 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2010Twenty-ten or two thousand ten?
Which way of saying 2010 is gaining the most ground? > 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.  Signatureqt > > 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. 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 >>> 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 > >>> 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. SignatureDavid > In article <yKydnQPu1Yh_-abWnZ2dnUVZ7qSdn...@brightview.co.uk>, > inva...@invalid.munge.co.uk says... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > 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. > >>> Which way of saying 2010 is gaining the most ground? > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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"? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> In >> news:bf383463-c3f4-437d-9110-46777664073f@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > 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". SignatureRay UK > >> 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". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>>> 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". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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" SignatureRay UK >> >> 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". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >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"). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>> >> 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". [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >fifty" form. I would describe is as dialectal or regional (for some >values of "dialect" and "region"). I'm not from Northern Ireland, but I've never heard of the date "1950" 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"). SignatureIan > >> Innews:dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-XGTHw048CI@localhost, > >> John Varela <OLDla...@verizon.net> typed: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - 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? >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". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > >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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes. In my experience (in BrE) the ".92" in 1400.92 would be said as > "point nine two". 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". SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 17:41:37 UTC, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > John Varela > Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email 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. > >> Innews:dxizd0mOwXzR-pn2-XGTHw048CI@localhost, > >> John Varela <OLDla...@verizon.net> typed: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > 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 www.superaffiliate7.com 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. >> In >> news:bf383463-c3f4-437d-9110-46777664073f@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Did you say "nineteen and fifty" or "nineteen and ninety-nine"? >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 > 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... SignatureBob http://www.kanyak.com On 30 Dec 2009, Glenn Knickerbocker 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. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 30 Dec 2009, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >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". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >parially composed That is a partially composed version of "partially composed" SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>parially composed > >That is a partially composed version of "partially composed" Better that than totally decomposed. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England On 31 Dec 2009, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >> On 30 Dec 2009, Glenn Knickerbocker 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 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 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). SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 31 Dec 2009, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >calendar year -- would cause any misunderstanding at all (let alone >some sort of critically-important misunderstanding). I was thinking purely of the sound. There is no difference in meaning. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) On 31 Dec 2009, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >> On 31 Dec 2009, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I was thinking purely of the sound. There is no difference in > meaning. Oh, OK. (It doesn't convince me that it'll make anyone hesitate to adopt "twenty-eleven", though.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >>On 30 Dec 2009, Glenn Knickerbocker wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > In some accents it might be impossible to distinguish between > "Twenty-'leven" and "Twent'-eleven". Oh, shucks. Your earlier reply made me think of "'leventy-one", and so on. >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 > 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.) SignatureYou'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. On 30 Dec 2009, Patok 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. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 30 Dec 2009, Patok wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "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?) > 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. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> As saying the year, probably. Usually years don't have the >> 'and', [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Two thousand ten feet, six inches. Two thousand ten feet, six and a > half inches. 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. >> > Which way of saying 2010 is gaining the most ground? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >eleven, >not twenty ten. 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 SignaturePosters 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 On 30 Dec 2009, Mxsmanic wrote > 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".) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.