 |
 | 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 2009What decade are we in?
The Zeroes? > The Zeroes? the aughts > > The Zeroes? > > the aughts Although completely stupidly so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aught /W  SignatureMy real email address is constructed by swapping the domain with the recipient (local part). > The Zeroes? The 2000s. --Jeff >> The Zeroes? > > The 2000s. Of which 2000 itself is a member. Thus the decade of the aughts (oughts?) begins with 2000, inclusive. The 21st century includes the year 2000. SignatureLew . > The 21st century includes the year 2000. It does? So wasthe first century only 99 years? or was it the 2nd or the 3rd? There was no year zero >> The 21st century includes the year 2000. > > It does? > > So wasthe first century only 99 years? or was it the 2nd or the 3rd? > There was no year zero. I started to write the same thing you did but then remembered that I never did convince anyone about it nine years ago when it was REALLY important! You're right, of course. > >> The 21st century includes the year 2000. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > did convince anyone about it nine years ago when it was REALLY important! > You're right, of course. Not that it makes any sense, of course, but the first decade of every* century is eleven years long, and the last one is only nine. Usage trumps logic, innit? [*] except the first, which was indeed a year short due to the lack of a year zero, which continues to cause no end of havoc for history students... Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "We learn from history that we do not learn from history." -Hegel > . >> The 21st century includes the year 2000. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So wasthe first century only 99 years? or was it the 2nd or the 3rd? > There was no year zero It was the twentieth century. The newspapers of the time called 1901 the start and 1999 the end. --Jeff Signature"War is something absurd, useless, that nothing can justify." Louis de Cazenave of the Fifth Senegalese Rifles, one of the last two living French veterans of World War I. Lew" wrote ... >>> The 21st century includes the year 2000. Raymond O'Hara wrote: >> It does? >> >> So wasthe first century only 99 years? or was it the 2nd or the 3rd? >> There was no year zero And I suppose you begin the new year on March 29? Or do you offset that by eleven days? > It was the twentieth century. The newspapers of the time called 1901 > the start and 1999 the end. Pshaw! Of what time, exactly? You remind me of an argument I had in 1980, when someone tried to convince me that 1980 belonged in the "seventies". Idiotic. Decades and millenia are linguistic and social phenomena, not scientific or mathematical. SignatureLew > Lew" wrote ... >>>> The 21st century includes the year 2000. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Of what time, exactly? The people of the years around 1900 thought, and their newspapers reflected and reported, that the 19th century ran through the end of the year 1900. The people of the years around 2000 thought that the 20th century ended in 1999. Thus the 20th century was only 99 years. > You remind me of an argument I had in 1980, when someone tried to > convince me that 1980 belonged in the "seventies". Idiotic. There's a slight difference between the "seventies" and the eighth decade of the century. If you want to talk about a century as the "1900s" you'll sow a lot of confusion, but it would have gone from 1900 to 1999. > Decades and millenia are linguistic and social phenomena, not scientific > or mathematical. That's how the 20th century ended up being 99 years long. --Jeff Signature"War is something absurd, useless, that nothing can justify." Louis de Cazenave of the Fifth Senegalese Rifles, one of the last two living French veterans of World War I. > . >> The 21st century includes the year 2000. > It does? > > So wasthe first century only 99 years? or was it the 2nd or the 3rd? > There was no year zero So what? There was no year one, either. Alternatively: Sure there was! One B.C. SignatureLew >> . >>> The 21st century includes the year 2000. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >So what? There was no year one, either. Actually there were two. >Alternatively: Sure there was! One B.C. Which was followed by AD 1. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>> . >>>> The 21st century includes the year 2000. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Which was followed by AD 1. Exactly. SignatureLew Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> wrote: >> So what? There was no year one, either. > Actually there were two. Now there are. Then there weren't. SignatureLew > Lew wrote: >>> So what? There was no year one, either. > >> Actually there were two. > > Now there are. Then there weren't. Naah, they were there all along. The people just didn't know it. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> Lew wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Naah, they were there all along. The people just didn't know it. We went through this in 2000. Can't we leave the definitive argument until 3000 and get on with something else until then? SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > [...] the decade of the aughts (oughts?) [...] aughts: Conventionally correct, technically wrong oughts: Conventionally wrong, technically correct Humans ... /W SignatureMy real email address is constructed by swapping the domain with the recipient (local part). >> [...] the decade of the aughts (oughts?) [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > /W Doesn't bother us'ns who says "Twenty oh nine". SignatureFrank ess > >> [...] the decade of the aughts (oughts?) [...] > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Doesn't bother us'ns who says "Twenty oh nine". For the decade? SignatureMy real email address is constructed by swapping the domain with the recipient (local part). > > [...] the decade of the aughts (oughts?) [...] > > > aughts: Conventionally correct, technically wrong > oughts: Conventionally wrong, technically correct I don't understand your terminology. Neither "ought" nor "aught" mean zero, really, so neither one seems "technically" correct if that's what you mean. "Aught" means "anything," and "ought" is among other things a variant spelling of "aught." Some evidence collected a few months ago suggested there were more spellings back then, though not which came first: 30 on "nineteen ought" date:1900-1920 15 on "nineteen naught" date:1900-1920 11 on "nineteen nought" date:1900-1920 2 on "nineteen aught" date:1900-1920 An article in the Encyclopedia Britannica indicates which version it expected: The Encyclopædia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and ... - Page 525 - 1910 It is perhaps interesting to note that the latter -day telephone operator calls 1907 " nineteen O seven " instead of " nineteen nought seven." The 1828 and 1913 Websters consider "nought" to be a variant spelling of "naught." So my theory is that people said "naught" or "nought" but the run-in N from "-teen" led people think "aught/ought." Much the same as norange and napron. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > > > > [...] the decade of the aughts (oughts?) [...] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > what you mean. "Aught" means "anything," and "ought" is among other > things a variant spelling of "aught." You are of course right. Sorry. I was confused. I meant naughts. Yes, I need to sleep more. Thanks for reminding me. :) /W SignatureMy real email address is constructed by swapping the domain with the recipient (local part). >>> >>>> [...] the decade of the aughts (oughts?) [...] [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes, I need to sleep more. Thanks for reminding me. :) You go ahead and call this decade the "naughties" and see who doesn't laugh. --Jeff Signature"War is something absurd, useless, that nothing can justify." Louis de Cazenave of the Fifth Senegalese Rifles, one of the last two living French veterans of World War I. > > > [...] the decade of the aughts (oughts?) [...] > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > -- > Best -- Donna Richoux There have been many prior discussions in regard to naming this decade, here at AUE, and I have recorded my preference in earlier threads. For the record, and to save researching, I repeat: THE JUGGER-NAUGHTS. -- Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego >> The Zeroes? > > The 2000s. Also known as the twenty-hundreds, or hundreds, just as the nineteen nineties were known just as the nineties. > >> The Zeroes? > > > > The 2000s. > > > Also known as the twenty-hundreds, or hundreds, just as the nineteen > nineties were known just as the nineties. Wow, I've never heard that. That is pretty cool, I must say. This is what I'm going to use from now on. That is, over the next year. Incidentally, what would I call the next decade? The teens? /W SignatureMy real email address is constructed by swapping the domain with the recipient (local part). >> >> The Zeroes? >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Incidentally, what would I call the next decade? The teens? The teens or the tens, but I think the teens will be more widely used. >>>> The Zeroes? >>> The 2000s. >> Also known as the twenty-hundreds, or hundreds, just as the >> nineteen nineties were known just as the nineties. > Wow, I've never heard that. That is pretty cool, I must say. > This is what I'm going to use from now on. That is, over the next > year. Our weather forecaster calls that range the Single Digits. > Incidentally, what would I call the next decade? The teens? The Great Depression. > > Incidentally, what would I call the next decade? The teens? > > The Great Depression. > :D Very good. /W SignatureMy real email address is constructed by swapping the domain with the recipient (local part). [the oohs? the ooze?] >>>> The Zeroes? >>> The 2000s. >> Also known as the twenty-hundreds, or hundreds, just as the >> nineteen nineties were known just as the nineties. > Wow, I've never heard that. That is pretty cool, I must say. > This is what I'm going to use from now on. That is, over the next > year. Our weather forecaster calls that range the Single Digits. > Incidentally, what would I call the next decade? The teens? The Great Depression. >>> The Zeroes? >> The 2000s. >> > Also known as the twenty-hundreds, or hundreds, just as the nineteen > nineties were known just as the nineties. The first decade of the twentieth century (which began in 1900) was called by those alive at the time the "oughts", as in, "back in ought-nine". As a traditionalist, I refer to this year as "ought-nine" and this decade as the "oughts". It makes no sense not to include "twenty-ought-ought" nor to include "twenty-ten" in such a categorization. SignatureLew >> The Zeroes? > >The 2000s. > >--Jeff How about the first decade of the 21st century. Dario Borghino filted: >The Zeroes? If my employer's attitudes about software upgrades are any indication, we're in the 1970s....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Dario Borghino wrote >The Zeroes? Since nobody else is going to say it, the Naughties. [Sigh] DC -- > Django Cat wrote >> Dario Borghino wrote > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >DC Or even 'Noughties' [sigh, sigh] DC -- > The Zeroes? The Turn of the Century. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email. On 02 Jan 2009, John Varela wrote >> The Zeroes? > > The Turn of the Century. Hmmm... I'd say that's limited to roughly xx95-xx05, and that we're now into "the early 21st century". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed John Varela filted: >> The Zeroes? > >The Turn of the Century. "The Mauve Decade, release 2.0" ....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >John Varela filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >"The Mauve Decade, release 2.0" I'll wait until release 2.1 before buying. The early-adopters can find the bugs in 2.0. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) BrE filted: >>John Varela filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I'll wait until release 2.1 before buying. The early-adopters can find the >bugs in 2.0. There won't be a 2.1...just service packs....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >BrE filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >There won't be a 2.1...just service packs....r The more recent ones don't seem to have installed correctly. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>BrE filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >The more recent ones don't seem to have installed correctly. I should have added that maybe the world would be a better place if its power was turned off and then rebooted. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > I should have added that maybe the world would be a better place if > its power was turned off and then rebooted. That happened on the day the Earth stood still. SignatureLew > John Varela filted: >> >>> The Zeroes? >> The Turn of the Century. > > "The Mauve Decade, release 2.0" Considering some are pushing the Naughties, maybe the shade should be blush instead of mauve. --Jeff Signature"War is something absurd, useless, that nothing can justify." Louis de Cazenave of the Fifth Senegalese Rifles, one of the last two living French veterans of World War I. |
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.