 |
 | 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 20042003 or Year 2003
Which one should I write in English? 2003 has been a great year for us. or Year 2003 has been a great year for us or Year 2003 has been great for us > Which one should I write in English? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Year 2003 has been great for us All of these work for me, though the ones above mentioning "Year" sound a bit formal (which might be appropriate, say, discussing a company's fiscal year's results). When the word "year" is needed to avoid any possible ambiguity in informal speech, I would usually go with "*The* year 2003 has been..." However, if I was discussing several years, in turn, I'd probably drop "The" after the first one. "Year 2004 looks hopeful." Go figure.  SignatureJack Gavin >> Which one should I write in English? >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >However, if I was discussing several years, in turn, I'd probably drop >"The" after the first one. "Year 2004 looks hopeful." Go figure. To me, 'year' without 'the' would be reserved for a special series. Like, 'year four of the tax plan'. -- john >>> Which one should I write in English? >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > To me, 'year' without 'the' would be reserved for a special series. > Like, 'year four of the tax plan'. And, lest we forget to mention it: If the writer decides to lead with "2003," it should be written out as words and not as numerals. "Two thousand three has been a great year...." Having to write out the number might be, in itself, a good enough reason to start off with "Year" or "The year." IMO. SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. > >>> Which one should I write in English? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "2003," it should be written out as words and not as numerals. "Two > thousand three has been a great year...." Nonsense. "2003 has been a great year for us" is fine. The sentences starting with "Year 2003" aren't. btw, if the sentence is being written today, the tense will have to change: "2003 was a great year for us." Adrian > Maria Conlon wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Nonsense. "2003 has been a great year for us" is fine. The sentences > starting with "Year 2003" aren't. Nonsense to you, perhaps, but writing out numbers that begin a sentence is a rule I grew up with in the U.S. I don't think the rule has been changed here. (Is that not a rule in other countries? Anyone?) > btw, if the sentence is being written today, the tense will have to > change: "2003 was a great year for us." True in most circumstances. (Dialogue and quotations come to mind, but I doubt that Toy's sentences are either.) SignatureMaria Conlon >> Maria Conlon wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >is a rule I grew up with in the U.S. I don't think the rule has been >changed here. (Is that not a rule in other countries? Anyone?) Yes it is, Maria. I was taught not to start sentences with figures in the 1950s in England, but to write around the problem in exactly the way you have described. "The year 2003 was a special one because..." I don't think that "Two thousand and three was special because..." works for me, because my immediate reaction is "two thousand and three what?", although the 'was' rather than a 'were' gives a clue if one is reading slowly. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England > >> Maria Conlon wrote in message > >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 1950s in England, but to write around the problem in exactly the way you > have described. "The year 2003 was a special one because..." I agree that it's better from a stylistic point of view to write a number in words if it occurs at the start of a sentence but years are a special case: they're number-nouns rather than number-adjectives and in the normal course of events no-one writes them in words. I also think it's wise to use the same word order in writing that one would use in speech, so to have to find a way of getting the year away from the beginning of the sentence just so you can write it in numerals is daft. > I don't think that "Two thousand and three was special because..." works > for me, because my immediate reaction is "two thousand and three what?", > although the 'was' rather than a 'were' gives a clue if one is reading > slowly. Partly because I'm used to seeing number-adjectives written as words when they start a sentence, if I saw a sentence like the one Maria suggests, I'd be thrown. After "Two thousand" I'd expect to find a word like "people" or "miles", not "three" or "four"! Another "rule" consigned to the dustbin of linguistic history, I hope. Adrian |
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.