 |
 | 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 20102010
It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. Have a good one everybody!  SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. We'll know in ten year's time, when we have the benefit of hindsight. > Have a good one everybody! My sentiments exactly! SignatureJames >> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. > >We'll know in ten year's time, when we have the benefit of hindsight. We've had the benefit of foresight, with everyone talking about the World Cup for the last 6 years, and they all say twenty-ten. 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 >>> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. >> We'll know in ten year's time, when we have the benefit of hindsight. > > We've had the benefit of foresight, with everyone talking about the World Cup > for the last 6 years, and they all say twenty-ten. Whoosh! --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire >>>> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. >>> We'll know in ten year's time, when we have the benefit of hindsight. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Whoosh! For the last six years people here have been talking about "twenty-ten" -- on radio, on TV, and in casual conversation. Will our football team be ready for 2010? (probably not) Will the stadiums be completed in time? (probably) Will we be able to drive on roads that aren't being dug up for 2010? (Let's hope so) And in every case, people have been saying "twenty-ten", and not "two thouand and ten". Now that 2010 has arrived, they'll probably continue to do so. 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 > It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. > Have a good one everybody! Heck, is it January already? I left a party early so that I could get some sleep. Good night, everyone. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. > > Have a good one everybody! > > > Heck, is it January already? I left a party early so that I could get > some sleep. Good night, everyone. Two seconds after midnight... Happy New Year. Still just over 12 hours to go here. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so >> far. Have a good one everybody! >> > Heck, is it January already? I left a party early so that I could > get some sleep. Good night, everyone. 'night, John-boy. Happy New Year to all. SignatureFrank ess John Holmes: > It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. This was posted just after 8 am EST. I deduce that John mostly hears from people in eastern Australia, New Zealand, or some such time zone. SignatureMark Brader "I suppose that the distances from us [to the Toronto stars] vary so much that some are two or three msb@vex.net times as remote as others." -- Galileo > John Holmes: >> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. > > This was posted just after 8 am EST. I deduce that John mostly hears > from people in eastern Australia, New Zealand, or some such time zone. Your post says "2:22 AM" on my computer. It is 8:16 AM here. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: >> John Holmes: >>> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Your post says "2:22 AM" on my computer. It is 8:16 AM here. My boss has sent me emails today, dated February 2007. In said emails he was wondering about funny orange lights which he (and I) had seen in the sky over South Wales last night. Looks like the little green men (or their strong-interaction quantum electrodynamic hyperdrive units) have warped the space-time continuum in the vicinity of his PC. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. > Have a good one everybody! I still hear some people on TV here saying "two thousand and ten". I reckon we should have been using the "twenty" form since 2001 ("twenty oh one"). After all, I've never heard anyone say "one thousand nine hundred (and) one". SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. >> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. >> Have a good one everybody! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > one"). After all, I've never heard anyone say "one thousand nine hundred > (and) one". I'm with you 100%. And I suspect 2010 (three syllables only, after all) will be when the "twenty-whatever" form finally wins the day. Regards Jonathan >>> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so >>> far. Have a good one everybody! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm with you 100%. And I suspect 2010 (three syllables only, after > all) will be when the "twenty-whatever" form finally wins the day. I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the ambiguity of "twenty-one" etc that stopped us from doing it that way from the start. (I don't like using "oh" in numbers, though I often do when it's a telephone number.) SignatureMike. Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>: >I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the >ambiguity of "twenty-one" etc that stopped us from doing it that way >from the start. (I don't like using "oh" in numbers, though I often do >when it's a telephone number.) AAMOI how do you say the year 1901? SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>: >> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > AAMOI how do you say the year 1901? "Nineteen-one". SignatureMike. >>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the >>> ambiguity of "twenty-one" etc that stopped us from doing it that way [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "Nineteen-one". That was the year my dad was born, and it was definitely nineteen-oh-one. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the >>>> ambiguity of "twenty-one" etc that stopped us from doing it that way [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >That was the year my dad was born, and it was definitely nineteen-oh-one. My dad was born in 1907, and it was definitely "nineteen-seven", and my mum was born in 1910 and it was definitely "nineteen-ten". 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 >>>>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the >>>>> ambiguity of "twenty-one" etc that stopped us from doing it that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > My dad was born in 1907, and it was definitely "nineteen-seven", and > my mum was born in 1910 and it was definitely "nineteen-ten". My mom was born in 1910 also, and I agree with "nineteen-ten"; what else could it be? SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the >>>>>> ambiguity of "twenty-one" etc that stopped us from doing it that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >My mom was born in 1910 also, and I agree with "nineteen-ten"; what else >could it be? Well if 1901 could be "nineteen oh one" then 1910 could be "nineteen one oh". 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 > "Skitt" wrote: >>>>>>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the >>>>>>> ambiguity of "twenty-one" etc that stopped us from doing it that [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Well if 1901 could be "nineteen oh one" then 1910 could be "nineteen > one oh". Oh. Well, yeah. I guess it could be. Unlikely, though. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the >>>>> ambiguity of "twenty-one" etc that stopped us from doing it that way [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > My dad was born in 1907, and it was definitely "nineteen-seven", and my mum > was born in 1910 and it was definitely "nineteen-ten". Dad was born in "nineteen oh four" and Mum in "nineteen eleven". It obviously varies from region to region and possibly from age to age. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the >>>> ambiguity of "twenty-one" etc that stopped us from doing it that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That was the year my dad was born, and it was definitely > nineteen-oh-one. What year was it when your dad first pronounced it in English? When we looked into this last year, I believe it appeared that the "oh" pronunciations started to become popular in the '20s. I noted that I came across "nineteen seven" in an interview with Jelly Roll Morton, late in his life, which implied that some people were still using that form into the '30s. I suspect that a lot of people were born in "nineteen one" who would have given their birth date as "nineteen oh one" when they were in their thirties or later. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Just sit right back 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | and you'll hear a tale, Palo Alto, CA 94304 | a tale of the Stanford red |That started when a little boy kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | named Leland did drop dead (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the >>>>> ambiguity of "twenty-one" etc that stopped us from doing it that [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "nineteen one" who would have given their birth date as "nineteen oh > one" when they were in their thirties or later. Can't argue with that. My dad probably first said it in English around 1945. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>: >>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >"Nineteen-one". That, since you left out the zero, is screwy. Naturally enough, IMO, I say nineteen-oh-one. Could this be an AmE, BrE thing? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>: >>>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That, since you left out the zero, is screwy. Naturally enough, IMO, > I say nineteen-oh-one. Could this be an AmE, BrE thing? No. I say nineteen-oh-one as well, but I would guess that the difference is between an older "nineteen-one" and a more recent "nineteen-oh-one". It's hard to check, however, what people actually said when they wrote 1901. Those who took the trouble to write it in words (as in legal documents) used even longer forms, like "nineteen hundred and one" SignatureJames >No. I say nineteen-oh-one as well, but I would guess that the difference >is between an older "nineteen-one" and a more recent "nineteen-oh-one". >It's hard to check, however, what people actually said when they wrote >1901. Those who took the trouble to write it in words (as in legal >documents) used even longer forms, like "nineteen hundred and one" My father-in-law (b.1902) said, when we discussed this in 2002, that they normally used to use the long form even in speech - nineteen hundred and four, for example. He thought they might sometimes have said "nineteen-oh-four", but was quite sure they never said "nineteen-four". Katy >>No. I say nineteen-oh-one as well, but I would guess that the difference >>is between an older "nineteen-one" and a more recent "nineteen-oh-one". [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and four, for example. He thought they might sometimes have said > "nineteen-oh-four", but was quite sure they never said "nineteen-four". "Dayton, Ohio" in the Yale Song Book (or is it "Songbook"? - I haven't got a copy to hand) certainly has "on a sunny Sunday afternoon in nineteen-oh-three". I think it has "nineteen hundred and three" elsewhere in the song also. I'm not sure when that one was written. Regards Jonathan >>> No. I say nineteen-oh-one as well, but I would guess that the difference >>> is between an older "nineteen-one" and a more recent "nineteen-oh-one". [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > nineteen-oh-three". I think it has "nineteen hundred and three" elsewhere in > the song also. I'm not sure when that one was written. Randy Newman wrote it and recorded it on an album released in 1972. SignatureJames >> "Dayton, Ohio" in the Yale Song Book (or is it "Songbook"? - I haven't got >> a copy to hand) certainly has "on a sunny Sunday afternoon in >> nineteen-oh-three". I think it has "nineteen hundred and three" elsewhere in >> the song also. I'm not sure when that one was written. > >Randy Newman wrote it and recorded it on an album released in 1972. I thought "it must surely be older than that if it's in the Yale Song Book", but realise it isn't in my 1952 edition, which is actually entitled "Songs of Yale". I also think it has "nineteen hundred and three" somewhere, but my copy isn't handy. Katy >>>> Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>: >>>>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > write it in words (as in legal documents) used even longer forms, > like "nineteen hundred and one" In our family we have numerous Mexican hand-typed birth-registration and marriage-registration documents wherein the year numbers are typed "mil noveciento cuarenta y dos", por ejemplo. SignatureFrank ess > In our family we have numerous Mexican hand-typed birth-registration and > marriage-registration documents wherein the year numbers are typed "mil > noveciento cuarenta y dos", por ejemplo. That's not sufficient, though, to know what would have been written in the first decade of the century. My English-speaker intuition, south-eastern Australian variant, tells me that an "and" or an "oh" is needed as a filler to indicate that there's no tens digit. I don't need the same filler in "forty two" because in that case there aren't any zero digits. At the same time, I'm not at all surprised that Mexicans required the "y", because after all these rules do vary from country to country. That's a minor point. What really struck me was your word "hand-typed". I know what you mean, of course (manual typewriter vs electric typewriter), but I'd never seen it expressed that way. As soon as I saw your "hand-" I expected "handwritten". SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> In our family we have numerous Mexican hand-typed >> birth-registration and marriage-registration documents wherein the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in the first decade of the century. My English-speaker intuition, > south-eastern post 1920s > Australian variant, tells me that an "and" or an "oh" is needed as a > filler to indicate that there's no tens digit. As near as I can tell, that intuition is misleading you, although I'll allow that I haven't seen any Australian sources. [snip] > That's a minor point. What really struck me was your word > "hand-typed". I know what you mean, of course (manual typewriter vs > electric typewriter), but I'd never seen it expressed that way. As > soon as I saw your "hand-" I expected "handwritten". I don't think that's what he meant. I took it to be typed on a typewriter by hand, as opposed to printed by computer. If I put a form in a typewriter and type something on it, I'd consider it "hand-typed", even though it's unlikely that I'd be using a manual typewriter. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |On a scale of one to ten... 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it sucked. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> In our family we have numerous Mexican hand-typed >>> birth-registration and marriage-registration documents wherein the >>> year numbers are typed "mil noveciento cuarenta y dos", por >>> ejemplo. [ ... ] > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "hand-typed", even though it's unlikely that I'd be using a manual > typewriter. What I meant was that most of them began as a blank sheet of paper. Of the dozen or so we have, a few are on commercially-printed "letterheads" with a municipality's emblem, some address or agency information and a bit of fill-in-the-blanks at the top, but all the content is typed (on a manual typewriter and with a rapid-fire two-finger technique on the ones I saw in production). They include run-on sentences that will fill a larger-than "legal-size" page and spill over onto the back. These were what you got when you had reached the head of a line of people needing copies of official documents. The giant, bound ledger-style books containing the original documents would be brought out and the typist set to work transferring information from the record to your copy by way of his eyes, brain, hands and typewriter; if he was creating an original, same thing, except that the source was your paperwork or oral offerings. They are a bit difficult to read, these things, what with the misaligned and plugged letters, random spacing, arcane abbreviations, and punctuation, and archaic or officialese language. I don't encounter as much of a problem reading them as in attempting to make sense of the ship's manifests listing my paternal grandparents and great-grandparents as cargo when they were shipped over from England in the early 1870s. The handwriting is all stylized slants and disappered horizontals. /There's/ a challenge (or opportunity) for you. In my ra-- infrequent readings, it seems to me the Spanish language usage is "dos mil dos" for 2002, but there's no probability number I'm willing to offer. (Seventy-seven point seven F on the patio just now. Yesterday I drove my convertible Mustang up to Palomar Mountain, down past Lake Henshaw, and over by Lake Cuyamaca, a hundred-and-fifty-plus-mile loop incorporating delightful twists and turns, with the car's top down and heater off. Forty dollars worth of gasoline, some serious wear on the cornering sections of the tires, priceless and delightful traffic-free, six-tenths touring with a wide smile. Life is good. Supposed to cool down to the fifties next week, and perhaps some water will fall out of the sky. Life will still be good.) SignatureFrank ess > In my ra-- infrequent readings, it seems to me the Spanish language > usage is "dos mil dos" for 2002, but there's no probability number > I'm willing to offer. Looking at Google, that seems to be the case. The numbers are about even between "dos mil dos" and "dos mil y dos", but the latter all seem to be things like "entre dos mil y dos mil uno" (between 2000 and 2001). Google's translator says that this is the way numbers would work in general: "two thousand and five people" translates to "dos mil cinco personas". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |barbarian and thinks that the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |customs of his tribe and island are |the laws of nature. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | George Bernard Shaw http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> That's not sufficient, though, to know what would have been written >> in the first decade of the century. My English-speaker intuition, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > As near as I can tell, that intuition is misleading you, although I'll > allow that I haven't seen any Australian sources. In a quick look I could only turn up one unambiguous hit: 2 February 1907 issue of _Critic_ newspaper (Hobart) carried a poem about a horse race titled "The Nineteen Seven Cup". That surprised me because I would have said the same as Peter, but then we don't know how representative that one example is. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >>> Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>: >>>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >That, since you left out the zero, is screwy. Naturally enough, IMO, I >say nineteen-oh-one. Could this be an AmE, BrE thing? Dunno, since I'm neither. 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 >>>> Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>: >>>>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, only the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Dunno, since I'm neither. I'd be curious to see some evidence that anyone living in 1901, who was in his or her right mind, referred to the year as "nineteen-one" and not "nineteen-oh-one". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>: >>>>>> I think "twenty-ten" etc is natural: it was, I suppose, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > was in his or her right mind, referred to the year as "nineteen-one" > and not "nineteen-oh-one". And I'd be curious to see some evidence that anyone living in 1901 called it "nineteen-oh-one". I suspect that's a more recent way of saying it, and that people in 1901 felt no need for the place-holder "oh" (for which the earliest OED example is from 1948). Poems written for New Year 1902 had these lines: Now that the year is nearly done, Good cats and dogs and children, too, Will turn their backs on nineteen one And look for nineteen two. 'Twas but a few short months ago That nineteen one tripped o'er the snow, On New Year's Day "FAREWELL, farewell to nineteen one," The wintry wind doth sigh. So nineteen one has rolled away, The closing year is through. And another year has rolled away, And nineteen one is dead. These examples come from a magazine called "St. Nicholas": http://books.google.com/books?id=WhEbAAAAYAAJ SignatureJames > I'd be curious to see some evidence that anyone living in 1901, who > was in his or her right mind, referred to the year as "nineteen-one" > and not "nineteen-oh-one". I somehow missed quoting the obvious example of a date without the "oh". It's from none other than James Joyce and it refers to the date of Bloomsday in "Ulysses": "Who fears to speak of nineteen four?" SignatureJames >> I'd be curious to see some evidence that anyone living in 1901, who >> was in his or her right mind, referred to the year as "nineteen-one" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >"Who fears to speak of nineteen four?" But wasn't it written about 15 years later? 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 >>> I'd be curious to see some evidence that anyone living in 1901, who >>> was in his or her right mind, referred to the year as "nineteen-one" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But wasn't it written about 15 years later? Good point. But I don't think Joyce dropped any "oh" in that time. SignatureJames >>>> I'd be curious to see some evidence that anyone living in 1901, who >>>> was in his or her right mind, referred to the year as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Good point. But I don't think Joyce dropped any "oh" in that time. Sounds like he might have dropped an "E", though. SignatureRay UK >> I'd be curious to see some evidence that anyone living in 1901, who >> was in his or her right mind, referred to the year as [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > "Who fears to speak of nineteen four?" A date buried in one of Joyce's works can hardly be considered an "obvious example". >>> I'd be curious to see some evidence that anyone living in 1901, >>> who was in his or her right mind, referred to the year as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > A date buried in one of Joyce's works can hardly be considered an > "obvious example". I meant that it's obvious because it's a famous quotation about a momentous year, and both Chuck and I are great admirers of Joyce. SignatureJames >>>> I'd be curious to see some evidence that anyone living in 1901, >>>> who was in his or her right mind, referred to the year as [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I meant that it's obvious because it's a famous quotation about a >momentous year, and both Chuck and I are great admirers of Joyce. Since Joyce had such a good ear for language, in addition to having nearly a photographic memory, I bow to your quote. It surprised me. It does not prove that most people left out the oh when saying "1901", but it proves I was wrong when saying no one did. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> I'd be curious to see some evidence that anyone living in 1901, >>>>> who was in his or her right mind, referred to the year as [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >does not prove that most people left out the oh when saying "1901", >but it proves I was wrong when saying no one did. It's not that they left it out, but they failed to add it in. It is only relatively recently that people have been adding zeroes to dates, and writing 01 January rather than 1 January. If I count from one to ten I say "one two three four five...." Not "oh one oh two oh thee oh four oh five". With the growth in the use of computers there has been a tendency to add in all those zeroes. Some computer languages have Option Base 1 or 0, so you can count from 0-9 rather than 1-10 (that's probably why some people think we are in the second decate of the 21st century already), excapt that our calendar is on Option base 1, not Option Base 0. Could anyone write 0 in Roman numerals? 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 <snip> >>It >>does not prove that most people left out the oh when saying "1901", [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >in the second decate of the 21st century already), excapt that our calendar is >on Option base 1, not Option Base 0. Could anyone write 0 in Roman numerals? Setting computer lingo aside for the moment, what proof can you offer than most English-speaking people said "nineteen one" in 1901, for example, and not "nineteen oh one"? Googling, I couldn't find anything reliable. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > example, and not "nineteen oh one"? Googling, I couldn't find > anything reliable. I did and I posted it the other day in response to one of your posts. Of all the New Year poems published in a magazine at the end of 1901, not one spoke of "nineteen-oh-one"; they all had "nineteen-one". I'll repeat just one of the examples: Now that the year is nearly done, Good cats and dogs and children, too, Will turn their backs on nineteen one And look for nineteen two. People in the nineteenth century definitely did not put in an "oh". I found a book catalogue at Google Books where dates are spelled out as "eighteen-two", "eighteen-six", etc. And in an English translation from 1900 of a play by Rostand about the Napoleonic Wars, the pronunciation of 1805 varies between "eighteen hundred and five" and "eighteen-five". The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is from 1935: "nineteen-oh-eight". See also what Evan has said about a discussion of this topic a year so so ago, before I joined the group. Evan wrote: "I believe it appeared that the "oh" pronunciations started to become popular in the '20s." SignatureJames >The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is from 1935: >"nineteen-oh-eight". The OED would be interested. Their earliest example of the use of Uh for "The Arabic zero, 0; nought" is: 1948 A. BARON From City, from Plough 9 At oh-eight-thirty-hours..the undermentioned..will parade. There must surely be an earlier example than the following for the "three oh three" rifle and ammunition. I recall meeting it in 1956, and it was well established then: a1961 E. HEMINGWAY Garden of Eden (1987) III. xxiv. 199 His eye was the most alive thing David had ever seen. ‘Shoot him in the ear hole with the three oh three,’ his father said. >See also what Evan has said about a discussion of this topic a year so >so ago, before I joined the group. Evan wrote: "I believe it appeared >that the "oh" pronunciations started to become popular in the '20s." I wonder whether than had any connection with the spread of telephones and the need to say numbers. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is from >> 1935: "nineteen-oh-eight". [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I wonder whether than had any connection with the spread of > telephones and the need to say numbers. Almost certainly, I would say. Telephones brought the need to say the number that no one before ever needed to say in "eighteen-five". SignatureJames Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in <55a9k5dbv4tcftsdkecca2g7ohsuh6amml@4ax.com> on Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:23:07 +0000: > >The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is from 1935: > >"nineteen-oh-eight". [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "three oh three" rifle and ammunition. I recall meeting it in 1956, and > it was well established then: I'm sure there must be. It was familiar to me from at least 1940 when the Battle of Britain was going on overhead and spent cartridge cases were prized possessions. > a1961 E. HEMINGWAY Garden of Eden (1987) III. xxiv. 199 His eye was > the most alive thing David had ever seen. Shoot him in the ear hole [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I wonder whether than had any connection with the spread of telephones > and the need to say numbers. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE > Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in > <55a9k5dbv4tcftsdkecca2g7ohsuh6amml@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> 1948 A. BARON From City, from Plough 9 At >> oh-eight-thirty-hours..the undermentioned..will parade. No, they have it from perhaps 1425 in the simpler form "O" (under "O,n.3"). But of course the zero was an innovation, and would naturally have been described by its resemblance to the letter. And none of those early examples was in our "eight-oh-four" style. [...] >>> See also what Evan has said about a discussion of this topic a year >>> so so ago, before I joined the group. Evan wrote: "I believe it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> I wonder whether than had any connection with the spread of >> telephones and the need to say numbers. I rather think it was of military or naval origin. "Steer green four-oh, Mr Phillips!" (NTBCW "Right hand down a bit it is, Sir!" "Ooh, lumme!") SignatureMike. >>The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is from 1935: >>"nineteen-oh-eight". [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There must surely be an earlier example than the following for the > "three oh three" rifle and ammunition. I see it back to 1909: [Attn Jesse Sheidlower: OED antedating] Wishing one and all a Merryy Christmas and a Happy New Year, hoping to see everyone out in nineteen oh nine, with an up-to-date OH Are Tea card. letter, _The Radio Telegrapher_, December, 1908. "ORT" is the Order of Railroad Telegraphers. (In other words, "Pay your dues.") Part of it, though, is that it was earlier spelled "o" rather than "oh", attested in the OED for the figure or symbol zero, 0; naught; (hence) a cipher; a mere nothing. to ca. 1425. With "O", I can push it back to 1904: Conger, Clinton B. The nineteen-o-four air brake catechism. Grand Rapid Mich., Clinton B. Conger, 1903. c. 202 p. il. diagrs., 16°, flex. cl., $1. _The Publishers' Weekly_, April 2, 1904. letter, _The Spatula_, I take great pleasure in wishing you a happy and prosperous New Year, and the realization of your will deserved expectation of success for this brand new nineteen o'seven [sic] At the same time I wish to offer you my most sincere and cordial thanks for the good impressions you have left in the hearts of your grateful readers of the poor old ninteen o'six. letter, _The Spatula_, January, 1907 When the historian and the poet tell the story of these days, such lines will be penned that even the story of "How well Horatius held the bridge" will lose its time-honored place in the heart of the schoolboy, who will prefer, when he mounts the school rostrum, to tell "How brave St. Louis saved the day in the panic year nineteen-o-seven" _National Magazine_, October, 1909 SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing. | Dean Thompson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is from 1935: >>> "nineteen-oh-eight". [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > _National Magazine_, October, 1909 Good detective work, Evan. SignatureJames >>>> The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is from 1935: >>>> "nineteen-oh-eight". [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > >Good detective work, Evan. You've provided additional evidence, Evan, in support of my expressed belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." silliness was not widespread. Thank you. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is >>>>> from 1935: "nineteen-oh-eight". [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." silliness was not > widespread. Thank you. I think the evidence shows that "nineteen-one" was at least as widespread as "nineteen-oh-one", and probably even more so, but I think I'll give up trying to convince you. SignatureJames >>>>>> The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is >>>>>> from 1935: "nineteen-oh-eight". [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >widespread as "nineteen-oh-one", and probably even more so, but I think >I'll give up trying to convince you. Try not to get your knickers in a twist, James, for I'm convinced that many people said nineteen-one, nineteen-two and so forth. I'm surprised by the fact, but then the oddities of English usage often surprise me. That is why I read this group's posts. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>>> The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books >>>>>>> is from 1935: "nineteen-oh-eight". [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > surprised by the fact, but then the oddities of English usage often > surprise me. That is why I read this group's posts. Thanks for untwisting my knickers, Chuck. Not many men would dare to do that for me. SignatureJames <snip> >> Try not to get your knickers in a twist, James, for I'm convinced >> that many people said nineteen-one, nineteen-two and so forth. I'm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Thanks for untwisting my knickers, Chuck. Not many men would dare to do >that for me. Since I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole, as the AmE expression goes, you'll need to do your own unravelling. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> You've provided additional evidence, Evan, in support of my expressed >> belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." silliness was not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >widespread as "nineteen-oh-one", and probably even more so, but I think >I'll give up trying to convince you. We do have a certain amount of direct evidence from people who lived through that decade, via their children who took the opportunity to ask them.... Of course their memories may have deceived them, but certainly my father-in-law (whom I consulted after an earlier aue discussion on the same point) was clear that he/they would never have said "nineteen-one". What other contemporary samples do we have from real people with an interest in language? Katy >>> You've provided additional evidence, Evan, in support of my >>> expressed belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > What other contemporary samples do we have from real people with > an interest in language? My only close personal contact who was alive at the time was born in 1901, and I can't really remember. I feel as though he said "nineteen-one", but I can't trust myself as a witness. I never heard the "oh" version in my family--presumably the reason I don't use it myself. SignatureMike. >>>> You've provided additional evidence, Evan, in support of my >>>> expressed belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "nineteen-one", but I can't trust myself as a witness. I never heard the > "oh" version in my family--presumably the reason I don't use it myself. My memory is trying to insist on the full version: "nineteen hundred and one", but I can't be sure because the "oh" version took hold in my mind early on. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>> You've provided additional evidence, Evan, in support of my >>>>> expressed belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > and one", but I can't be sure because the "oh" version took hold in > my mind early on. Ah, yes, the full version. I heard that from time to time from those who'd been there, but wasn't considering it for the present purpose, because I thought few if any used it exclusively. There must be plenty of recordings of people talking about things that happened in the earliest nineteen-hundreds: Entente Cordiale, Liberal landslide, death of the Old Queen, etc. SignatureMike. Mike Lyle wrote, in <higbq7$blj$1@news.eternal-september.org> on Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:21:46 -0000: > >>> You've provided additional evidence, Evan, in support of my > >>> expressed belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "nineteen-one", but I can't trust myself as a witness. I never heard the > "oh" version in my family--presumably the reason I don't use it myself. My father was born in 1895 and my mother in 1902. I can't claim to remember what they said but the "oh" version is the only one that feels right to me so that is probably what I (b. 1931) was brought up with. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >>> You've provided additional evidence, Evan, in support of my >>> expressed belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "nineteen-one". What other contemporary samples do we have from > real people with an interest in language? When was he born? For him to have had convincing memories, he'd have to have been born no later than about 1903 or 1904. And, of course, when you start asking centenarians questions you have other problems with trusting their memories. I'm not sure that useful evidence for this question could have been obtained by this method for at least the past decade or so. Looking at the _New York Times_, I see The summer of nineteen-three. [8/31/1903] Tuesday, November Eigth, Nineteen Four [11/8/1904] Be thankful for whatever share You've had of Nineteen Five; [11/30/1905] To begin with, there were eleven alarms of fire in the first seventeen minutes after the chimes of Trinity told nineteen-six to be on its way. [1/2/1907] One sizzling, throbbing day in June, Away back there in nineteen six [7/3/1910] The site has gotten very slow. I'll try to remember to look up the other phrasing later. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If the human brain were so simple 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |That we could understand it, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |We would be so simple |That we couldn't. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> You've provided additional evidence, Evan, in support of my >>>> expressed belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > The site has gotten very slow. I'll try to remember to look up the > other phrasing later. Okay, it seems to be back. I see one hit for "nineteen-o" in the time period and none for "nineteen-oh": [Columbia class of] Nineteen-O-Eight had a big moving van [9/30/1904] I see one hit for "nineteen aught", interestingly in an entry to a contest to complete the limerick: Said a man: "I desire to state That all through the year nineteen-eight My expenses I'll cut By economy." But the entry being he died before nineteen aught eight. [1/5/1908] (The winning entry was "He lacked in the part vertebrate.") SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Yesterday I washed a single sock. 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |When I opened the door, the machine Palo Alto, CA 94304 |was empty. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > You've provided additional evidence, Evan, in support of my expressed > belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." silliness was not > widespread. Thank you. No, just evidence that "nineteen-oh-<n>" wasn't completely unheard of yet. There seem to be far more hits for "nineteen-<n>". Picking one year at random, and limiting it to the first decade of the century (and not checking dates carefully), I see A Psalm for Nineteen-Four [1906] Welcome, Year of Nineteen Four! [1905] Doubtless, the present editors might also preach an ironical sermon on self-esteem to the class of nineteen four [1902] The class of nineteen four [1903] Jes' wait 'till Nineteen-four [1901] Here's to Nineteen Four [1909] It would be easy to multiply almost indefinitely the examples of youthful percocity and heroism displayed by the members of the class of nineteen four. [1905] ... three largest vessels passing Suez since nineteen four. [1907] The musty lore of nineteen-four [1905] ... my Sophomore elective, English 27, a course open to any who have passed the required Freshman work, in nineteen-four. [1906] O there's Nineteen Two and there's Nineteen Four And there's going to be a lot of Nineteens more; But Nineteen Three is the best company ... [1902] You will get full "value received" and more, from THE MEDICAL WORLD in nineteen four. [1904] Ever since September, nineteen four, ... [1907] 'Twas in the fall of nineteen four [1909] ... spent most of the winter on the Eighteen Mile creek and the Erie Canal near Lockport in nineteen-four and nineteen-five. [1909] ... so we may look for a cool autumn; but it is just as well not to be too certain about anything pertaining to the climate in nineteen- four. ... [1903] and that's just some of the relevant hits from the first page of hits. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Sometimes I think the surest sign 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that intelligent life exists Palo Alto, CA 94304 |elsewhere in the universe is that |none of it has tried to contact us. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> You've provided additional evidence, Evan, in support of my expressed >> belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." silliness was not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >one year at random, and limiting it to the first decade of the >century (and not checking dates carefully), I see Approximately what percentage did you mean when you said "far more hits"? Evidence that you found, snipped. >and that's just some of the relevant hits from the first page of hits. You've provided evidence for one side of the story, but not for the other, that many people said "nineteen-oh-one, etc. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> You've provided additional evidence, Evan, in support of my expressed >>> belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." silliness was not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Approximately what percentage did you mean when you said "far more > hits"? Well over 90% Hundreds to less than a dozen. Surprised the hell out of me. > Evidence that you found, snipped. > >>and that's just some of the relevant hits from the first page of hits. > > You've provided evidence for one side of the story, but not for the > other, that many people said "nineteen-oh-one, etc. Restricting to 1900-1910, I see precisely one relevant hit for "nineteen oh" and six for "nineteen o" (counting all the hits that refer to a pamphlet entitled _The Nineteen-O-Four Air Brake Catechism_ as one.) One interesting possible-hit gives a clue about where the "oh" form may have first come in. In the 1910/1911 eleventh edition of the _Encyclopædia Britannica_, under "arithmetic": The zero, called "naught," is of course a different thing from the letter O of the alphebet, but there may be a historical conexion between them ... It is perhaps interesting to note that the latter-day telephone operator calls 1907 "nineteen O seven" instead of "nineteen nought seven." (I say "possible-hit", because it's not clear that they're talking about a year rather than a phone number.) My suspicion is that such telephone operators were the vector for the form to spread in the general public as more and more people got experience with telephones. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Society in every state is a blessing, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |but government, even in its best Palo Alto, CA 94304 |state is but a necessary evil; in its |worst state, an intolerable one. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Thomas Paine (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> You've provided additional evidence, Evan, in support of my expressed >>>> belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." silliness was not [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >general public as more and more people got experience with >telephones. Perhaps we've been talking at cross purposes, Evan. In this thread, I have only been interested in how people said 1901 to 1909, when referring to the years, not how they spelled the numbers when writing. My claim is that most people said nineteen-oh-one and so forth, not nineteen-one and so forth, but I don't know how to prove it. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> You've provided additional evidence, Evan, in support of my expressed >>>>> belief that the "nineteen-one, nineteen-two,..." silliness was not [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] >My claim is that most people said nineteen-oh-one and so forth, not >nineteen-one and so forth, but I don't know how to prove it. I've been searching for the various words used for the digit "0". According to the OED, "oh" is the most recent, "zero" is older and the oldest is "nought". "naught" is later spelling of "nought" (now mainly US [OED]). But, and it is a big but, those ages are based on written material. We are interested in the use of the words in spoken English. Bearing that in mind the earliest quotes in the OED are: oh 1948 naught 1649 zero 1604 nought ?c1425 Just to confuse things the word "ought" is sometimes used with the same meaning as "nought". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Perhaps we've been talking at cross purposes, Evan. In this thread, > I have only been interested in how people said 1901 to 1909, when > referring to the years, not how they spelled the numbers when > writing. My claim is that most people said nineteen-oh-one and so > forth, not nineteen-one and so forth, but I don't know how to prove > it. That's exactly what I was looking for. I found no contemporaneous written evidence that anybody said "nineteen-oh-one" (however spelled) and about a half a dozen for "nineteen-oh-<anything>" (the earliest for 1904). But several for "nineteen-one": Farewell to nineteen one [1902] So nineteen one has rolled away [1902] The little baby nineteen-one [1901] In Nineteen One, mark you, I was in the Carthusian [Kipling, 1904] Nineteen one, the best class of the twentieth century, we proudly call it. [1908] The year started with four of the members of nineteen one and two [1903] So Nineteen-one goes out and has finished the first of many last things. [1901] And more for "nineteen-two" (far from complete): Three cheers for nineteen two [1902] The old ship of nineteen-two is lifting anchor [1903] Ye stars of nineteen two [1902] Thou shalt be the noblest emblem for the class of Nineteen Two [1902] William Knight Adams, of the Class of Nineteen-Two [1904] Couldn't pass till Nineteen Two [1908] In Anno Domini Nineteen-Two [1902] Where is the magical in Nineteen-two? [1902] Hail! flag of Nineteen-Two [1902] In nineteen two my dear little Esme made her debut [1909] Our model ever, we finish nineteen two [1902] the honor of dear old nineteen two [1902] ... sold my stock in the fall of nineteen-two [1903] We have with us again two of our "nineteen-two" girls' [1904] The membership during nineteen two and three was ... [1903] 'Twas the twelfth of December, the year nineteen two [1904] The month is gone, this June of nineteen two [1906] In nineteen two we'll be content [1900] Most of the time, of course, it would have just been written as "1901", etc., so for it written out in words you mostly get hits for poetry and songs, as well as college classes. But they're consistent in the way they write it out when they do, so I don't have any reason to believe that that's not the way it was said. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Sometimes I think the surest sign 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that intelligent life exists Palo Alto, CA 94304 |elsewhere in the universe is that |none of it has tried to contact us. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Calvin (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Perhaps we've been talking at cross purposes, Evan. In this thread, >> I have only been interested in how people said 1901 to 1909, when [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >in the way they write it out when they do, so I don't have any reason >to believe that that's not the way it was said. Thank you, Evan. I found the results of your research most interesting. Since AUE lacks members who are over a hundred years old, I agree that poetry would probably provide our best clues for the popularity of nineteen-oh-one and so forth, but what a job it would be to search the poetry database of a decade for the pertinent rhymes. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:35:19 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > Chuck Riggs, > An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE My recollection of speaking to my Victorian (only just, born both of them in 1899) grandfathers was that even though born only a few miles apart from each other used many different dialect words and pronunciations from each other they never actually spoke of years in a numerical sense. It was always descriptive : "It were year when our Martha got wed" or "It were year when Arkwrights mill burnt dahn". Recalling the vocabulary of my Grandparents days the only people who referred to the numerical years were vicars: "In the year of our Lord One Thousand And Sixty Six or In the year of our Lord One Thousand And Four". People in those days did not use "oh" to mean zero and most certainly did not use "zero" at all in everyday speech. We cannot foist modern slang and lazy speech usage (Acronyms !!!) on a generation of partially literate people whose speech patterns are not represented in records brought up by using internet search engines. > > On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 09:35:19 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > One Thousand And Sixty Six or In the year of our Lord One Thousand And > Four". Crikey. I meant to say " In the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and sixty-six" and " In the year of our Lord One thousand nine hundred and four". And I still maintain that we used reference points rather than year names: "I remember it well, it were just before our Jane got wed and after yer Dad got that new job at ...". > People in those days did not use "oh" to mean zero and most certainly > did not use "zero" at all in everyday speech. > > We cannot foist modern slang and lazy speech usage (Acronyms !!!) on a > generation of partially literate people whose speech patterns are not > represented in records brought up by using internet search engines. <snip> >My recollection of speaking to my Victorian (only just, born both of >them in 1899) grandfathers was that even though born only a few miles [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >People in those days did not use "oh" to mean zero and most certainly >did not use "zero" at all in everyday speech. Many people did not, but educated people have recognized and used zero for well over a thousand years. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Many people did not, but educated people have recognized and used > zero for well over a thousand years. That depends on where you were educated and in what. In Europe a thousand years would be pushing it and it didn't really hit European mathematics until Fibonacci around (Googles) the turn of the thirteenth century. And if you were a merchant or banker you were probably using Roman numerals into the sixteenth century. To the extent that Hindu-Arabic numerals were used in early European settings, they tended to be used on counting boards, where tokens for one through nine were used and a space was left empty for zero. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song |which is completely pointless. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >settings, they tended to be used on counting boards, where tokens for >one through nine were used and a space was left empty for zero. OK, I missed the number of years by that much, as Maxwell Smart would say. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is from 1935: >>"nineteen-oh-eight". [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >I wonder whether than had any connection with the spread of telephones >and the need to say numbers. I'm sure I was using "oh" in telephone numbers before 1948 (though not long before). But never in dates. 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 earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is from 1935: >>> "nineteen-oh-eight". [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I'm sure I was using "oh" in telephone numbers before 1948 (though not long > before). But never in dates. Likewise, in fact, I can be almost certain: it was in 1947 when we moved and got a phone number with a zero in, and a certain young person took great delight in yelling "Buckhurst five oh five nine" whenever he could beat the grown ups to the phone. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is from 1935: >>>> "nineteen-oh-eight". [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >great delight in yelling "Buckhurst five oh five nine" whenever he >could beat the grown ups to the phone. I have to admit that, though ours had a zero in it, I would announce the number as "forty-five, eighteen seventy". 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 Steve Hayes filted: >>Likewise, in fact, I can be almost certain: it was in 1947 when we moved >>and got a phone number with a zero in, and a certain young person took [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I have to admit that, though ours had a zero in it, I would announce the >number as "forty-five, eighteen seventy". I've mentioned this before, but I was never able to get my mother to give out her number as "eight ninety ninety eighty nine"...she always insisted on pronouncing it "eight nine oh, nine oh eight nine"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >Steve Hayes filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >her number as "eight ninety ninety eighty nine"...she always insisted on >pronouncing it "eight nine oh, nine oh eight nine"....r Why would you try to "get" her to say it any particular way? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> Steve Hayes filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Why would you try to "get" her to say it any particular way? Or, to expand, your question: How many English speakers say telephone numbers as anything but separate digits? How many English speakers take bus number "one hundred and nine" instead of the "one-oh-nine"? How many have stayed in hotel room "three hundred and forty-seven" instead of "three-four-seven"? Is this a difference between South Africa and the rest of the world? SignatureJames >>> Steve Hayes filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Or, to expand, your question: How many English speakers say telephone >numbers as anything but separate digits? Separate, but grouped. I give my telephone number in three groups: area code (pause) first three numbers (pause) last four numbers. US phone numbers are usually written this way: 407-555-1212 or (407) 555-1212. (The hyphens may be omitted, but there will be spaces where the hyphens are as I have typed them.) The (407) way is dying out since so many locales require the area code even if the call is to across the street in the same area code. It used to be that we needed to dial the area code only when it was different from the area code in which we placed the call. >How many English speakers take bus number "one hundred and nine" instead >of the "one-oh-nine"? How many have stayed in hotel room "three hundred >and forty-seven" instead of "three-four-seven"? I'd say "three forty-seven" for the hotel room. >Is this a difference between South Africa and the rest of the world? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> Steve Hayes filted: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > used to be that we needed to dial the area code only when it was > different from the area code in which we placed the call. That's still the case in Australia, where we have a small number of area codes, each covering a large geographical area. SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. >>>>> Steve Hayes filted: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > That's still the case in Australia, where we have a small number of area > codes, each covering a large geographical area. In fact, it's become more so - I can now phone those of my family who live in Adelaide without a area code because we're all in the 08 region. SignatureRob Bannister Perth, W Australia ... >> That's still the case in Australia, where we have a small number of area >> codes, each covering a large geographical area. > >In fact, it's become more so - I can now phone those of my family who >live in Adelaide without a area code because we're all in the 08 region. It is not charged as a local call, 'though. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>> That's still the case in Australia, where we have a small number of >>> area codes, each covering a large geographical area. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It is not charged as a local call, 'though. For our plans, in the USA, all domestic calls are included in the monthly rate. That goes for both the land line and cell phone providers. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>> That's still the case in Australia, where we have a small number of >>>> area codes, each covering a large geographical area. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > For our plans, in the USA, all domestic calls are included in the > monthly rate. That goes for both the land line and cell phone providers. What did you mean by domestic? Adelaide is some 1500 miles away from here by road. The top end of our state is over 2000 miles away. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>> That's still the case in Australia, where we have a small number >>>>> of area codes, each covering a large geographical area. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > What did you mean by domestic? Adelaide is some 1500 miles away from > here by road. The top end of our state is over 2000 miles away. Actually, I mean to anywhere in the USA, Canada and Puerto Rico. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>>> That's still the case in Australia, where we have a small number >>>>>> of area codes, each covering a large geographical area. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Actually, I mean to anywhere in the USA, Canada and Puerto Rico. Here in BC, the basic monthly phone bill only covers calls in the local area (for me in Vancouver, that includes several surrounding municipalities). Outside that "local" area, long distance charges apply. However, particularly with cell phones, there are many plans available that may include such things as unlimited long distance calls to "favourite" numbers. A billing plan including calls anywhere in the continent at no extra charge would be very unusual, I think. SignaturePeter Bennett, VE7CEI peterbb4 (at) interchange.ubc.ca GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca >>>> That's still the case in Australia, where we have a small number of >>>> area codes, each covering a large geographical area. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > For our plans, in the USA, all domestic calls are included in the > monthly rate. That goes for both the land line and cell phone providers. That's true of some plans in Australia too, but you pay a dearer monthly rate to make up for it. I prefer a plan which doesn't include any calls (for a cheaper monthly rate) because I don't make many calls. SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. >>>>> That's still the case in Australia, where we have a small number of >>>>> area codes, each covering a large geographical area. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > rate to make up for it. I prefer a plan which doesn't include any calls > (for a cheaper monthly rate) because I don't make many calls. My recurring song with each and every phone company that contacts me with its great deals - since I don't make phone calls, I just want a very low rental. Phone companies do not understand this; they believe I want to phone people in foreign countries at least twice a week and people interstate several times a day. Will this get an electrician to come to my house? SignatureRob Bannister > ... >>> That's still the case in Australia, where we have a small number of area [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It is not charged as a local call, 'though. They're sneaky that way. SignatureRob Bannister >> Separate, but grouped. I give my telephone number in three groups: >> area code (pause) first three numbers (pause) last four numbers. US [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's still the case in Australia, where we have a small number of area > codes, each covering a large geographical area. That (the small number of area codes) is a new development, though. We used to have a much greater number of area codes. A few years ago my area code was 049 and my local number was a six-digit number. Then a whole lot of areas were combined. My present area code is 02 - which covers the entire state - and I have an eight-digit phone number that starts with 49 (my old area code). I regret this, because I believe that eight-digit phone numbers are a lot harder to memorise than six-digit numbers. Still, I recognise that the consolidation was necessary because the two biggest cities in the country (Sydney and Melbourne) were running out of numbers, and needed to steal the numbers belonging to adjacent areas. Besides, I no longer memorise the phone numbers of even my closest friends. Both my mobile phone and my house phone store my most-used phone numbers, and I'm happy to leave that job to them. One of these days I'll be stuck having to use a public phone to call someone whose number I never memorised; but sufficient unto the day, and so on. I agree with your basic point, which is that in Australia the area code is optional unless we need to call someone in a different state. In your case, but not mine, that's true even for an adjacent state. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>> Steve Hayes filted: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 555-1212. (The hyphens may be omitted, but there will be spaces where > the hyphens are as I have typed them.) I give the local dialling code (pause) first three numbers (pause) last three numbers. This seems to be fairly general practice outside London. The change to 0207 or 0208 for London numbers seems to have given rise to differing practices: some quote numbers with a break after the 020 and some don't. I find it easiest to give my mobile number in three groups as well - five, three, three - because the repetitions in the sequence make it easier to remember this way but many other people seem to use three, four, four, which I find less helpful, possibly because I'm not used to it. There is something about groups of three that makes them easier to memorise. [..] SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>>> Steve Hayes filted: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > to it. There is something about groups of three that makes them > easier to memorise. I suspect it has to do with the length of the sequence. We are nevertheless forced to go against nature and work with groups of four digits in so many things nowadays: credit card numbers, PIN codes, key codes... SignatureJames LFS <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk>: >I give the local dialling code (pause) first three numbers (pause) last >three numbers. This seems to be fairly general practice outside London. >The change to 0207 or 0208 for London numbers seems to have given rise to >differing practices: some quote numbers with a break after the 020 and >some don't. There are no London dialling codes 0207 and 0208. The London dialling code is 020. Those that say "020 7xxx yyyy" are correct. Those that say "0207 xxx yyyy" are Completely Wrong and Need Re-Educating. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > LFS <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk>: >> I give the local dialling code (pause) first three numbers (pause) last [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Those that say "020 7xxx yyyy" are correct. > Those that say "0207 xxx yyyy" are Completely Wrong and Need Re-Educating. Anyone trying to re-educate my 95 year old aunt would have quite a job on their hands. I think she is still coming to terms with losing the named exchanges. If you have been used to giving your number as XYZ 1234 over many years, it is quite likely that you will find it easier to lump the new numbers in front together. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > LFS <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk>: >> I give the local dialling code (pause) first three numbers (pause) last [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Those that say "020 7xxx yyyy" are correct. > Those that say "0207 xxx yyyy" are Completely Wrong and Need Re-Educating. You're probably right, but I still have sympathy for those who think of it in the old way. The vast majority of phone numbers in my own city start with 49, because that used to be our area code. After the change, many people wanted to have a phone with a "49" button, meaning "local call". My father has managed to keep the same phone number since the 1950s. His present phone number is 0357 921 534 (I trust that nobody here is going to abuse that breach of confidentiality), but I still think of it as "Seymour 534", in memory of the three-digit phone number we had when I was a child. The "03" specifies the state, the "57" is the area code he used to have, and the "921" was introduced when several towns were amalgamated. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> How many English speakers take bus number "one hundred and nine" instead >> of the "one-oh-nine"? How many have stayed in hotel room "three hundred >> and forty-seven" instead of "three-four-seven"? > > I'd say "three forty-seven" for the hotel room. Now that you mention it, I might sometimes say that myself. SignatureJames James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: >How many English speakers say telephone >numbers as anything but separate digits? <raises hand> My mobile number is 07780 900xyz. Pronounced oh-double-seven-eight-oh nine-hundred x-y-z. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: >> How many English speakers say telephone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > My mobile number is 07780 900xyz. > Pronounced oh-double-seven-eight-oh nine-hundred x-y-z. Me too. My Dad worked for the fore-runner of British Telecom and instilled in us some habits about pronouncing numbers, particularly saying double seven etc when a number was repeated. I think this was an established standard used in the business. Dividing numbers up into groups depends on a number of factors, for me. For example my home phone was originally Southampton 660457 (double 6 oh ...457). Then BT added a couple of numbers because it was running out of digits and it became Southampton 80660457 (8 oh double 66 ... 457). Then they replaced the exchange name with an area code and it became 02380 660457 (oh 23 8 oh ... double 6 0 ... 457). However they now want us to write 023 8066 0457, but somehow that seems to be agin nature. -- Mike Page >My mobile number is 07780 900xyz. >Pronounced oh-double-seven-eight-oh nine-hundred x-y-z. I notice that the presenters on the BBCWS program "The World Today" sometimes give their text-message number (+44 7786206080) as "four four, seven seven, eight six, twenty, sixty, eighty", and sometimes as "double four, double seven, eight six, twenty, sixty, eighty" Normally U.S. numbers will be read digit-by-digit. The White House switchboard is "two oh two, four five six, one four one four", never "fourteen fourteen". The usual exceptions are the "Special Area Codes" (800, 900, 700, and their kin) and numbers that spell something. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >Normally U.S. numbers will be read digit-by-digit. The White House >switchboard is "two oh two, four five six, one four one four", never >"fourteen fourteen". Yes, but you are implying - by the placement of commas - that the numbers are read digit-by-digit but within groups (3,3,4). A strictly digital reading would be "two, oh, two, four, five, six, one, four, one, four". SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony wrote on Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:27:20 -0500: >> Normally U.S. numbers will be read digit-by-digit. The White >> House switchboard is "two oh two, four five six, one four one >> four", never "fourteen fourteen". > Yes, but you are implying - by the placement of commas - that > the numbers are read digit-by-digit but within groups (3,3,4). > A strictly digital reading would be "two, oh, two, four, five, > six, one, four, one, four". Now that many metropolitan areas in the US require you to dial what was once called the area code for all phone numbers, I find myself giving my number, say, 301-299-1034, as "three OH one, two nine nine, one OH three four. A large number of people are also writing phone numbers as I did or 301.299.1034 and not using the old (301) 299-1034. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not >> Normally U.S. numbers will be read digit-by-digit. The White House >> switchboard is "two oh two, four five six, one four one four", never [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > digital reading would be "two, oh, two, four, five, six, one, four, > one, four". The dominant habit in Australia is now to group the digits in groups of four. I'd demonstrate with my own phone number, but the evening is well advanced and I can't remember it. That's for landline numbers. I still use groups of three for mobile phone numbers, because they always start with 0 followed by a three-digit number that identifies the phone company, followed by a six-digit number. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> Normally U.S. numbers will be read digit-by-digit. The White House >>> switchboard is "two oh two, four five six, one four one four", never [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >three-digit number that identifies the phone company, followed by a >six-digit number. I don't often need to speak a phone number. Talking to myself and trying to say a number as naturally as possible I find that I speak two groups of four digits with a substantial pause between each group and a smaller pause between the pairs of digits in each group. 12.34...56.78 SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>My mobile number is 07780 900xyz. >>Pronounced oh-double-seven-eight-oh nine-hundred x-y-z. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Codes" (800, 900, 700, and their kin) and numbers that spell > something. Digit-by-digit spelling or itemizing is important, especially through electronic media (as in automatic replies). How many times have you had to have a speaker repeat "thirteen" because it has sounded like "thirty"? (and also the other teens and twenty, forty etc) > James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: >> How many English speakers say telephone [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > My mobile number is 07780 900xyz. > Pronounced oh-double-seven-eight-oh nine-hundred x-y-z. Maybe it's my stubbornness, but I never use the word "double" when saying a phone number. For me, your phone number would be "oh seven seven eight oh" and so on. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep.?.invalid>: >> James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: >>> How many English speakers say telephone [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >saying a phone number. For me, your phone number would be "oh seven >seven eight oh" and so on. Fair enough. But "double" is so well established in the UK that it seems odd when people don't use it. SWMBO's phone number starts "oh- triple-seven-eight" and I'm sure that's more readily understood and remembered than "oh-seven-seven-seven-eight" would be. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep.?.invalid>: >>> James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > triple-seven-eight" and I'm sure that's more readily understood and > remembered than "oh-seven-seven-seven-eight" would be. Austrians normally group telephone numbers into pairs of digits, counting backwards from the end (for the purposes of division). Thus 07235 1234 will be spoken as: Null, zwei-und-siebzig, fuenf-und-dreissig, zwoelf, vier-und-dreissig translated: zero, seventy-two, thirty-five, twelve, thirty-four. Needless to say, English speakers just starting to learn German have to keep their wits about them. SignatureLes (BrE) > Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep.?.invalid>: >>> James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > triple-seven-eight" and I'm sure that's more readily understood and > remembered than "oh-seven-seven-seven-eight" would be. I think the "double" is common in Australia too (Peter M. not withstanding). I certainly use it. I guess I'm not as stubborn as Peter. SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. >>> Steve Hayes filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Is this a difference between South Africa and the rest of the world? I'd say all thoose things as separate digits. I think that's common in Australia. SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. >>> Steve Hayes filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Is this a difference between South Africa and the rest of the world? I don't think so. It depends on the number. When i say my present phone number I say "O one two, triple three, six seven two seven" The 1870 was an exception, because it was a year number, and my parents said something happened in that year which made the number easy to remember. And though I would say the year 1901 as "nineteen one", if it were the last four digits of my phone number I would say it "nineteen o one". Consistency in such things isn't my strong point (or weak point, as the case may be). 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 >>> Steve Hayes filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Is this a difference between South Africa and the rest of the world? It's a vile Germanic custom. SignatureRob Bannister > Steve Hayes filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > her number as "eight ninety ninety eighty nine"...she always insisted on > pronouncing it "eight nine oh, nine oh eight nine"....r I agree with all of these - and I think your mother was smart to oppose your suggestion - but that's because telephones brought a need to be able to enunciate numbers clearly and without ambiguity. Year numbers are less critical. If someone hears "nineteen six" and interprets it (as I would) as 196, no great damage is done. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>> The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is from 1935: >>>>> "nineteen-oh-eight". [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I have to admit that, though ours had a zero in it, I would announce the > number as "forty-five, eighteen seventy". What would you have said if the number had been 451807? SignatureJames > >>>> The earliest example I could find of "oh" in Google Books is from 1935: > >>>> "nineteen-oh-eight". [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I have to admit that, though ours had a zero in it, I would announce the > number as "forty-five, eighteen seventy". For your next trip: The dutch habit is the opposite: Phone numbers are always read out as individual digits, grouped in twos or threes for clarity. Yours would be: vier vijf, een acht, zeven nul. Jan > For your next trip: The dutch habit is the opposite: > Phone numbers are always read out as individual digits, > grouped in twos or threes for clarity. > Yours would be: vier vijf, een acht, zeven nul. But, as you may be aware, the Germans go the other way and say fünfundvierzig achtzehn siebzig - still in pairs, but turned into numbers. When I lived in Germany and memorised phone numbers this way, I was forever misdialling because as I said "fünfundvierzig" my fingers would be dialling 5 4. SignatureRob Bannister > For your next trip: The dutch habit is the opposite: > Phone numbers are always read out as individual digits, > grouped in twos or threes for clarity. > Yours would be: vier vijf, een acht, zeven nul. I approve of that. How often could we dial the correct number even if we were told it in a language that we don't understand? That's not a joke, in case anyone is wondering. Many of us can count from one to ten in a variety of languages, even if we don't otherwise have any fluency in the language. (We don't necessarily know the words for two-digit numbers.) If we can leverage that knowledge to understand phone numbers, so much the better. I'd be prepared to guess that even those people who know no Dutch words were able to understand Jan's example. (And that those who couldn't understand the written version would still have understood the spoken version.) Of course that depends on the fact that English and Dutch are closely related languages. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. [ ... ] >> Likewise, in fact, I can be almost certain: it was in 1947 when we >> moved and got a phone number with a zero in, and a certain young [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I have to admit that, though ours had a zero in it, I would > announce the number as "forty-five, eighteen seventy". When I vocalize our current number to a person who is present and writing or keying it, I watch to see if there is a hesitation when I say " ... zero seven four two"; there almost always is, even though it's "zero", and "oh" is at a different place on the "dial". SignatureFrank ess >> See also what Evan has said about a discussion of this topic a year so >> so ago, before I joined the group. Evan wrote: "I believe it appeared >> that the "oh" pronunciations started to become popular in the '20s." > > I wonder whether than had any connection with the spread of telephones > and the need to say numbers. In the brief period when I worked in France I struggled a bit with telephone numbers. The custom there is to group the digits in pairs, so that the telephone number 1234 5678 would be pronounced as (the French translation of) "twelve thirty-four fifty-six sixty-eighteen". [*] So far, so good, but what about a digit pair like "03"? Some people, including the engineers I had to work with, pronounced this as "zero three", but there were certainly others who said simply "three". [*] That was an extra complication. Up until that point the French speakers that I had dealt with were mostly Belgians, and Belgian French has a word for "seventy". The French do understand that word, but if you use it there's an audible pause while they mentally translate it into their own dialect. At the time I was working in Paris I was commuting each week between Antwerp and Paris, so I had to keep reminding myself that a number like "seventy eight" had to be spoken differently during the week and at the weekend. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > >> See also what Evan has said about a discussion of this topic a year so > >> so ago, before I joined the group. Evan wrote: "I believe it appeared [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that a number like "seventy eight" had to be spoken differently during > the week and at the weekend. Panoranix introduces his friend to Asterix: 'Voici mon ami Belge, le druide Septantesix', Jan > >> See also what Evan has said about a discussion of this topic a year so > >> so ago, before I joined the group. Evan wrote: "I believe it appeared [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that a number like "seventy eight" had to be spoken differently during > the week and at the weekend. The French speak French, a dialect of French perhaps, but never just a dialect. C'est un Belgicisme, Jan > It is only relatively recently that people have been adding zeroes to dates, > and writing 01 January rather than 1 January. If I count from one to ten I say > "one two three four five...." Not "oh one oh two oh thee oh four oh five". The notion that zero is a number came to Europe relatively late. True, it was before any of us were born, but I suspect that it still isn't locked into everyone's mind. Those of us with a mathematical/scientific/computing background - and, as it happens, that includes a great many of the aue regulars - do think of zero as a number, and are perfectly comfortable with phrases like "the zeroth law of thermodynamics", but in that respect we're probably not representative of the populace at large. I'm prepared to accept that pronouncing 1901 as "nineteen oh one" is an affectation of the mathematically sophisticated, and that there are plenty of people out there who don't see the point of the "oh". > Could anyone write 0 in Roman numerals? I just did, but you probably didn't notice. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>That, since you left out the zero, is screwy. Naturally enough, IMO, I >>>say nineteen-oh-one. Could this be an AmE, BrE thing? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >was in his or her right mind, referred to the year as "nineteen-one" >and not "nineteen-oh-one". Will Deja-Google still be around in 100 years from this time? They'll probably be asking what WE said, and so someone better keep this thread. 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 > Will Deja-Google still be around in 100 years from this time? > > They'll probably be asking what WE said, and so someone better keep this > thread. You're not joking. I've heard that many librarians are worried about the fact that so many of our archival records are stored on hard disks with a one-year warranty, rather than on paper. Or as MS-Word documents in a format that Micros**t no longer supports. (OpenOffice can read the older formats, but not everyone knows that. Microsoft has forgotten how to read them.) A hundred years from now, how much documentation will be left about things like how English was spoken in 2010? At least some earlier generations left printed documents, but we don't. DejaNews has already proved itself to be a flawed mechanism. By the time Google bought the archives, many years of news archives had already been lost. We still don't know whether this was the fault of DejaNews or of Google. (I suspect the latter, because DejaNews worked very well before Google bought it.) In five or ten years Google will pass into history, its archives bought by a company that doesn't yet exist, and again huge amounts of archival material will be lost. Some of the "lost" material will be preserved on private web sites, but how useful is that? In another thread, someone offered to upload audio files showing how they pronounced certain words. Bob Cunningham used to collect such files, but that collection has no value given that Bob is no longer an aue regular. I could offer to keep them on my web site, but that will disappear the first time I forget to renew the domain name registration. Even the alt-usage-english.org domain name belongs to someone who is no longer an aue regular; we're lucky that he continues to renew the domain name, but he's already given up on the "Summer Doldrums" competition, so how many years do we still have left? The odds are that the collective wisdom of this group - and I accept that it's a lot of wisdom - will eventually join the compost heap of history. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. >> Have a good one everybody! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >oh one"). After all, I've never heard anyone say "one thousand nine >hundred (and) one". I speculated about a decade ago that the "twenty" style would take time to catch on. For the whole of our lives we had been accustomed to the idea that a number spoken as "nineteen..." (or any other "-teen") might be a year. We had no acclimatisation to year numbers beginning "two thousand" or "twenty". Or brains simply had not internalised that possibility. That is why when referring to the year after nineteen ninety nine we called it "the year two thousand". In English the traditional full version of a year number would be in the form "The year of our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety nine". "Nineteen ninety nine" is a heavily ellided version of that. As I said above we are accustomed to recognising the short (-teen) forms as years. There is another point: In MyEnglish I would say the year 1999 as "nineteen ninety nine" but I'd say the number 1999 (1,999) as "one thousand nine hundred (and) ninety nine". That helps to distinguish year numbers from other numbers. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Peter Duncanson (BrE) skrev: > I speculated about a decade ago that the "twenty" style would take time > to catch on. For the whole of our lives we had been accustomed to the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > possibility. That is why when referring to the year after nineteen > ninety nine we called it "the year two thousand". I don't agree. There was a battle at Hastings in 1066. Would you read that as "ten (hundred) sixtysix"? I wouldn't. When reading numbers - in English or Danish - I say "x thousand" if the second digit is a zero, but "xx hundred" if it is not. SignatureBertel, Denmark > I don't agree. There was a battle at Hastings in 1066. Would you > read that as "ten (hundred) sixtysix"? I wouldn't. > > When reading numbers - in English or Danish - I say "x thousand" > if the second digit is a zero, but "xx hundred" if it is not. People are going to be falling all over themselves to say you chose a clearcut example for the other side. "Ten sixty-six" is definitely the way we remember the Battle of Hastings. There's a humorous book, and a play: Ten sixty-six and all that: A memorable history of England. Comprising, all the parts you can remember including one hundred and three good things, five bad kings, and two genuine dates. Walter Carruthers Sellar. [Pub.] - Methuen 1930 Ten Sixty-Six And All That (Libretto) Book and lyrics by Reginald Arkell, from the Memorable History of the same name by W.C. Seller and R.J. Yeatman. Music by Alfred Reynolds Musical - Full Length ... Produced at the Strand Theatre, London, 1935 It's possible that the actual book cover or theater programme has 1066, I don't find any pictures, but those who catalog titles with numbers often like to spell them out. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux Donna Richoux skrev: > People are going to be falling all over themselves to say you chose a > clearcut example for the other side. "Ten sixty-six" is definitely the > way we remember the Battle of Hastings. There's a humorous book, and a > play: Oh well, I just learned something new. It must be my Danish habit then that tricked me (and the fact that I didn't check before writing). SignatureBertel, Denmark > Donna Richoux skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > then that tricked me (and the fact that I didn't check before > writing). In your defence I can say that people used to say it that way in English, as this example at Google Books shows: http://tinyurl.com/y8l9fjh And I found a "poem" from 1819 with these lines: "Saxon Edward, the Confessor, Ethelred's son Was made king in one thousand and forty-one. In one thousand and sixty-six became king Second Harold, whose rashness his ruin did bring." See also http://tinyurl.com/yegozls SignatureJames > Donna Richoux skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > then that tricked me (and the fact that I didn't check before > writing). Nevertheless, with dates between 999 and 1010, people get very funny if they have to say them aloud, so 1002 will probably be said as "one thousand and two", but might come out as "ten oh two" depending on what the speaker ate for breakfast that day. SignatureRob Bannister >> I don't agree. There was a battle at Hastings in 1066. Would you >> read that as "ten (hundred) sixtysix"? I wouldn't. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I don't find any pictures, but those who catalog titles with numbers > often like to spell them out. My copy of the book has digits, not words, in the title. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > Peter Duncanson (BrE) skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I don't agree. There was a battle at Hastings in 1066. Would you > read that as "ten (hundred) sixtysix"? I wouldn't. "Ten sixty six" is the _only_ way I've ever heard that date pronoounced. > When reading numbers - in English or Danish - I say "x thousand" > if the second digit is a zero, but "xx hundred" if it is not. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> Peter Duncanson (BrE) skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > "Ten sixty six" is the _only_ way I've ever heard that date pronoounced. Moreover, it's the only date from British history that anyone ever remembers. SignatureRob Bannister >>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Moreover, it's the only date from British history that anyone ever >remembers. 1953, coronation. To a lot of the people on Usenet that's ancient history. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) skrev: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 1953, coronation. To a lot of the people on Usenet that's ancient > history. I only remember that date because I was there, standing in the drizzle behind a seven foot policeman. I doubt many young people know that date. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) skrev: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I only remember that date because I was there, standing in the drizzle >behind a seven foot policeman. I doubt many young people know that date. I too was there, but I do sometimes have to dredge my braincells for the date. 1951 comes to mind easily. It was the year of the Festival of Britain. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) skrev: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >1951 comes to mind easily. It was the year of the Festival of Britain. As I recall, I watched the event on the family's new Magnovox TV. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) skrev: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > 1951 comes to mind easily. It was the year of the Festival of Britain. I have a horrible suspicion that somewhere, hidden away in a carton or a drawer, I may have crown piece from the FoB. Ohmidog, I was only eleven and they exposed me to that. SignatureRob Bannister >> Peter Duncanson (BrE) skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > "Ten sixty six" is the _only_ way I've ever heard that date > pronoounced. But apparently this has not always been the case: William, Duke of Normandy, having overcome Harold in the battle of Hastings, on the fourteenth day of October, one thousand and sixty-six; ... James Browne, _A History of the Highlands and of the Highland Clans_, 1843 In the middle of the month of October, in the year one thousand and sixty-six, the Normans and the English came front to front. Franklin Thomas Baker, et al., _Sixth Year Language Reader_, 1909 The Duke of Normandy landed in Sussex in the year one thousand and sixty-six, after the birth of our blessed Saviour. Walter Scott, _Tales of a Grandfather_, 1827 But considering afterwards, that, in consequence of his being crowned king, all persons would be more afraid of rebelling against him, and more easily crushed, if they did, he yielded to the importunities of the English and Normans, and was crowned in Westminster-abbey on Chrismas-day of the year one thousand and sixty-six, not without the appearance and form of an election, or free acknowledgement of his claim ... _The Monthly Review_, July, 1767 William appear'd his claims to fix, 'Twas in one thousand sixty six, And landing on the Sussex shore With sixty thousand men or more The vict'ry at Hastings gain'd, And so the English crown obtain'd. Harold, his rival, fighting well Amidst the common slaughter fell. Elizabeth Rowse, _Outlines of English History, in Verse_, 1808 >>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Elizabeth Rowse, _Outlines of English History, > in Verse_, 1808 No one does that historical stuff like William Topaz McGonagall: The Pennsylvania Disaster 'TWAS in the year of 1889, and in the month of June, Ten thousand people met with a fearful doom, By the bursting of a dam in Pennsylvania State, And were burned, and drowned by the flood-- oh! pity their fate! The Kessack Ferry-Boat Fatality 'Twas on Friday the 2nd of March, in the year of 1894, That the Storm Fiend did loudly laugh and roar Along the Black Isle and the Kessack Ferry shore, Whereby six men were drowned, which their friends will deplore. The Sunderland Calamity 'Twas in the town of Sunderland, and in the year of 1883, That about 200 children were launch'd into eternity While witnessing an entertainment in Victoria Hall, While they, poor little innocents, to God for help did call. The Great Yellow River Inundation In China 'Twas in the year of 1887, and on the 28th of September, Which many people of Honan, in China, will long remember; Especially those that survived the mighty deluge, That fled to the mountains, and tops of trees, for refuge. The Terrific Cyclone of 1893 'Twas in the year of 1893, and on the 17th and 18th of November, Which the people of Dundee and elsewhere will long remember, The terrific cyclone that blew down trees, And wrecked many vessels on the high seas. The Battle of Alexandria, or the Reconquest of Egypt It was on the 21st of March in the year of 1801, The British were at their posts every man; And their position was naturally very strong, And the whole line from sea to lake was about a mile long. SignatureJames >> William appear'd his claims to fix, >> 'Twas in one thousand sixty six, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >By the bursting of a dam in Pennsylvania State, >And were burned, and drowned by the flood-- oh! pity their fate! And then there was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Year_2525 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 >Peter Duncanson (BrE) skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I don't agree. There was a battle at Hastings in 1066. Would you >read that as "ten (hundred) sixtysix"? I wouldn't. No. I was restricting my comments to the teen centuries prior to 2000. >When reading numbers - in English or Danish - I say "x thousand" >if the second digit is a zero, but "xx hundred" if it is not. That used to be customary in BrE. I'm not sure that is is any more. I wasn't aware of a possible change until the last few years. The reason I say that is that when watching US News programs on CBS and ABC I find that I'm "pulled up short" by the style you mentioned. A newsreader will refer to something as having increased from, say, "eighteen hundred", to "two thousand" and then to "twenty-one hundred". It is the mixture of the "hundred" style with the "thousand" style that is noticeable. I would express those values as "one thousand eight hundred", "two thousand" and "two thousand one hundred". I'll be interested to see what others have to say about this. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Peter Duncanson (BrE) skrev: > It is the mixture of the "hundred" style with the "thousand" style that > is noticeable. I would express those values as "one thousand eight > hundred", "two thousand" and "two thousand one hundred". I discussed pronunciation with my math classes when I was working as a teacher (grade 1 to 9). I taught them that both styles were okay, and I didn't demand consistency with one at the time. I never thought of that 'problem' till now. I think the reason is that we in Danish switch between the two modes all the time. SignatureBertel, Denmark > Peter Duncanson (BrE) skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > never thought of that 'problem' till now. I think the reason is > that we in Danish switch between the two modes all the time. After teaching my French classes for years that the "only" way to say dates in French was with the "thousand nine hundred" style, I then kept coming across French people who said "nineteen hundred". You can't win, especially with native speakers. SignatureRob Bannister Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:19:38 +0800 from Robert Bannister <robban1 @bigpond.com>: > After teaching my French classes for years that the "only" way to > say dates in French was with the "thousand nine hundred" style, Out of curiosity, what gave you that idea? > I then kept coming across French people who said "nineteen > hundred". I was taught in my first year of French by a native speaker, and in my third and fourth years by teachers who always summered in France, and it was always "dix-neuf cent soixante-treize", never "mille" whatever. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:19:38 +0800 from Robert Bannister <robban1 > @bigpond.com>: >> After teaching my French classes for years that the "only" way to >> say dates in French was with the "thousand nine hundred" style, > > Out of curiosity, what gave you that idea? I still think most French people use the "mille neuf cent..." method, but I'll let Isabelle decide. >> I then kept coming across French people who said "nineteen >> hundred". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and it was always "dix-neuf cent soixante-treize", never "mille" > whatever. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister a écrit : >> Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:19:38 +0800 from Robert Bannister <robban1 >> @bigpond.com>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> third and fourth years by teachers who always summered in France, and >> it was always "dix-neuf cent soixante-treize", never "mille" whatever. It's one of those questions that I don't really feel that qualified to comment upon. I sadly lack data. I can only count on my own intuition, and on what I can observe in myself and in the limited number of speakers I have access to. I've cunningly tried to rely on what I understand is a form of experimental approach: asking my nearest and dearest rather cleverly --as I thought-- phrased questions, such as "What is the year of your birth again?" or "Do you know what year I was born?" The response was disheartening. They gave me really funny looks. I wonder why. Checking on their knowledge of historical events was a bit more successful, while asking them for their opinions of what the greatest years for wine in the last century was disappointing (they answered 29 and 47). In short, both forms, the one with "cent" and the one with" mille" are used. There's a clear preference for "cent" when speaking about history. When talking about Agincourt or the sack of Peking by Genghis Khan, the usual form is "quatorze cent quinze", "douze cent quinze". The French revolution occurred in "dix-sept cent quatre-vingt-neuf" for me and those I asked, but "mille sept cent quatre-vingt-neuf" is not unheard of. As for our good king Henri IV, he was King of France from "quinze cent quatre-vingt-neuf" to "mille six cent dix". My informers rationalized that "seize cent" was too difficult to pronounce. Dates of no historic interest can follow one form or the other, depending on the speaker. SignatureIsabelle Cecchini > Robert Bannister a écrit : >>> Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:19:38 +0800 from Robert Bannister <robban1 [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Dates of no historic interest can follow one form or the other, > depending on the speaker. Thank you. I think we are now adequately confused. I loved the funny looks and the great wines. SignatureRob Bannister Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid>: >Checking on their knowledge of historical events was a bit more >successful, while asking them for their opinions of what the greatest >years for wine in the last century was disappointing (they answered 29 >and 47). How about good years for beer? I'm thinking of 1664 of course. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England Mike Barnes a écrit : > Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid>: >> Checking on their knowledge of historical events was a bit more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How about good years for beer? I'm thinking of 1664 of course. At the risk of further confusing the matter, that beer is commonly referred to as 'une seize', (= une 16). What is it in English? SignatureIsabelle Cecchini >Mike Barnes a écrit : >> How about good years for beer? I'm thinking of 1664 of course. Not 1845? >At the risk of further confusing the matter, that beer is commonly >referred to as 'une seize', (= une 16). What is it in English? "Take this away and give me a real beer." Slightly more seriously, I think that in the UK it's usually just known as "Kronenbourg", pronounced "Kronenburg" on the basis that all foreign lager is German. SignatureRoger BW - BrE >> Mike Barnes a écrit : >>> How about good years for beer? I'm thinking of 1664 of course. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > as "Kronenbourg", pronounced "Kronenburg" on the basis that all foreign > lager is German. Interesting pronunciation comment. Apart from maybe the final G, the French and German pronunciations would be pretty much the same, so I think you are talking about how the English who don't know German pronounce German words. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: >>I think that in the UK it's usually just known as "Kronenbourg", >>pronounced "Kronenburg" on the basis that all foreign lager is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >think you are talking about how the English who don't know German >pronounce German words. That will be most English people, of course. But I'm not sure whether they're mispronouncing "Kronenbourg", or misreading it[1], or just being lazy. [1] There are several UK beers with German-style labelling, and real German beers sold in the UK, with names ending in "-burg". SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: >>> I think that in the UK it's usually just known as "Kronenbourg", [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > [1] There are several UK beers with German-style labelling, and real > German beers sold in the UK, with names ending in "-burg". My point is that if they pronounce "burg" as in English "hamburger" then why would you expect them to pronounce "bourg" correctly either? Either you stick to Anglicised pronunciation or you go the whole hog and pronounce burg and bourg in their native way. The latter is a bit show-offy, but better than Anglicising one and not the other. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: >> Robert Bannister <robban1@bigpond.com>: >>>> I think that in the UK it's usually just known as "Kronenbourg", [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >and pronounce burg and bourg in their native way. The latter is a bit >show-offy, but better than Anglicising one and not the other. Good point, but you're ignoring the fact that German place names ending in "-burg" are pronounced "-berg" in English, so routinely that I would consider it "correct". No-one says HAM-boorg unless they want to be thought a complete twat. That would be even more pretentious than KRO- nuhn-boorg. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid>: >Mike Barnes a écrit : >> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid>: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >At the risk of further confusing the matter, that beer is commonly >referred to as 'une seize', (= une 16). What is it in English? Oon bee-AIR, seal-voo-play. But in real English? I've had little cause to say it, but just "a Kronenbourg", probably. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > Mike Barnes a écrit : >> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid>: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > At the risk of further confusing the matter, that beer is commonly > referred to as 'une seize', (= une 16). What is it in English? French beer? Hmmm, how can I put this delicately? I just order a "pression" and drink what they give me. There's not normally a choice in rural French bars. SignatureDavid > > Mike Barnes a écrit : > >> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I just order a "pression" and drink what they give me. There's not > normally a choice in rural French bars. A 'pression' is always a gamble if it really is rural. It may be weeks old, and that's noticable, Jan On 05 Jan 2010, the Omrud wrote >> Mike Barnes a écrit : >>> How about good years for beer? I'm thinking of 1664 of course. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I just order a "pression" and drink what they give me. There's > not normally a choice in rural French bars. The choice for me in France is never beer (but then again, I very seldom drink any beer other than real ale -- one of the "smooth" keg bitters, in a pinch, if the good stuff's not available). SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 05 Jan 2010, the Omrud wrote >>> Mike Barnes a écrit : [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >seldom drink any beer other than real ale -- one of the "smooth" keg >bitters, in a pinch, if the good stuff's not available). In France, the "good stuff" is wine, IMPO. We're not in Munich anymore, I hear Dorothy saying. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > >On 05 Jan 2010, the Omrud wrote > >>> Mike Barnes a écrit : [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > In France, the "good stuff" is wine, IMPO. We're not in Munich > anymore, I hear Dorothy saying. Don't overstate the point. There are some good French specialty beers, from the North and the East mostly. It's the bulk beers that are mediocre, Jan > It's the bulk beers that are mediocre, As it is in every country! (And that does include Belgium.) Pierre SignaturePierre Jelenc The Gigometer www.gigometer.com The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org > French beer? Hmmm, how can I put this delicately? > > I just order a "pression" and drink what they give me. There's not > normally a choice in rural French bars. That's why they invented bottles. Do you go to a restaurant and order "a food"? Pierre SignaturePierre Jelenc The Gigometer www.gigometer.com The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org > > French beer? Hmmm, how can I put this delicately? > > > > I just order a "pression" and drink what they give me. There's not > > normally a choice in rural French bars. > > That's why they invented bottles. Which do not improve the taste. > Do you go to a restaurant and order "a food"? Yet 'un pression' is what it's called. Just ask 'il y a du pression?' Most provincial bars/restaurants will have only one kind, if at all. If they have two they'll ask you which one you want. Jan >>> French beer? Hmmm, how can I put this delicately? >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > if at all. > If they have two they'll ask you which one you want. I always used to ask for "Demi press' s.v.p." Same as asking for a pint of bitter. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > >>> French beer? Hmmm, how can I put this delicately? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I always used to ask for "Demi press' s.v.p." > Same as asking for a pint of bitter. The Belgians have started an offensive on the French market. Your 'demie' may nowadays turn out to be a Leffe or a Grimbergen, which at 6 to 7 % may be more alcohol than you intended to have. So it is better to ask first what they have, Jan > Mike Barnes a écrit : > > Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid>: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > At the risk of further confusing the matter, that beer is commonly > referred to as 'une seize', (= une 16). What is it in English? It's rarely seen outside France, afaik. It may have a high quality image in France, but that't not very exportable, (but perhaps the brits will drink everything?) Jan PS Always good fun to ask a French waiter what kinds of beer he has on offer. I must have heard many pronunciations of Heineken, Carlsberg, Dortmunder, etc., to th point of having to think very hard to understand what he might have been saying. Fortunately Leffe is on the way up. >> Mike Barnes a écrit : >>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid>: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > but that't not very exportable, > (but perhaps the brits will drink everything?) 'anything' ITYM Although your question also tends to a positive answer. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > >> Mike Barnes a écrit : > >>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid>: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 'anything' ITYM Thanks, yes, of course. I think I broke off in mid-sentence though. > Although your question also tends to a positive answer. I have no idea what might be available. When in England I feel I must adapt, and avoid all the yellow liquids. My theory is that French beers are almost unknown in the Netherlands because of Belgium being in between. Why look further away, when there are so many superior beers to be found closer by? Jan >>>> Mike Barnes a écrit : >>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid>: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > When in England I feel I must adapt, > and avoid all the yellow liquids. You mean, like advocaat? Wise man. I too avoid custard with a kick. SignatureJames [...] >> I have no idea what might be available. >> When in England I feel I must adapt, >> and avoid all the yellow liquids. > > You mean, like advocaat? Wise man. > I too avoid custard with a kick. Weird stuff. My second wife used at one stage to drink "snowballs". But on beer, I should mention that Tony Cooper has lodged an expression in our family. A while ago he used "The Badger's Arse" as a generic English pub name: we now use it to cover all those traditionalish beers with fool names like "Bishop's Finger". (In fact, I'm a Shepherd Neame fan, and think highly of Bishop's Finger, though it's too strong for swilling. Apparently "bishop's fingers" were the fingerposts pointing down the Pilgrims' Way to Canterbury.) SignatureMike. > But on beer, I should mention that Tony Cooper has lodged an expression in > our family. A while ago he used "The Badger's Arse" as a generic English > pub name: we now use it to cover all those traditionalish beers with fool > names like "Bishop's Finger". You're quite right - the mania for stupid names shows no sign of abating. The latest I've come across is "Spinning Dog" from Hereford. We had a dog that did that. I'll leave it to the imagination, but it's not a thought I associate with good beer. Regards Jonathan On 05 Jan 2010, Mike Lyle wrote > [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > those traditionalish beers with fool names like "Bishop's > Finger". Those annoy me no end -- so much so that my reaction tends to be "I don't care what it tastes like or how wonderful it is, I'm bloody well not buying beers called 'The Nun's Nipple' or 'Gargling Toads'; it only encourages them". (It goes with other rules like "Never eat at the top of anything" and "Avoid wines with pictures of animals on the label".) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Weird stuff. My second wife used at one stage to drink "snowballs". I had part-time jobs in pubs during the second half of the 70s. I was a dab hand at the snowball. SignatureDavid >> [...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I had part-time jobs in pubs during the second half of the 70s. I > was a dab hand at the snowball. Ego te absolvo. Go forth, and sin no more. SignatureMike. >>> [...] >>>>> I have no idea what might be available. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ego te absolvo. Go forth, and sin no more. If people are daft enough to drink yellow snow, it's their own fault. SignatureJames >>>> [...] >>>>>> I have no idea what might be available. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> Ego te absolvo. Go forth, and sin no more. I have been in remission these 30 years. > If people are daft enough to drink yellow snow, it's their own fault. But it was your daughter's handwriting. Oops, wrong joke. SignatureDavid >> [...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I had part-time jobs in pubs during the second half of the 70s. I was a >dab hand at the snowball. After last night's snowfall it's a useful skill to have. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>> [...] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > After last night's snowfall it's a useful skill to have. Dratted stuff - it's the wrong sort. It won't form a ball. SignatureDavid >>>> [...] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Dratted stuff - it's the wrong sort. It won't form a ball. Good for skiing, though. SignatureJames >>> I had part-time jobs in pubs during the second half of the 70s. I was a >>> dab hand at the snowball. >> >> After last night's snowfall it's a useful skill to have. > >Dratted stuff - it's the wrong sort. It won't form a ball. It will, but you have to squash it just right. Too much and it falls apart again anyway. Can't roll a good snowman, though, far too powdery for that. And the sledge keeps sinking so we can't get too far down the hill either. And just for the record, my train broke down on Thursday and a train was sent from the depot to tow us in. Except the trains had different couplings. Yup, we honestly had a "wrong kind of train" incident. I can laugh about it now. > >>>> Mike Barnes a écrit : > >>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid>: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You mean, like advocaat? Wise man. > I too avoid custard with a kick. You call that a liquid? Jan >>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > You call that a liquid? You people do, although I see from the Dutch Wikipedia that it's the drink that put the "dik" in "vloeibaar". SignatureJames >>>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid> >>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > You people do, although I see from the Dutch Wikipedia that it's the > drink that put the "dik" in "vloeibaar". And it's so viscous, it should come with a warnink. SignatureJames >>>>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > And it's so viscous, it should come with a warnink. <groan> Now I have Stuck Advertising Jingle Syndrome... SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > >>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid> > >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > You people do, although I see from the Dutch Wikipedia that it's the > drink that put the "dik" in "vloeibaar". One of those non-Newtonian liquids. The wiki page you quote says that it may be eaten with a spoon. (en een toefje slagroom) It may be so stiff (especially in a cold room) that you can hold the bottle upside down without any 'liquid' coming out. Shake the bottle, and it will pour easily. So, shaken it should be, not stirred, Jan >>>>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > One of those non-Newtonian liquids. The wiki page you quote says that > it may be eaten with a spoon. (en een toefje slagroom) That "slagroom" is such a lovely word. Have any Dutch dairies tried to market whipped cream in the UK under that name? > It may be so stiff (especially in a cold room) that you can hold the > bottle upside down without any 'liquid' coming out. Shake the bottle, > and it will pour easily. > > So, shaken it should be, not stirred, Is it like ketchup, nothing comes at first, then half a bottle all at once? I've never poured the stuff. SignatureJames > >>>>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid> > >>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > That "slagroom" is such a lovely word. Have any Dutch dairies tried to > market whipped cream in the UK under that name? No idea. It woud be hard to make a brand name out of it, I guess. You don't associate it with a room filled with slag? > > It may be so stiff (especially in a cold room) that you can hold the > > bottle upside down without any 'liquid' coming out. Shake the bottle, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Is it like ketchup, nothing comes at first, then half a bottle all at > once? I've never poured the stuff. I don't think so. It doesn't become really water-like. I must admit though that my advocaat-pouring experience is quite limited. Old very old aunts are supposed to still have a liking for it. Jan >>> One of those non-Newtonian liquids. The wiki page you quote says that >>> it may be eaten with a spoon. (en een toefje slagroom) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It woud be hard to make a brand name out of it, I guess. > You don't associate it with a room filled with slag? My mind suggests a room filled with slags (women of little virtue). SignatureJames >>>> One of those non-Newtonian liquids. The wiki page you quote says that >>>> it may be eaten with a spoon. (en een toefje slagroom) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > My mind suggests a room filled with slags (women of little virtue). Women of easy virtue, shirley? (Have we ever had a Shirley posting here?) SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>>> One of those non-Newtonian liquids. The wiki page you quote says that >>>>> it may be eaten with a spoon. (en een toefje slagroom) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Women of easy virtue, shirley? (Have we ever had a Shirley posting here?) I was merely quoting the definition in Roger's Profanisaurus. SignatureJames >>>>> One of those non-Newtonian liquids. The wiki page you quote says that >>>>> it may be eaten with a spoon. (en een toefje slagroom) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Women of easy virtue, shirley? (Have we ever had a Shirley posting here?) Not to my knowledge, but if we ever do she'll kill off an old tradition. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > (Have we ever had a Shirley posting here?) She wouldn't dare. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Is it like ketchup, nothing comes at first, then half a bottle all at > once? I've never poured the stuff. If we're still discussing advocaat rather than custard, I can report that, in my experience, that it pours quite easily under normal temperature conditions. I was eager to experiment given current weather conditions (very deep snow, very bright sun and very, very low temperatures) but we don't seem to have any at the moment. The problem with advocaat is that it doesn't come in small bottles: I really enjoy it but only occasionally and in small quantities. And yes, I am a very old aunt, a great-aunt, even. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > >>>>>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid> > >>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > And yes, I am a very old aunt, a great-aunt, even. It won't pour easily if the bottle hs been left undisturbed for a few months. It seems to depend on the brand though. Perhaps the UK stuff is more fluid. Would a spoon be of use? Jan >If we're still discussing advocaat rather than custard, I can report >that, in my experience, that it pours quite easily under normal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >with advocaat is that it doesn't come in small bottles: I really enjoy >it but only occasionally and in small quantities. A cow-orker of mine used to bring it in on the day before the Christmas break, and make snowballs for however many staff were there at coffee-time. Someone else brught mince-pies. I remember it as having been rather delicious. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>>>>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >Is it like ketchup, nothing comes at first, then half a bottle all at >once? Hold the bottle at a forty-five degree angle, then tap it. >I've never poured the stuff. Do you want ketchup or tomato sauce? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Do you want ketchup or tomato sauce? Neither actually. I just want a good analogy. SignatureJames >> Do you want ketchup or tomato sauce? > > Neither actually. I just want a good analogy. Now I have this picture of you saying that to a waitperson... SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) LFS filted: >>> Do you want ketchup or tomato sauce? >> >> Neither actually. I just want a good analogy. > >Now I have this picture of you saying that to a waitperson... It'd make a good "New Yorker" cartoon....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >>>>>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Is it like ketchup, nothing comes at first, then half a bottle all at > once? I've never poured the stuff. "Shake and shake the ketchup bottle None'll come and then a lot'll" SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>>>>>> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >"Shake and shake the ketchup bottle >None'll come and then a lot'll" I know it with a "First" sneaked (snuck?) in, before the "none'll". The secret is first to give the bottle a good shaking beforehand (cap on, of course). If it's a virgin bottle, it may be necessary to break/remove the 'skin' which often forms on the top of the ketchup. SignatureIan [...] >> "Shake and shake the ketchup bottle >> None'll come and then a lot'll" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > on, of course). If it's a virgin bottle, it may be necessary to > break/remove the 'skin' which often forms on the top of the ketchup. I use so little tomato sauce since having no resident children that I suppose I could reasonably go back to real Heinz, instead of getting the supermarket's poverty-line own brand. This I transfer to an old squeezy Heinz bottle, which obviates the traditional delay. I got my sister's children one of those awful squeezy plastic tomatoes: they love it. SignatureMike. >[...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Heinz bottle, which obviates the traditional delay. I got my sister's >children one of those awful squeezy plastic tomatoes: they love it. I don't trust ketchup that was in contact with plastic for weeks. Give me an old-fashioned glass bottle of it I need to pound on before anything comes out. I generally get either too little or too much, but I trust the quality of it. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >[...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Heinz bottle, which obviates the traditional delay. I got my sister's >children one of those awful squeezy plastic tomatoes: they love it. The trouble with the squeezy Heinz bottle is that it tends to dribble a thin liquid before it farts out the thicker sauce. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. > The trouble with the squeezy Heinz bottle is that it tends to dribble > a thin liquid before it farts out the thicker sauce. Shake it well first. Perce Percival wrote on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:21:18 -0500: >> The trouble with the squeezy Heinz bottle is that it tends to >> dribble a thin liquid before it farts out the thicker sauce. > Shake it well first. I guess it depends on how often you use the bottle. One inversion and back again seems enough around here. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not >Percival wrote on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:21:18 -0500: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I guess it depends on how often you use the bottle. One inversion and >back again seems enough around here. I don't use Heinz these days (Marks and Spencer's is much more tomatoey). However, I believe Heinz use the same sort of bottle (the type with the nozzle, that is meant to be kept inverted, standing on its cap). Here is a warning. If you store it in a fridge, and take it out for a meal, it warms up. The air inside expands. When you flip open the cap, a spectacular spurt of tomato sauce erupts from the nozzle, and goes all over the place (colourful, but not amusing). SignatureIan >> Percival wrote on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:21:18 -0500: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > cap, a spectacular spurt of tomato sauce erupts from the nozzle, and > goes all over the place (colourful, but not amusing). A warning is also due for tomatoes in their natural state. The other day my wife bit into a cherry tomato, spraying seeds across the table. She managed to cover me from head to waist, and I had difficulty seeing through my glasses. SignatureJames >>> Percival wrote on Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:21:18 -0500: >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > managed to cover me from head to waist, and I had difficulty seeing > through my glasses. Now if only that could have been someone's throat and you had had your movie camera ready... "Silence of the cherry tomatoes" doesn't quite have right ring, but spectacular all the same. SignatureRob Bannister >> Mike Barnes a écrit : >> > Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid>: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >It's rarely seen outside France, afaik. As far as you know. Do you spend a lot of time in the UK? >It may have a high quality image in France, >but that't not very exportable, >(but perhaps the brits will drink everything?) The saying is usually "will drink anything", not "everything". >>It may have a high quality image in France, >>but that't not very exportable, >>(but perhaps the brits will drink everything?) > > The saying is usually "will drink anything", not "everything". Do you guys have signs that say "Drink Canada Dry"? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Of course, over the first 10^-10 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |seconds and 10^-30 cubic Palo Alto, CA 94304 |centimeters it averages out to |zero, but when you look in kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |detail.... (650)857-7572 | Philip Morrison http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>It may have a high quality image in France, >>>but that't not very exportable, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Do you guys have signs that say "Drink Canada Dry"? We (UK) did. SignatureIan On Jan 5, 12:17 am, Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecch...@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote: > Mike Barnes a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > At the risk of further confusing the matter, that beer is commonly > referred to as 'une seize', (= une 16). What is it in English? "Ah! that was a proper fourteen-twenty, that was!" ~ the old gaffer, / Return of the King/, JRR Tolkien. My mother used to (jocularly) refer to long-ago dates using the word "aught". Like "ninteen aught seven". And "ninteen aught thirty-two". Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "I'd rather decline a beer than a German adjective". - Mark Twain > On Jan 5, 12:17 am, Isabelle Cecchini > <isabelle.cecch...@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> At the risk of further confusing the matter, that beer is commonly >> referred to as 'une seize', (= une 16). What is it in English? There was a time (nineteen aught sixty-six or so) when San Diego Juvenile Detainees would mention with relish what would be their first act upon delivery from the jaws of the System: "Gonna get me a couple Colt 40s ... " The "40s" were forty-ounce bottles of the malted beverage "Colt 45", which was reputed to have quite a kick. > "Ah! that was a proper fourteen-twenty, that was!" ~ the old > gaffer, / Return of the King/, JRR Tolkien. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jim Deutch (JimboCat) Can't remember where or when I first heard "nineteen aught ... ", but it has attained, in my cohort, the coin-status of "When I was a lad ... " as a precursor to some off-the-wall tale or other. Sometimes elaborated a bit as "nineteen and aught ... " SignatureFrank ess >> On Jan 5, 12:17 am, Isabelle Cecchini >> <isabelle.cecch...@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >" as a precursor to some off-the-wall tale or other. Sometimes >elaborated a bit as "nineteen and aught ... " I'm missing where this "aught" came from. While "aught" certainly is used in AmE for "0" (something which I never knew until now), "aught" means "anything". It's "naught" which means "nothing". SignatureIan On 12 Jan 2010, Ian Jackson wrote >> Can't remember where or when I first heard "nineteen aught ... >> ", but it has attained, in my cohort, the coin-status of "When [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > until now), "aught" means "anything". It's "naught" which means > "nothing". OED and Collins suggest that "aught" meaning "zero" is a variant spelling of "ought" with the same meaning -- which, in turn, is a variant of "nought". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 12 Jan 2010, Ian Jackson wrote >>> Can't remember where or when I first heard "nineteen aught ... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > spelling of "ought" with the same meaning -- which, in turn, is a > variant of "nought". Which is still weird. Aught, ought, owt all mean anything or something - the opposite of naught, nought, nowt. Someone screwed up. SignatureRob Bannister >> On 12 Jan 2010, Ian Jackson wrote >>>> Can't remember where or when I first heard "nineteen aught ... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Which is still weird. Aught, ought, owt all mean anything or > something - the opposite of naught, nought, nowt. Someone screwed up. It's happened before, although the other way around. The French inherited a Latin word meaning a "thing" and now use it to mean "nothing". SignatureJames >>> On 12 Jan 2010, Ian Jackson wrote >>>>> Can't remember where or when I first heard "nineteen aught ... ", [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It's happened before, although the other way around. The French > inherited a Latin word meaning a "thing" and now use it to mean "nothing". I had to think a moment there to understand what you meant: rien, jamais, plus, etc. all have positive meanings. What is odd in modern French is the omission of the negative particle "ne" when negative is required. Plain old "ne" or "nae" was good enough for Chaucer, but we have more or less thrown ours out in favour of "not anything" or "not". In fact, it's mainly the Slavonic languages that continue the use of "ne". SignatureRob Bannister > On 12 Jan 2010, Ian Jackson wrote > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Cheers, Harvey > CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed The Online Etymolology Dictionary gives "aught (1) something, from OE awiht". Here in Yorkshire some of the dialects are closer to OE than they are to ModE, as in the phrase: "tha dunt get owt fer nowt". > > On 12 Jan 2010, Ian Jackson wrote > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Here in Yorkshire some of the dialects are closer to OE than they are > to ModE, as in the phrase: "tha dunt get owt fer nowt". Typo alert. Etymology. lol. > The Online Etymolology Dictionary gives "aught (1) something, from OE > awiht". > Here in Yorkshire some of the dialects are closer to OE than they are > to ModE, as in the phrase: "tha dunt get owt fer nowt". "If tha ivver does owt fer nowt, do it fer thissen". SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk On 20 Jan 2010, Nick wrote >> The Online Etymolology Dictionary gives "aught (1) something, >> from OE awiht". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "If tha ivver does owt fer nowt, do it fer thissen". I encountered it as "Iffen tha want owt doin fer nowt, do it thissen". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >>> On Jan 5, 12:17 am, Isabelle Cecchini >>> <isabelle.cecch...@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >used in AmE for "0" (something which I never knew until now), "aught" >means "anything". It's "naught" which means "nothing". I think I might have commented in another post that "aught" is sometimes used to mean "naught". Confusing, innit? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aught aught 2 also ought n. 1. A cipher; zero. 2. Archaic Nothing. [From an aught, alteration of a naught; see naught.] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. aught2, ought n a less common word for nought (zero) Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003 SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) [...] >>>> My mother used to (jocularly) refer to long-ago dates using the >>>> word "aught". Like "ninteen aught seven". And "ninteen aught [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Collins English Dictionary - Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition > 2003.[...] The rifle cartridge designated ".30/'06" is, in my hearing, "thirty-oh-six" in BrE and "thirty-aught-six" in AmE. SignatureMike. Mike Lyle filted: >The rifle cartridge designated ".30/'06" is, in my hearing, >"thirty-oh-six" in BrE and "thirty-aught-six" in AmE. "Thirty-odd-six" in TexE....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >>>> On Jan 5, 12:17 am, Isabelle Cecchini >>>> <isabelle.cecch...@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > 2. Archaic Nothing. > [From an aught, alteration of a naught; see naught.] It's sort of like when the bank manager or even your boss says "I might see a way of letting you have something" (where 'something' means 'nothing'). SignatureRob Bannister >>> On Jan 5, 12:17 am, Isabelle Cecchini >>> <isabelle.cecch...@wanadoo.fr.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > used in AmE for "0" (something which I never knew until now), "aught" > means "anything". It's "naught" which means "nothing". I've only heard it in American films, so I assumed it was an Americanism, but I see from the OED that Dickens uses "ought" for 0 in direct speech in "Nicholas Nickleby". SignatureJames > I'm missing where this "aught" came from. While "aught" certainly is > used in AmE for "0" (something which I never knew until now), > "aught" means "anything". It's "naught" which means "nothing". MWCD11 dates it to 1872 and calls it a reanalysis of "a naught" as "an aught". Which is interesting, because the etymology of "naught" is "ne aught". The OED, surprisingly, doesn't seem to list it at all. [Attn Jesse Sheidlower: OED missing sense] It's a fair bit older than that, though, as I see it complained about as early as 1840: In arithmetical processes, the word _aught_ is often used, erroneously, instead of _naught_. The commission of so palpable a blunder, by educated merchants in their counting-rooms, by lawyers at the bar, and by students in college, would excite surprise, if we did not also witness it in the schoolroom. _The Common School Journal_, July 1, 1840 SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The vast majority of humans have 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |more than the average number of Palo Alto, CA 94304 |legs. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> I'm missing where this "aught" came from. While "aught" certainly is >> used in AmE for "0" (something which I never knew until now), [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >aught". Which is interesting, because the etymology of "naught" is >"ne aught". Did many Americans refer to the past decade as The Naughties? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> I'm missing where this "aught" came from. While "aught" certainly is >>> used in AmE for "0" (something which I never knew until now), [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Did many Americans refer to the past decade as The Naughties? I've heard it as a joke, but not at all seriously. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The great thing about Microsoft 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |dominating the world is that Palo Alto, CA 94304 |there's no shortage of support |opportunities. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Sam Alvis (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> I'm missing where this "aught" came from. While "aught" certainly is >>>> used in AmE for "0" (something which I never knew until now), [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I've heard it as a joke, but not at all seriously. As the term for 2001 to 2009, I'm sure "the Naughties" hasn't been taken very seriously by many people in the British Isles, either, but the chance to coin a word from naught and naughty couldn't be passed up. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> I'm missing where this "aught" came from. While "aught" certainly is >>> used in AmE for "0" (something which I never knew until now), [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Did many Americans refer to the past decade as The Naughties? I read that one influential American publication dubbed it semi-officially as "the Aughts". SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >> Did many Americans refer to the past decade as The Naughties? > >I read that one influential American publication dubbed it >semi-officially as "the Aughts". An article in the paper a couple of days ago said that an Australian contest selected the "Oneders" for the new decade...didn't these people see "That Thing You Do"?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? Isabelle Cecchini in <hhui2c$eoe$1@news.eternal-september.org>: >> How about good years for beer? I'm thinking of 1664 of course. My 2 Cents on this one: 1516 (guess why?). >At the risk of further confusing the matter, that beer is commonly >referred to as 'une seize', (= une 16). What is it in English? "Do you have a local ale?" I bet this is a better choice than ordering a french beer (see above) in Britain ;-> Ciao, Paul, de-lurking > Isabelle Cecchini in <hhui2c$eoe$1@news.eternal-september.org>: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I bet this is a better choice than ordering a french beer (see above) > in Britain ;-> "Turkeys and heresy, hops and beer Came into England all in a year." SignatureMike. >Mike Barnes a écrit : >> Isabelle Cecchini <isabelle.cecchini@wanadoo.fr.invalid>: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >At the risk of further confusing the matter, that beer is commonly >referred to as 'une seize', (= une 16). What is it in English? I could tell you, but I prefer not to use foul language in the presence of a lady. SignatureIan >>> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. >>> Have a good one everybody! [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > thousand nine hundred (and) ninety nine". That helps to distinguish year > numbers from other numbers. So, you're really saying that you've discovered the human 2k bug. SignatureRob Bannister >> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. >> Have a good one everybody! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > oh one"). After all, I've never heard anyone say "one thousand nine > hundred (and) one". 'Two thousand and ten" seems to be the more formal version. I think the 2000s have been a bit different from previous centuries because 'two thousand and ...' is relatively easy to say compared to 'one thousand nine hundred and...' I'm not quite sure why 2010 is the tipping point when the majority of people are swapping from the 'two thousand and ...' form to the 'twenty-...' form. Maybe there was something of an aversion to saying an 'oh' or 'zero' before the single digits, though that didn't stop people saying 'nineteen-oh-nine'. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au John Holmes skrev: > 'one thousand nine hundred and...' I'm not quite sure why 2010 is the > tipping point when the majority of people are swapping from the 'two > thousand and ...' form to the 'twenty-...' form. I don't think the twenty-form will survise. I think the second digit decides the pronunciation. > Maybe there was > something of an aversion to saying an 'oh' or 'zero' before the single > digits, though that didn't stop people saying 'nineteen-oh-nine'. In Danish we read years like "nineteen twentyeight", but if the third digit is a zero we use "hundred": "nineteen hundred (and) nine". SignatureBertel, Denmark > John Holmes skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't think the twenty-form will survise. I think the second > digit decides the pronunciation. Bets, anyone? I reckon "twenty ten" etc. will survive. SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. > John Holmes skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > In Danish we read years like "nineteen twentyeight", but if the third > digit is a zero we use "hundred": "nineteen hundred (and) nine". It's interesting that "nineteen hundred (and) nine" works fine in English, alongside the other forms (nineteen nine and nineteen oh nine). But at 2000 we don't say "twenty hundred" for a number, or for a year. It has to be "two thousand". (Same in Danish?). At "twenty-one hundred" we can commence counting by hundreds again until we get to a whole number of thousands again, at 3000 -- both for numbers in general and for years. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) Roland Hutchinson skrev: > But at 2000 we don't say "twenty hundred" for a number, or for a year. It > has to be "two thousand". (Same in Danish?). At "twenty-one hundred" we > can commence counting by hundreds again until we get to a whole number of > thousands again, at 3000 -- both for numbers in general and for years. It's precisely the same in Danish. I believe that Swedes however say "tjugohundra" . SignatureBertel, Denmark > Roland Hutchinson skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's precisely the same in Danish. I believe that Swedes however > say "tjugohundra" . Not all of us! I don't, and I think it's a silly idea. It was proposed by Sture Allén, a Swedish-language professor, and somehow got recommended officially. The basic premise was that he wanted a name for 2000-2099 which could not be mistaken for 2000-2999. It's not very natural for us to say tjugo tio for 2010, either, so I'll use the tvåtusentio form. Lars Enderin skrev: > > It's precisely the same in Danish. I believe that Swedes however > > say "tjugohundra" . > Not all of us! I don't, and I think it's a silly idea. It was proposed > by Sture Allén, a Swedish-language professor, and somehow got > recommended officially. Oh. That must be what I have seen, or maybe it was quoted in the Danish language group. > It's not very natural for us to say tjugo tio for 2010, either, so I'll > use the tvåtusentio form. Im sort of glad that you have the same feeling for the numbers in Swedish that we have in Danish. I actually think of Norwegian, Swedish and Danish as three dialects of the same language. SignatureBertel, Denmark Bertel wrote on Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:47:31 +0100: > >> It's precisely the same in Danish. I believe that Swedes > >> however say "tjugohundra" . >> Not all of us! I don't, and I think it's a silly idea. It was >> proposed by Sture Allén, a Swedish-language professor, and >> somehow got recommended officially. > Oh. That must be what I have seen, or maybe it was quoted in > the Danish language group. >> It's not very natural for us to say tjugo tio for 2010, >> either, so I'll use the tvåtusentio form. > Im sort of glad that you have the same feeling for the numbers > in Swedish that we have in Danish. I actually think of > Norwegian, Swedish and Danish as three dialects of the same > language. Well, they were once I guess. Anyway, aren't there four dialects if you include Nynorsk and Bokmål? SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not James Silverton skrev: > > Im sort of glad that you have the same feeling for the numbers > > in Swedish that we have in Danish. I actually think of > > Norwegian, Swedish and Danish as three dialects of the same > > language. > Well, they were once I guess. Anyway, aren't there four dialects if you > include Nynorsk and Bokmål? I think we can easily count twenty different Nordic languages if we incorporate all variations. Apart from that, Nynorsk is pretty much the same as Danish when written. SignatureBertel, Denmark > James Silverton skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > we incorporate all variations. Apart from that, Nynorsk is pretty > much the same as Danish when written. It's Bokmål that's close to Danish. To read Nynorsk it helps to know Icelandic. SignatureJames James Hogg skrev: > > I think we can easily count twenty different Nordic languages if > > we incorporate all variations. Apart from that, Nynorsk is pretty > > much the same as Danish when written. > It's Bokmål that's close to Danish. To read Nynorsk it helps to know > Icelandic. Augh! I had just checked with Wikipedia, but I got the names swapped in my posting. I do not know Icelandic, but I have tried to follow the Norwegian language group (which is now dead). It was very funny. I do not exaggerate when I say that no two Norwegians wrote the same way. But after a while I got more or less used to the specialities and could follow the discussions. SignatureBertel, Denmark On Jan 2, 4:24 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <splitteminebrams...@lundhansen.dk> wrote: > James Hogg skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But after a while I got more or less used to the specialities and > could follow the discussions. I don't have any real comment to add, but I do have an appropriate .sig! Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- A Swedish visitor in Norway stands before a barricade in a city street, asking an armed man how the revolution is going in Norway. The response is "So far we are fighting over how to spell it". > It's interesting that "nineteen hundred (and) nine" works fine in > English, alongside the other forms (nineteen nine and nineteen oh > nine). > > But at 2000 we don't say "twenty hundred" for a number, or for a > year. It has to be "two thousand". Depends on the number and the place: Mr. JONES: Oh, yes, we had a lot of black doctors in the '20s, and you go out here on Massachusetts Street, I wish I could recall the number. We had a black doctor that built a beautiful home right out there on I believe in the twenty-hundred block, beautiful stucco home there. A. Dr. Cabell built that home. He came here from somewhere. He built that home, but his health got bad and finally he died. He passed away here in this town. http://www.lawrence.lib.ks.us/oralhistory/4robert_jones.html SMART: I don't remember Brooks. I think I knew him in the school, but I don't remember him as a student. But Brooks and Doctor Augustus Low left here. Oh, many, many outstanding students. C.L. Smith who is the head of the HDC, some part of the HDC over here on Delmar, has that office in the fifty hundred block of Delmar; he was one of our students. http://www.umsl.edu/~whmc/guides/t031.htm I grew up in Chicago, and for references to blocks, at least, "twenty hundred" sounds perfectly natural to me. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song |which is completely pointless. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> It's interesting that "nineteen hundred (and) nine" works fine in >> English, alongside the other forms (nineteen nine and nineteen oh [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I grew up in Chicago, and for references to blocks, at least, "twenty > hundred" sounds perfectly natural to me. I belatedly add for the record that: (1) when Evan is right (which is most of the time), he's right and (2) "Twenty-hundred block" sounds perfectly natural to me, too -- born and raised in Los Angeles (though I am occasionally told by well-meaning acquaintances that it doesn't show). SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) [...] > (2) "Twenty-hundred block" sounds perfectly natural to me, too -- born > and raised in Los Angeles (though I am occasionally told by > well-meaning acquaintances that it doesn't show). Huh! Try "This is Mike. He's Australian, but he can't help it." It's many years since, Allah be praised, I got "You've lost that awful accent." Brit does sometimes rhyme... SignatureMike. > >> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. > >> Have a good one everybody! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > something of an aversion to saying an 'oh' or 'zero' before the single > digits, though that didn't stop people saying 'nineteen-oh-nine'. We found in previous threads that there was a difference in the way people said years at the time, and the way they said them later, although I can't remember how solid the evidence was. There could be a backwash -- once people get used to saying "twenty-ten" and so on, it will be easier to say "twenty-oh-nine" or "twenty-nine" or whatever. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux On 01 Jan 2010, John Holmes wrote >>> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard >>> so far. Have a good one everybody! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > are swapping from the 'two thousand and ...' form to the > 'twenty-...' form. For me, I think it's a mind's-eye thing. The double-zero is a strong mental image, and makes the figures from 2001 to 2009 break down as "3 digits + 1 digit"; with 2010, the break is more obviously "2 digits + 2 digits". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > The double-zero is a strong mental image, and makes the figures > from 2001 to 2009 break down as "3 digits + 1 digit"; with 2010, > the break is more obviously "2 digits + 2 digits". The double zero is also a hard habit to break, I've just discovered. Today I had to tidy up some work files in order to hand them over to a colleague while I'm away, and I discovered that on a couple of them I had written the "Date last modified" as "1 January 20010". SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Peter Moylan filted: >> The double-zero is a strong mental image, and makes the figures >> from 2001 to 2009 break down as "3 digits + 1 digit"; with 2010, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >colleague while I'm away, and I discovered that on a couple of them I >had written the "Date last modified" as "1 January 20010". Pronounced "twenty oh ten", innit?... On the morning after Y2K, the local news portal website announced the date as "January 1, 19100"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >Peter Moylan filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >On the morning after Y2K, the local news portal website announced the date as >"January 1, 19100"....r It was not alone. There were some websites that continued to do that for months. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >On the morning after Y2K, the local news portal website announced the date as >"January 1, 19100"....r Somebody didn't read the documentation for the localtime() function: $year is the number of years since 1900, not just the last two digits of the year. That is, $year is 123 in year 2023. The proper way to get a complete 4-digit year is simply: $year += 1900; Otherwise you create non-Y2K-compliant programs--and you wouldn't want to do that, would you? (No, I can't be bothered to go and check just when this was put in, but some variant of it was certainly in place before 2000.) SignatureRoger BW - BrE Roger Burton West: > Somebody didn't read the documentation for the localtime() function: > > $year is the number of years since 1900, not just the last two > digits of the year. That is, $year is 123 in year 2023... That's for Perl, obviously, but its localtime() just copied the behavior of the corresponding function in C, which has worked that way ever since it was introduced on UNIX. In some other languages this sort of thing has been less consistent -- the web-site problem that led to this subthread was about conflicting versions of JavaScript. The troff family of text formatters have, or had, or have had, a similar problem. SignatureMark Brader | "If communication becomes impossible, it is expected that Toronto | both parties will... notify the other that communication msb@vex.net | has become impossible..." --memo to university staff My text in this article is in the public domain. > Roger Burton West: >> Somebody didn't read the documentation for the localtime() function: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > subthread was about conflicting versions of JavaScript. The troff > family of text formatters have, or had, or have had, a similar problem. I do wonder if it did behave like that from the start? "Years since 1900" is of no use, except for printing as a two digit date year when used before 2000. I strongly suspect it was introduced as a two digit year field, then someone realised (probably not that long after it was introduced, but after it had become too widespread and used to change it) the problem and it was redefined to be y-1900 rather than y mod 100. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk Roger Burton West quoting the Perl documentation for localtime(): >>> $year is the number of years since 1900, not just the last two >>> digits of the year. That is, $year is 123 in year 2023... Mark Brader: >> That's for Perl, obviously, but its localtime() just copied the behavior >> of the corresponding function in C, which has worked that way ever since >> it was introduced on UNIX. In some other languages this sort of thing >> has been less consistent... Nick Atty: > I do wonder if it did behave like that from the start? "Years since > 1900" is of no use, except for printing as a two digit date year when > used before 2000. In other words, it's exactly what you want for the foreseeable future, i.e. until 1980 or so. And as a bonus, it provides more information after that. > I strongly suspect it was introduced as a two digit year field, What do you think this is, COBOL? It's an int, not a "field" with some number of digits. > then someone realised ... the problem and it was redefined to be > y-1900 rather than y mod 100. But why would you imagine they'd compute it the hard way when the easy way gives the same result for the foreseeable future and provides more information after that? SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Most people are other people. Their thoughts msb@vex.net | are someone else's opinions..." --Oscar Wilde My text in this article is in the public domain. Mark Brader: >>> That's for Perl, obviously, but its localtime() just copied the behavior >>> of the corresponding function in C, which has worked that way ever since >>> it was introduced on UNIX. Nick Atty: >> I do wonder if it did behave like that from the start? "Years since >> 1900" is of no use, except for printing as a two digit date year when >> used before 2000. Mark Brader: > In other words, it's exactly what you want for the foreseeable future, > i.e. until 1980 or so. And as a bonus, it provides more information > after that. ... [and] why would you imagine they'd compute it the > hard way...? But I asked Dennis Ritchie to confirm it anyway. And he has: the 4th edition ("V4") UNIX manual, from October 1973, is the first one to document any of this functionality, and, DMR tells me, "Ctime(3) fills in the year as calendar year-1900 (not year%100)." ObAUE: function names are case-sensitive. I wouldn't've capitalized ctime() at the start of a sentence. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "After much soul-searching, the DMR decided to msb@vex.net | go with UNIX." -- "/aur" magazine, April-May '89 My text in this article is in the public domain. > Mark Brader: >>>> That's for Perl, obviously, but its localtime() just copied the behavior [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to document any of this functionality, and, DMR tells me, "Ctime(3) > fills in the year as calendar year-1900 (not year%100)." I consider myself put back most firmly in my box. > ObAUE: function names are case-sensitive. I wouldn't've capitalized > ctime() at the start of a sentence. I try to rewrite sentences to avoid the two rules clashing. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk > Peter Moylan filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Pronounced "twenty oh ten", innit?... Hands up, all who have uttered that inadvertently at least once -- starting with me! SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) > For me, I think it's a mind's-eye thing. > > The double-zero is a strong mental image, and makes the figures > from 2001 to 2009 break down as "3 digits + 1 digit"; with 2010, > the break is more obviously "2 digits + 2 digits". That's new to me, but I like it as an explanation. It explains why we did it a lot less with the 19s. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk On 01 Jan 2010, Nick wrote >> For me, I think it's a mind's-eye thing. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's new to me, but I like it as an explanation. It explains > why we did it a lot less with the 19s. I think the visual aspect might also help explain why we don't tend to do it with the years 1001-1009 (where I'd be a bit surprised to hear anything other than "ten-oh-something"). Living through the 200x years, we constantly saw and wrote the digits; one doesn't, though, encounter 100x written down very often -- it's just another decade from ancient history, with no "landmark years" like 1016 or 1066 -- and the mind's-eye image is nowhere near as strong. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > I think the 2000s have been a bit different from previous centuries > because 'two thousand and ...' is relatively easy to say compared to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > something of an aversion to saying an 'oh' or 'zero' before the single > digits, though that didn't stop people saying 'nineteen-oh-nine'. The 200x years were special because you couldn't pronounce one of those years as twenty- anything without ambiguity. Now that we've reached 2010 all ambiguity is removed and we are free to say twenty-ten, twenty-eleven, etc. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email John Varela <OLDlamps@verizon.net>: >> I think the 2000s have been a bit different from previous centuries >> because 'two thousand and ...' is relatively easy to say compared to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >reached 2010 all ambiguity is removed and we are free to say >twenty-ten, twenty-eleven, etc. Am I missing something? I see no ambiguity in "twenty hundred", "twenty oh one", etc, like "nineteen hundred", "nineteen oh one", etc. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > John Varela <OLDlamps@verizon.net>: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Am I missing something? I see no ambiguity in "twenty hundred", "twenty > oh one", etc, like "nineteen hundred", "nineteen oh one", etc. Are you missing that some people don't like to put in the "oh". On that system "nineteen one" works, but "twenty one" does not. Or was that your point--that putting in the "oh" saves the ambiguity of the third- millennium dates? (But even then, some people really, really don't like putting in the "oh".) SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net>: >> John Varela <OLDlamps@verizon.net>: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Are you missing that some people don't like to put in the "oh". On that >system "nineteen one" works, but "twenty one" does not. Thanks, that's exactly what I was missing. I don't think I've ever heard "nineteen one", and it sounds so bizarre to me, I'm pretty sure I'd have remembered. Perhaps it's a leftpondian thing, like "nineteen hundred one". In any event, John said "you couldn't ... without ambiguity", whereas in fact you can, but it seems that some people prefer not to. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England On 02 Jan 2010, Mike Barnes wrote > Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net>: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ever heard "nineteen one", and it sounds so bizarre to me, I'm > pretty sure I'd have remembered. Same here; I'm sure I'd notice if someone dropped the "oh" in such dates -- "Edward VII came to the throne in nineteen-one" sounds deeply strange to my ear. > Perhaps it's a leftpondian thing, like "nineteen hundred one". I certainly don't recall hearing it when I lived in Canada; indeed, the comic oldster's way of saying it was to drop the century rather than the zero ("It was back in aught-one"). > In any event, John said "you couldn't ... without ambiguity", > whereas in fact you can, but it seems that some people prefer > not to. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > In any event, John said "you couldn't ... without ambiguity", whereas in > fact you can, but it seems that some people prefer not to. At this location "twenty-ten" is already standard use by everyone I know and everyone I hear on the radio or TV. So all this discussion is moot. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email John Varela <OLDlamps@verizon.net>: >> In any event, John said "you couldn't ... without ambiguity", whereas in >> fact you can, but it seems that some people prefer not to. > >At this location "twenty-ten" is already standard use by everyone I >know and everyone I hear on the radio or TV. So all this discussion >is moot. But you were talking of the other 200x years, not 2010. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > John Varela <OLDlamps@verizon.net>: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But you were talking of the other 200x years, not 2010. I was giving my reason for dropping out of this and similar threads. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> In any event, John said "you couldn't ... without ambiguity", whereas in >> fact you can, but it seems that some people prefer not to. > > At this location "twenty-ten" is already standard use by everyone I > know and everyone I hear on the radio or TV. So all this discussion > is moot. Oh, great. So we can now have a new sub-thread about the meaning of "moot". SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> In any event, John said "you couldn't ... without ambiguity", whereas in >>> fact you can, but it seems that some people prefer not to. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > Oh, great. So we can now have a new sub-thread about the meaning of "moot". That's either debatable or dead. SignatureRob Bannister >> Oh, great. So we can now have a new sub-thread about the meaning of "moot". >That's either debatable or dead. Let's table that motion. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >>> In any event, John said "you couldn't ... without ambiguity", whereas in >>> fact you can, but it seems that some people prefer not to. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >Oh, great. So we can now have a new sub-thread about the meaning of "moot". And another on how the word is usually used. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> In any event, John said "you couldn't ... without ambiguity", whereas in >>>> fact you can, but it seems that some people prefer not to. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >And another on how the word is usually used. That's a moot point. 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 >>>> In any event, John said "you couldn't ... without ambiguity", whereas in >>>> fact you can, but it seems that some people prefer not to. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And another on how the word is usually used. And by whom. SignatureRob Bannister Sat, 2 Jan 2010 07:20:48 +0000 (UTC) from Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net>: > "nineteen one" works, but "twenty one" does not. When did anyone EVER say "nineteen one" to refer to the year 1901? SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >Sat, 2 Jan 2010 07:20:48 +0000 (UTC) from Roland Hutchinson ><my.spamtrap@verizon.net>: >> "nineteen one" works, but "twenty one" does not. > >When did anyone EVER say "nineteen one" to refer to the year 1901? Last week. 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 Roland Hutchinson filted: >Are you missing that some people don't like to put in the "oh". On that >system "nineteen one" works, but "twenty one" does not. Or was that your >point--that putting in the "oh" saves the ambiguity of the third- >millennium dates? (But even then, some people really, really don't like >putting in the "oh".) "Twenty-One: A Blackjack Odyssey"?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? 1 Jan 2010 23:36:35 GMT from John Varela <OLDlamps@verizon.net>: > The 200x years were special because you couldn't pronounce one of > those years as twenty- anything without ambiguity. Huh? Where's the ambiguity in "twenty-oh-one", "twenty-oh-four", etc? Those are formed in the same way as years in the first decade the the twentieth century, and I don't think anyone was bothered by "nineteen-oh-one" and so forth. Language isn't strictly logical, and I know my preference for "twenty-oh-one" puts me in a small minority. But I don't see how you can call it ambiguous. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >>> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. >>> Have a good one everybody! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >something of an aversion to saying an 'oh' or 'zero' before the single >digits, though that didn't stop people saying 'nineteen-oh-nine'. I pronounce 1909 as "nineteen-nine", though I don't know how people cack then pronounced it. But "twenty-nine" doesn't work because it could be mistaken for 29 rather than 2009. "Twenty-ten", like "Nineteen-nine" is not ambiguous. 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 John Holmes set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. Thus speaks the BBC, apparently by internal directive. > Have a good one everybody! Blwyddyn newydd dda i chi eto. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > John Holmes set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time > continuum: > >> It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. > Thus speaks the BBC, apparently by internal directive. I wish the Earth Rotation Service would chime in with an opinion. It is, after all, their ball... SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >> John Holmes set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >> continuum: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I wish the Earth Rotation Service would chime in with an opinion. It is, > after all, their ball... They're probably too busy keeping the ball spinning. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Fri, 1 Jan 2010 00:02:01 +1100 from John Holmes <seesig@instead.com>: > It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. > Have a good one everybody! I hope so. "Two thousand [and] whatever" never sounded right to me, after half a century of "nineteen whatever". SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. > Have a good one everybody! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for mail: my initials plus a u e > at tpg dot com dot au Interestingly, in Chinese, they read years digit-by-digit. For instance, 1998 is read as "Yi Jiu Jiu Ba" (literally, "One Nine Nine Eight"), 2003 as "Er Ling Ling San" (literally, "Two Zero Zero Three"), 2010 as "Er Ling Yi Ling", and 890 as "Ba Jiu Ling". So the reading of "2000" was never an issue when the year came. The reason could be that the numbers 0 - 9 are all one-syllable in Chinese, and the years do not sound ponderous when read digit-by-digit. By the way, in Chinese, the numbers 0 - 9 are read Ling, Yi, Er, San, Si, Wu, Liu, Qi, Ba, Jiu. --Roland > It seems to be twenty-ten according to most people I've heard so far. > Have a good one everybody! I'vw been hearing (and saying) two thousand and ten more often than twenty-ten up to this point. I had thought I'd drift effortlessly into the shorter version but in the last couple of days I've realised I am going to have make a conscious effort to make the change. So my New Year's resolution and temporary mantra is going to be "twenty-ten, twenty-ten, twenty-ten" until it finally feels right. Bernard Salt the demographer reckons we aussies are too lazy not to adopt the shorter 20 10 convention! |
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.