>I'm promoting a version of the third person singular pronoun gender
>indefinite -- it's logical to me, and I have used it in several
>translations, used in college classes over the past twelve years.
Well, now you know why they won't let you out.
>
>There's actually a set: hu (for he/she), hus (for her/his), hum (for
>her/him), humself (for herself/himself). I call them the Humanist pronouns
>(or Hoo-manist pronouns), and they are pronounced exactly the same as (are
>homonyms of) another set of gender indefinite pronouns: who, whose, whom.
>
>These work for me, since they are nested into current usage by sound, they
>are unmistakable as to meaning even if you've never encountered them
>before, and they do not conflict with currently existing words.
>
>I'm open to suggestions, but I'm not inclined to go back to he, his, and
>him to represent everybody.
Go away. Go far far away (Finland might be a good idea). Do not pass
Go. Do not collect $200.
Any other suggestions must be paid for in advance.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
William Lieblich
>
> I'm promoting a version of the third person singular pronoun gender
> indefinite -- it's logical to me, and I have used it in several
> translations, used in college classes over the past twelve years.
>
> her/him), humself (for herself/himself). I call them the Humanist pronouns
> (or Hoo-manist pronouns), and they are pronounced exactly the same as (are
> homonyms of) another set of gender indefinite pronouns: who, whose, whom.
>
> These work for me, since they are nested into current usage by sound, they
> are unmistakable as to meaning even if you've never encountered them
> before, and they do not conflict with currently existing words.
>
> I'm open to suggestions, but I'm not inclined to go back to he, his, and
> him to represent everybody.
I have only one question -- hu's on first?
Bill Lieblich
David McMurray
> On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:29:34 GMT, fres...@bandannabooks.com (Sasha
> Newborn) wrote:
>
> >I'm promoting a version of the third person singular pronoun gender
> >indefinite [...]
[...]
> >There's actually a set: hu (for he/she), hus (for her/his), hum (for
> >her/him), humself (for herself/himself). I call them the Humanist pronouns
> >(or Hoo-manist pronouns), and they are pronounced exactly the same as (are
> >homonyms of) another set of gender indefinite pronouns: who, whose, whom.
> >
> >These work for me, since they are nested into current usage by sound, they
> >are unmistakable as to meaning even if you've never encountered them
> >before, and they do not conflict with currently existing words.
Bud and Lou would love it:
Have you seen hum?
Whom?
Hum.
Hum?
That's right.
Hu's on first.
> >I'm open to suggestions, but I'm not inclined to go back to he, his, and
> >him to represent everybody.
> Go away. Go far far away (Finland might be a good idea). Do not pass
> Go. Do not collect $200.
Seconded.
> Any other suggestions must be paid for in advance.
Payable to hum?
--
David
Vesa Raiskila
> I'm promoting a version of the third person singular pronoun gender
> indefinite -- it's logical to me, and I have used it in several
> translations, used in college classes over the past twelve years.
> There's actually a set: hu (for he/she), hus (for her/his), hum (for
> her/him), humself (for herself/himself).
> I'm open to suggestions, but I'm not inclined to go back to he, his, and
> him to represent everybody.
Sorry, Sasha, but the Finnish borrowing 'se' has already established
itself as the least objected-to gender-neutral pronoun on
alt.usage.english. One of its strengths, of course, is that it is a
natural-language word, not an artificial construct. Its inflection is:
se / sem / ses / semself
Vesa
--
http://www.jyu.fi/~raives/
I welcome corrections to my English. To reply via e-mail, please delete
DEL. from my e-mail address.
H.W.M.
David McMurray wrote:
> Truly Donovan <tru...@ibm.net> wrote:
> > Any other suggestions must be paid for in advance.
> Payable to hum?
Hum sat on a wallhum had a great fall
and all the Finns' horses
and all the Finns
could not put hum
together again.
"With my peace-keeper I shot the muezzin"
--
Henry Wilhelm >>> henry.w @ gnwmail.com <<<
*********************************************
* I could be bounded in a nut-shell, *
* and count myself a king of infinite space,*
* were it not that I have bad dreams *
*********************************************
Jeffrey L. Bell
>
>Sorry, Sasha, but the Finnish borrowing 'se' has already established
>itself as the least objected-to gender-neutral pronoun on
>alt.usage.english. One of its strengths, of course, is that it is a
>natural-language word, not an artificial construct. Its inflection is:
>se / sem / ses / semself
How do you pronounce it? Like SEE or like SAY?
Doesn't it also collide with the reflexive 'se' from the romantic languages?
It was also an article in Old English until 'the' displaced it around 1300.
Besides, 'they' has the advantage of already being in common usage.
-Jeff
H.W.M.
Jeffrey L. Bell wrote:
> How do you pronounce it? Like SEE or like SAY?
The 'se' would be as in 'sell', in Finnish that is, but maybe the 'see' would be
easier to adapt?
Besides, 'they' has the advantage of already being in common usage.
But it has a _he_ in the midst!
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
Bell) wrote:
>Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>>
>>Sorry, Sasha, but the Finnish borrowing 'se' has already established
>>itself as the least objected-to gender-neutral pronoun on
>>alt.usage.english. One of its strengths, of course, is that it is a
>>natural-language word, not an artificial construct. Its inflection is:
>>se / sem / ses / semself
>
>How do you pronounce it? Like SEE or like SAY?
>
>Doesn't it also collide with the reflexive 'se' from the romantic languages?
>
>It was also an article in Old English until 'the' displaced it around 1300.
>
>
>Besides, 'they' has the advantage of already being in common usage.
>
>-Jeff
Sez Jeff, who is unkind enough to deny a chap the small simple
pleasure of talking to himself; and does not understand finish
humour at all.
rai...@my-dejanews.com
> >Sorry, Sasha, but the Finnish borrowing 'se' has already established
> >itself as the least objected-to gender-neutral pronoun on
> >alt.usage.english. One of its strengths, of course, is that it is a
> >natural-language word, not an artificial construct. Its inflection is:
> >se / sem / ses / semself
> How do you pronounce it? Like SEE or like SAY?
This is still open... all suggestions are welcome...
> Doesn't it also collide with the reflexive 'se' from the romantic languages?
Why should it collide with a similar word in other languages?
> It was also an article in Old English until 'the' displaced it around 1300.
Yes; I have pointed this out. One more reason for its acceptance!
> Besides, 'they' has the advantage of already being in common usage.
It jars with (and is not accepted by) many people; it blurs a (/one more)
useful singular--plural distinction; it cannot be used in fiction to refer to
characters whose sex should remain hidden or ambiguous to the reader, etc. A
real gender-neutral pronoun would not leave such gaps or necessitate
strategies that I have called the Art of Evasion (rewriting, avoidance).
Vesa
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Peter Moylan
>I'm promoting a version of the third person singular pronoun gender
>indefinite -- it's logical to me, and I have used it in several
>translations, used in college classes over the past twelve years.
It might be an idea to do the patent search before taking this idea
any further. Perhaps I misremember, but your proposal seems to me to
have a lot of similarities with proposal number 387.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
Jamey
Sasha Newborn <fres...@bandannabooks.com> wrote in article
<freshman-230...@news.west.net>...
> There's actually a set: hu (for he/she), hus (for her/his), hum (for
rigo...@table.jps.net
: Jeffrey L. Bell wrote:
: > How do you pronounce it? Like SEE or like SAY?
[ . . . ]
: easier to adapt?
: Besides, 'they' has the advantage of already being in common usage.
: But it has a _he_ in the midst!
That's why, when we tried to go from 'he' (or 'she') to 'person',
they objected to the 'son', so we changed that to 'persibling'.
Do other languages have this problem, or are we the only ones
who have a personal pronoun? Or are we the only ones with readers
who object to gendered personal pronouns?
Mike Zorn
rigo...@odd.net
(change the odd part to the initials of the French author,
one of the founders of existentialism)
Truly Donovan
>Or are we the only ones with readers
>who object to gendered personal pronouns?
I don't know of anyone who objects to gendered personal pronouns (and
I probably would if there were a significant number of them). I know
plenty of people who object to the use of gendered personal pronouns
when the sex of the referent is unknown. Could you conceivably have
reference to those?
Vesa Raiskila
> That's why, when we tried to go from 'he' (or 'she') to 'person',
> they objected to the 'son', so we changed that to 'persibling'.
> Do other languages have this problem, or are we the only ones
> who have a personal pronoun? Or are we the only ones with readers
> who object to gendered personal pronouns?
I wonder if the problem is _that_ severe in very many languages. In
Swedish, for example, it is lessened by the gender-free reflexive (?)
pronoun 'sin/sitt/sina':
Alla förväntas göra sitt bästa. =
Everyone is expected to do his / his or her / their best.
Similarly, in German the problem is largely solved by grammatical
gender:
Jeder muss sein bestes tun.
=Everyone must do his / his or her / their best.
In Finnish and Indonesian, for example, personal pronouns are completely
gender-neutral. (It would be interesting to know whether many other
languages are non-gendered in this way.)
A few days ago I wrote in my reply to Jane Lyle that
"A real Finn does not allow himself to be hurt, only enraged".
If the gender-neutrality of the sentence is not accepted, there are few
alternatives to a complete rewrite. I doubt that even the most ardent
supporters of the 'singular they' would recommend the formulation "A
real Finn does not allow themselves to be hurt" -- so jarring do I find
it --, while "A real Finn does not allow him- or herself to be hurt"
draws attention to the politically correct pronominal choice. If one
wants to make sure that one does not offend anyone, one might end up
with a stylistically watered-down version like "Real Finns do not allow
themselves to be hurt".*
The English gender-neutrality problem is rooted in the fact that the
language has divested itself of grammatical gender, and the use of a
natural-gender pronoun as a gender-neutral pronoun lacks 'communicative
plausibility' (I haven't been able to come up with a good expression for
this -- all suggestions are welcome).
This can be clearly seen when comparing the sentence "A real Finn does
not allow himself to be hurt" with its Finnish counterpart "Tosi
suomalainen ei salli itsensä loukkaantua". Even if (almost) everyone
_knows_ that 'he' in the English version includes both sexes, the
sentence is likely to _feel_ unbalanced in terms of gender neutrality
(which, I think, is what several female posters, especially, have argued
here).
It never ceases to puzzle me how a language as flexible and as rich in
vocabulary as English has still not been able to develop an
uncontroversial and 'gapless' way of making gender-neutral references.
(I have sometimes written that English is a 'specifying' language. As
far as gender-neutrality is concerned, English seems to have been
trapped in its gender-specificity.)
Vesa
* "A real Finn does not allow semself to be hurt" would represent a
neologistic solution -- the Finnish 'se' being one of the many GFPs
(gender-free pronouns) that have been suggested as solutions to the
problem under discussion.
Skitt
Vesa Raiskila wrote in message <35BC9B27...@cc.jyu.fi>...
>I wonder if the problem is _that_ severe in very many languages. In
>Swedish, for example, it is lessened by the gender-free reflexive (?)
>pronoun 'sin/sitt/sina':
>
>Alla förväntas göra sitt bästa. =
>Everyone is expected to do his / his or her / their best.
>
>Similarly, in German the problem is largely solved by grammatical
>gender:
>
>Jeder muss sein bestes tun.
>=Everyone must do his / his or her / their best.
>
>In Finnish and Indonesian, for example, personal pronouns are completely
>gender-neutral. (It would be interesting to know whether many other
>languages are non-gendered in this way.)
In Latvian the problem is much worse. Not only the personal pronouns get in
the way, but a distinction of gender for the noun and its adjective exists.
The term for a "real Latvian" would be "īsts latvietis" and "īsta latviete"
for the masculine and feminine genders, respectively. For the plural forms,
"īsti latviesi" with a small "v" mark above the s in "latviesi", and "īstas
latvietes" would be the corresponding choices. The ^ above the "i"s is
supposed to denote what would normally be a little bar above the letters to
indicate a long sound. The modified "s" denotes an English "sh" sound. It is
impossible to talk about Latvians without specifying their gender, therefore
the masculine gender is accepted by all as being generic, unless a distinction
is specifically required.
As a result, political incorrectness will be alive and well in Latvia for
eternity, if not longer. Somehow, that has not been one of the biggest worries
for the natives so far.
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
CAUTION: My opinion may vary.
28.3854 -80.7012
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
writes:
> I doubt that even the most ardent
>supporters of the 'singular they' would recommend the formulation "A
>real Finn does not allow themselves to be hurt"
Many people _would_ say "A real Finn does not allow themself to be hurt"; a
curious splicing of singular and plural, inferior to the Finnish solution, of
course, but superior to "themselves".
Gary Williams
Albert Marshall
>H.W.M. (mun...@spam.com) wrote:
>: Jeffrey L. Bell wrote:
>: > How do you pronounce it? Like SEE or like SAY?
> [ . . . ]
>: easier to adapt?
>: Besides, 'they' has the advantage of already being in common usage.
>: But it has a _he_ in the midst!
>they objected to the 'son', so we changed that to 'persibling'.
Shouldn't that be "peroffspring"?
> Do other languages have this problem, or are we the only ones
>who have a personal pronoun? Or are we the only ones with readers
>who object to gendered personal pronouns?
>
--
Albert Marshall
Visual Solutions
Kent, England
01634 400902
Magn0lia
> Mike Zorn
> rigo...@odd.net
> (change the odd part to the initials of the French author,
> one of the founders of existentialism)
Wow, that is by far the most ridiculous set of de-spam-trap instructions
I've ever seen.
--
M a g n 0 l i a
<http://www.pedantic.com/>
"I'm still not sure whether or not there is a god, but I'm
finally starting to realize that, if there is, I'm not him."
Vesa Raiskila
>
> Vesa Raiskila wrote in message <35BC9B27...@cc.jyu.fi>...
>
> >I wonder if the problem is _that_ severe in very many languages. In
> >Swedish, for example, it is lessened by the gender-free reflexive (?)
> >pronoun 'sin/sitt/sina':
> >
> >Alla förväntas göra sitt bästa. =
> >Everyone is expected to do his / his or her / their best.
> >
> >Similarly, in German the problem is largely solved by grammatical
> >gender:
> >
> >Jeder muss sein bestes tun.
> >=Everyone must do his / his or her / their best.
> >
> >In Finnish and Indonesian, for example, personal pronouns are completely
> >gender-neutral. (It would be interesting to know whether many other
> >languages are non-gendered in this way.)
>
> In Latvian the problem is much worse. Not only the personal pronouns get in
> It is
> impossible to talk about Latvians without specifying their gender, therefore
> the masculine gender is accepted by all as being generic, unless a distinction
> is specifically required.
> As a result, political incorrectness will be alive and well in Latvia for
> eternity, if not longer.
Perhaps Leon Festinger's famous frustration--aggression hypothesis could
be applied here: Latvian is so heavily gendered a language that having
to default to the masculine gender causes less frustration than it does
among English-speakers, whose language is gender-free -- with the one
striking and irritating exception...
Eric The Read
> <rigo...@table.jps.net> wrote:
> > Mike Zorn
> > rigo...@odd.net
> > (change the odd part to the initials of the French author,
> > one of the founders of existentialism)
>
> Wow, that is by far the most ridiculous set of de-spam-trap instructions
> I've ever seen.
I confess, I am a cruciverbalist in my spare time, but I cannot imagine
having to work out such a problem every time I want to send someone
mail. At least crossword puzzles tell you how many letters you have to
work with.
-=Eric
Jeffrey L. Bell
Magn0lia <magd...@pedantic.com> wrote:
><rigo...@table.jps.net> wrote:
>> Mike Zorn
>> rigo...@odd.net
>> (change the odd part to the initials of the French author,
>> one of the founders of existentialism)
>
>Wow, that is by far the most ridiculous set of de-spam-trap instructions
>I've ever seen.
The silly part of it all is that
he puts his address in the From: field.
-Jeff