 |
 | 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 2010The new decade
People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? "That cannot be", she said, since it doesn't work until 2013. With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the upcoming decade even have a name?  SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Chuck Riggs filted: >People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the >upcoming decade even have a name? The one in the previous century was called "the teens"...still is, by those of us who have occasion to speak of it in connection with silent movies....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Chuck Riggs filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > those of us who have occasion to speak of it in connection with silent > movies....r Historians will gladly speak of the teens of any century past, for that matter. There's still no consensus on the '00s in these parts. 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 ) >> Chuck Riggs filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Historians will gladly speak of the teens of any century past, for that >matter. There's still no consensus on the '00s in these parts. But do you think we will call this decade the teens before 2013 arrives? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> Chuck Riggs filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > But do you think we will call this decade the teens before 2013 arrives? For my own part, I do already, and I see nothing extraordinary in doing so. 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 ) >>>> Chuck Riggs filted: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >For my own part, I do already, and I see nothing extraordinary in doing >so. Then can we assume you call ten-year-olds teenagers? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> Chuck Riggs filted: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >For my own part, I do already, and I see nothing extraordinary in doing >so. You are in line with what readers say in feedback to The Times, so they say today. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>>>> Chuck Riggs filted: >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >You are in line with what readers say in feedback to The Times, so >they say today. Since we won't actually be in the teens until 1 January 2013, I find that to be mildly interesting. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 22:05:33 +0000, Robin Bignall > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > that to be mildly interesting. > -- The Awkward Years? >> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 22:05:33 +0000, Robin Bignall >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >The Awkward Years? At least we're finally over the 00kward ones. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 11:35:22 -0800 (PST), aquachimp > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Chuck Riggs, > An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE The Puberties? >People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the >upcoming decade even have a name? Maybe just "the tens", by analogy with "the twenties". SignatureJohn >>People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >>2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Maybe just "the tens", by analogy with "the twenties". That would work, even from today, but since it sounds uglier to me, somehow, than the teens, I doubt if it will catch on. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years > 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. How are we going to refer to dates in the Noughties? At least one book from the (19)30s I've read recently has characters talking about "Nought five". I think we're mote likely to say "Oh five". SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk Nick set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: >> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. > > How are we going to refer to dates in the Noughties? At least one book > from the (19)30s I've read recently has characters talking about > "Nought five". I think we're mote likely to say "Oh five". Another usage, now even more antique-sounding, is to say "nineteen five" etc., the zero being passed over in silence. To us Brits the years 1901 to 1910 are referred to as "The Edwardian Age" referring to the reign of Edward VII so we don't have a word for the 190X's that can be recycled for the 200X's. The next decade, 1910-1919, was of course dominated by WW1 so it is automatically dissected into three: the run-up to WW1, the years of WW1 itself, and the aftermath, so again there is no word to refer to the 191X's as a whole that can be recycled for the 201X's. Heaven forbid that such a global conflict breaks out in the decade to come. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply >Nick set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >as a whole that can be recycled for the 201X's. Heaven forbid that such a >global conflict breaks out in the decade to come. Someone in a discussion on this topic in forum elsewhere a couple of weeks ago suggested that "tenties" might catch on: noughties tenties twenties thirties et other-ties I'm not betting for or against it. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >Another usage, now even more antique-sounding, is to say "nineteen five" >etc., the zero being passed over in silence. That's what I say, but it doesn't work with twenty-five because that can be confused with 25, so I say "two thousand and five" 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 skrev: > >Another usage, now even more antique-sounding, is to say "nineteen five" > >etc., the zero being passed over in silence. > That's what I say, but it doesn't work with twenty-five because that can be > confused with 25, so I say "two thousand and five" You might say "twenty oh five" - but of course it might be understood as "twenty - oh no, five". SignatureBertel, Denmark > Steve Hayes skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You might say "twenty oh five" - but of course it might be > understood as "twenty - oh no, five". It didn't cause any problems when people spoke about nineteen oh five. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk > Steve Hayes skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You might say "twenty oh five" - but of course it might be understood as > "twenty - oh no, five". One might try "two thousand five" -- like the number[1] -- on for size. [1] I know, I know, we _all_ know: another well-boiled kettle of fish around these parts: "two thousand [and] five". 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 ) > People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years > 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the > upcoming decade even have a name? Why does it need a name? Very few decades have been given names; in fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names. Do we have a name for the period 1910-1919? — I don't think so. SignatureRob Bannister >> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names. Do we have a name for > the period 1910-1919? — I don't think so. The 1910s. SignatureJames >>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The 1910s. Or "the nineteen-teens". 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 ) Robert Bannister filted: >> With the 2020s and onwards there will be no problem, but will the >> upcoming decade even have a name? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names. Do we have a name for >the period 1910-1919? — I don't think so. The years 189x were designated Gay, 192x were Roaring, and if some sources are to be believed, 196x were Swinging.... SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? On 01 Jan 2010, R H Draney wrote > Robert Bannister filted: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The years 189x were designated Gay, 192x were Roaring, and if > some sources are to be believed, 196x were Swinging.... The years 193x are often referred to as Dirty. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >Robert Bannister filted: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The years 189x were designated Gay, 192x were Roaring, and if some sources are >to be believed, 196x were Swinging.... That works in hindsight, but what will we call this decade, today? I think teens. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the > sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names. Why not? Isn't that exactly the sort of naming we're talking about? What is the name for the 1890s you mention? SignatureLong-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. >>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Why not? Isn't that exactly the sort of naming we're talking about? What > is the name for the 1890s you mention? I think they were the "naughty nineties". Regards Jonathan >>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Why not? Isn't that exactly the sort of naming we're talking about? Yes, at least it is what I asked about. >What >is the name for the 1890s you mention? The Gay Nineties. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The Gay Nineties. Ah, yes, of course. Wouldn't work for the 1990s though (at least not with the same meaning). - Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions. >>>>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >>>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, > which may or may not influence my opinions. I don't know - most of the music was pretty gay. SignatureRob Bannister >>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Why not? Isn't that exactly the sort of naming we're talking about? What > is the name for the 1890s you mention? Mr Draney says "the Gay Nineties", but I'm more familiar with the "Naughty Nineties". He also came up with a couple of others that I'd forgotten. Those are what I would call names. The sort you appear to be talking about might as well be written in numerical form - see James' post: 1910s, so 2010s. Pronunciation optional. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Mr Draney says "the Gay Nineties", If he did, I believe I reported the fact first. <snip> SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >fact, the only one I can think of is the 1890s. I don't count "the >sixties", "the seventies", etc. as being names. Labels are names, are they not? Since we had the teens, the twenties, the thirties, the forties, the fifties, the sixties, the seventies, the eighties, the nineties and the noughties, at least in BrE, I have no idea what you're on about, Rob. >Do we have a name for >the period 1910-1919? I don't think so. The teens, others have said. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The teens, others have said. I have never heard of the 1910s being called "the teens". Has anyone else? SignatureJames >>>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >>>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >I have never heard of the 1910s being called "the teens". Has anyone else? I don't recall meeting that. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >I have never heard of the 1910s being called "the teens". Has anyone else? Absolutely. More commonly "the nineteen-teens", I think, but that's only a vague perception I wouldn't give much credence to. -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 >> I have never heard of the 1910s being called "the teens". Has >> anyone else? > > Absolutely. More commonly "the nineteen-teens", I think, but that's > only a vague perception I wouldn't give much credence to. Believe it or not, it can be found in Google Books. I would hazard a guess that it never crossed the Atlantic eastwards. That's the first time I've ever heard it. SignatureJames >> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 08:19:46 +0800, Robert Bannister >>> Do we have a name for the period 1910-1919? -- I don't think so. >> The teens, others have said. > > I have never heard of the 1910s being called "the teens". Has anyone else? I have. Checking Google Books, I see 510 hits for "back in the teens", and the first several hits, at least, appear to be referring to that decade. Except for a few in the 1880s and 1890s that talk about "back in the teens of the [present] century". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |You gotta know when to code, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Know when to log out, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Know when to single step, | Know when you're through. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |You don't write your program (650)857-7572 | When you're sittin' at the term'nal. |There'll be time enough for writin' http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | When you're in the queue. > People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years > 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Chuck Riggs, > An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE OK people time to pickup those brickbats, empty bottles, TV remotes, shoes and anything else handy and small enough to throw because it's time for... Pedant's Corner. If 2000 was the last year of the old decade/millennium then 2010 (I agree with "twenty ten") is the last year of this decade and the new one does not start until next year. >> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >agree with "twenty ten") is the last year of this decade and the new >one does not start until next year. <starts> Did someone call for a pedant? A decade is ten years - any ten years. The second millennium AD ended with 2000, sure, but there would only be a problem if people were talking about the 201st decade AD. They are not, they are talking about the decade with years numbered 200x. SignatureIan D Ian Dalziel skrev: > <starts> Did someone call for a pedant? May I join the chorus? > A decade is ten years - any ten years. > The second millennium AD ended with 2000 A millenium is a thousand years - any thousand years. SignatureBertel, Denmark > Ian Dalziel skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > A millenium is a thousand years - any thousand years. The pedants who waited until 1 January 2001 to celebrate the new millennium (alone) only have themselves to blame. Those of us who watched the four digits 1999 change to 2000 saw something much more dramatic. On the subject of spelling, however, I would be pedantic and insist that there are two n's in "millennium". It comes from Latin "mille" + "annus", not "mille" + "anus", and it has nothing to do with the sign of the swinging tit in that famous Chinese street. SignatureJames >> Ian Dalziel skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The pedants who waited until 1 January 2001 to celebrate the new > millennium (alone) only have themselves to blame. 1 January 2001? Pah. The true pedants waited until the night of 24 March 2001. I was one of them. We had an excellent party. Regards Jonathan Jonathan Morton filted: >> The pedants who waited until 1 January 2001 to celebrate the new >> millennium (alone) only have themselves to blame. > >1 January 2001? Pah. The true pedants waited until the night of 24 March >2001. I was one of them. We had an excellent party. Those who kept in mind with what event the calendar supposedly starts should have celebrated some time in the Spring of 1992....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Jonathan Morton filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > should > have celebrated some time in the Spring of 1992....r Possibly so, but what one can say with certainty is that 24 March 2001 was the last day of the 2000th year of the Gregorian calendar. Regards Jonathan Jonathan Morton filted: >> Jonathan Morton filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Possibly so, but what one can say with certainty is that 24 March 2001 was >the last day of the 2000th year of the Gregorian calendar. Only because they backdated it...this is only the 428th year of its use....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >Jonathan Morton filted: >>Possibly so, but what one can say with certainty is that 24 March 2001 was >>the last day of the 2000th year of the Gregorian calendar. That's the "proleptic Gregorian calendar", TYVM. >Only because they backdated it...this is only the 428th year of its use....r Only the 257th year in the English-speaking world. (Parliament adopted the new calendar to take effect from (O.S.) September 3, 1752.) The most recent adoption in Europe, FWIW, appears to have been in Turkey (if you call Turkey part of Europe), which my reference gives as December 19, 1926 (which corresponds to 1927-01-01).[1] The most recent adoption in North America was 1867-10-18, when Alaska became part of the U.S. (and, at the same time, moved the as-yet-unrecognized International Date Line from the Russia-Canada border to the new Russia-U.S. border along the Bering Strait). -GAWollman [1] ISO 8601 requires the proleptic Gregorian calendar, so you can't use it for dates in the Julian calendar. Perhaps that Julian date might be written as MCMXXVI-XII-XIX. 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 >>Jonathan Morton filted: >>>Possibly so, but what one can say with certainty is that 24 March 2001 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>Only because they backdated it...this is only the 428th year of its >>use....r True, of course. > Only the 257th year in the English-speaking world. (Parliament > adopted the new calendar to take effect from (O.S.) September 3, > 1752.) More significantly, the Act of 1750 moved the beginning of the year (in England) from 25 March to 1 January, with effect from 1 January 1752. I believe Scotland had adopted this practice earlier. Both 1751 (25 March to 31 December) and 1752 (1 January to 2 September and 14 September to 31 December) were short years. The first fully-modernised year was therefore 1753. It is quite common - especially on gravestones - to see references to early 18th century dates between 1 January and 24 March rendered as 1724/5 or whatever. > The most recent adoption in Europe, FWIW, appears to have been in > Turkey (if you call Turkey part of Europe), which my reference gives [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > International Date Line from the Russia-Canada border to the new > Russia-U.S. border along the Bering Strait). Interesting. Regards Jonathan "Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.mortonbutignorethispart@btinternet.com> writes: > It is quite common - especially on gravestones - to see references to early > 18th century dates between 1 January and 24 March rendered as 1724/5 or > whatever. There's on in the churchyard at Newbold on Avon that threw me when I saw it: it's written as 172¾ (that's with the 3 and 4 written small). It took me a minute or so to realise what was going on and that it wasn't a fractional year. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk Nick wrote on Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:50:24 +0000: >> It is quite common - especially on gravestones - to see >> references to early 18th century dates between 1 January and >> 24 March rendered as 1724/5 or whatever. > There's on in the churchyard at Newbold on Avon that threw me > when I saw it: it's written as 172¾ (that's with the 3 and 4 > written small). It took me a minute or so to realise what was > going on and that it wasn't a fractional year. That's interesting. It's perhaps OT (or more relevant to another discusssion) but, tho I've never seen such dates, your comment does emphasize that people used arabic numerals in the 18th century. I've certainly seen arabic numerals for building dates on houses. The later popularity of Roman numerals seems atavistic. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Nick wrote on Sun, 03 Jan 2010 12:50:24 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > certainly seen arabic numerals for building dates on houses. The later > popularity of Roman numerals seems atavistic. They seemed to use them in different ways. A house just up the road is timber framed (it's got a Georgean front on it, but from the side/back it's all half-timbered) and predates the Civil War. You can see where the beams were numbered for assembly (it was standard practice to make the frames in a yard somewhere, then take them to site and assemble them) because someone has picked them out in white paint. They are Roman numbers. That might be of course because it's a lot easier to cut combinations of IVX into timber with a chisel than 3,5,8 and 9 (for example). SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk [...] >> That's interesting. It's perhaps OT (or more relevant to another >> discusssion) but, tho I've never seen such dates, your comment does [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > combinations of IVX into timber with a chisel than 3,5,8 and 9 (for > example). I believe that's true. We have some old, hand-made furniture in which chiselled Roman numerals are used for marking which drawer is which, and which way round the sides of beds join to the heads and feet. SignatureLes (BrE) >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >chiselled Roman numerals are used for marking which drawer is which, and >which way round the sides of beds join to the heads and feet. I can understand why a carpenter would be less inclined to chisel Arabic numerals. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE [...] >>> That might be of course because it's a lot easier to >>> cut combinations of IVX into timber with a chisel than 3,5,8 and 9 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I can understand why a carpenter would be less inclined to chisel > Arabic numerals. Although she could if she wanted to: <http://www.oldtools.co.uk/new.tools/ashley.iles/curvedcarvingchisels.php> SignatureLes (BrE) >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ><http://www.oldtools.co.uk/new.tools/ashley.iles/curvedcarvingchisels.php> Using one of those, she'd carve Arabic SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ><http://www.oldtools.co.uk/new.tools/ashley.iles/curvedcarvingchisels.php> Using one or more of those tools, I believe she'd carve Arabic numerals, not chisel them. Apparently, the task is no problem for an artisan. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Jonathan Morton wrote, in <mI-dnS5sgs_kEt3WnZ2dnUVZ7tednZ2d@bt.com> on Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:37:10 -0000: > >>Jonathan Morton filted: > >>>Possibly so, but what one can say with certainty is that 24 March 2001 [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Regards The version of BASIC I use stores dates and times together as double precision floating point numbers with the date as the integer portion and the time as fractions of a day. It only handles back to 1/1/1753 and gives up after 31/12/2072. Interestingly it's zero point is a day earlier than one might expect, on 30/12/1899. I suspect this may be something to do with 1900 not being a leap year. Obviously they avoid 1752 and earlier because of the Julian/Gregorian change, and they avoid 2079 and later because the number would exceed 65535 during that year. 01 Jan 1753 -53688 02 Jan 1753 -53687 03 Jan 1753 -53686 04 Jan 1753 -53685 05 Jan 1753 -53684 06 Jan 1753 -53683 27 Dec 1899 -3 28 Dec 1899 -2 29 Dec 1899 -1 30 Dec 1899 0 31 Dec 1899 1 01 Jan 1900 2 02 Jan 1900 3 26 Dec 2078 65375 27 Dec 2078 65376 28 Dec 2078 65377 29 Dec 2078 65378 30 Dec 2078 65379 31 Dec 2078 65380 SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >The version of BASIC I use stores dates and times together as double >precision floating point numbers with the date as the integer portion >and the time as fractions of a day. It only handles back to 1/1/1753 >and gives up after 31/12/2072. Prepare for Y2K72 asap. > Interestingly it's zero point is a day >earlier than one might expect, on 30/12/1899. I suspect this may be [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >30 Dec 2078 65379 >31 Dec 2078 65380 SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in <dc91k59u9md2iat8dp7ff5jlj9hosf1el3@4ax.com> on Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:12:15 +0000: > >The version of BASIC I use stores dates and times together as double > >precision floating point numbers with the date as the integer portion > >and the time as fractions of a day. It only handles back to 1/1/1753 > >and gives up after 31/12/2072. > > Prepare for Y2K72 asap. It will still be going when Unix gives up. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in ><dc91k59u9md2iat8dp7ff5jlj9hosf1el3@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >It will still be going when Unix gives up. And where Unix goes, Linux follows. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in ><dc91k59u9md2iat8dp7ff5jlj9hosf1el3@4ax.com> > on Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:12:15 +0000: >> Prepare for Y2K72 asap. > >It will still be going when Unix gives up. If anyone is still running a 32-bit Unix in 2038, I expect to make a mint helping them to upgrade to something more modern. Nearly all flavors of *ix on nearly all 64-bit platforms use a 64-bit time_t, which will still be going long after the sun has left the main sequence. -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 >>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in >><dc91k59u9md2iat8dp7ff5jlj9hosf1el3@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >time_t, which will still be going long after the sun has left the main >sequence. Can we be sure that ancient data files containing binary date-time data use a 64-bit time_t? SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in >>><dc91k59u9md2iat8dp7ff5jlj9hosf1el3@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Can we be sure that ancient data files containing binary date-time data > use a 64-bit time_t? No, but if it's in a standard place the libraries will have coped with it, and if not it's the program that will need converting. I've got disks from a 32 bit system mounted on the 64 bit system I'm running here and all the dates are fine. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >>>>Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in >>>><dc91k59u9md2iat8dp7ff5jlj9hosf1el3@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >I've got disks from a 32 bit system mounted on the 64 bit system I'm >running here and all the dates are fine. I'll remember that in 2072, if I'm still here (aged 135). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote, in >>> <dc91k59u9md2iat8dp7ff5jlj9hosf1el3@4ax.com> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Can we be sure that ancient data files containing binary date-time data > use a 64-bit time_t? I thought Stonehenge only had 30-43 chips (stones), but of course we don't know if they used binary or not. SignatureRob Bannister > The version of BASIC I use stores dates and times together as double > precision floating point numbers with the date as the integer portion > and the time as fractions of a day. It only handles back to 1/1/1753 > and gives up after 31/12/2072. Interestingly it's zero point is a day > earlier than one might expect, on 30/12/1899. I suspect this may be > something to do with 1900 not being a leap year. Isn't it the case that - to this day - Excel and Lotus 1-2-3 wrongly treat 1900 as a leap year because the writers of the early spreadsheets thought that it was? The explanation I recall said that it is simpler for compatibility purposes to replicate the error than to correct it. Surprisingly little fuss was made on 29 February 2000 - the first xx00 leap year since the reform of the calendar. Regards Jonathan Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:41:05 -0000 from Jonathan Morton <jonathan.mortonbutignorethispart@btinternet.com>: > Isn't it the case that - to this day - Excel and Lotus 1-2-3 wrongly treat > 1900 as a leap year because the writers of the early spreadsheets thought > that it was? I don't know about Lotus 123 (does it even exist any more?), but Excel 2003 does incorrectly report 1900-02-29 when I subtract 1 from 1900-03-01. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:41:05 -0000 from Jonathan Morton ><jonathan.mortonbutignorethispart@btinternet.com>: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I don't know about Lotus 123 (does it even exist any more? I still use it. You can still buy it. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/lotus/products/123/ SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:41:05 -0000 from Jonathan Morton > <jonathan.mortonbutignorethispart@btinternet.com>: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Excel 2003 does incorrectly report 1900-02-29 when I subtract 1 from > 1900-03-01. Excel 2007, too. Weird. Poking around, John Walkenbach's _Excel 2007 Bible_ says that this was a conscious decision (in the first version of Excel) to be bug-compatible with Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |questions that can harmlessly be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer |until the Messiah comes. I suspect kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them. (650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >Surprisingly little fuss was made on 29 February 2000 - the first xx00 leap >year since the reform of the calendar. ITYM "in Britain and her colonies". Most European Catholic counties adopted the calendar reform in 1582. Since few people alive in 2000 were around in 1900 and aware that it was not a leap year, it's hardly surprising that nobody paid much attention. It's the three non-leap years out of every hundred that are the unusual ones, after all. -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 Jonathan Morton wrote, in <0ZudndlQvcUpS93WnZ2dnUVZ7v2dnZ2d@bt.com> on Sun, 3 Jan 2010 17:41:05 -0000: > > The version of BASIC I use stores dates and times together as double > > precision floating point numbers with the date as the integer portion [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Surprisingly little fuss was made on 29 February 2000 - the first xx00 leap > year since the reform of the calendar. That was because it behaved like an ordinary leap year. I suspect that a lot of programs written in the bad old days before Y2K focused programmers minds on the problem made no provision for the 400 year exception. It so happens that around 1972 I was involved in a system that involved pensioners with birth dates in the 1800s and became aware of it and made sure that any system I was involved in thereafter was aware of it too. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >>> Jonathan Morton filted: >>>> Possibly so, but what one can say with certainty is that 24 March [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > True, of course. Somewhat by the way, I notice that the newspaper gives today (Jan 7) as Pope Greg's birthday. (Happy Birthday, Greg, if you are reading this. 508 today, congratulations!) But I wonder if that is his birthday in his own calendar, or the previous one. Or does he get the privilege of having two birthdays? SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au >> "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org>: >>>> Jonathan Morton filted: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > But I wonder if that is his birthday in his own calendar, or the > previous one. Or does he get the privilege of having two birthdays? . Knew he had to have some kind of angle. >>>> Jonathan Morton filted: >>>>> Possibly so, but what one can say with certainty is that 24 March [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > But I wonder if that is his birthday in his own calendar, or the > previous one. Or does he get the privilege of having two birthdays? At 6:15 this morning, someone at the gym told me it was Elvis's birthday today in a way that suggested I would wish to know this. Aren't people strange? SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >At 6:15 this morning, someone at the gym told me it was Elvis's birthday >today in a way that suggested I would wish to know this. Aren't people >strange? You should have struck a pose and responded: "thank yuh...thank yuh vurry much".... (And then you should have left the building)....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Robert Bannister filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > (And then you should have left the building)....r I heard a new collective noun the other day: a huh of Elvis impersonators. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > At 6:15 this morning, someone at the gym told me it was Elvis's birthday > today in a way that suggested I would wish to know this. Aren't people It's an Australian obsession, apparently. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/06/2786543.htm SignatureDavid James Hogg skrev: > On the subject of spelling, however, I would be pedantic and insist that > there are two n's in "millennium". It comes from Latin "mille" + > "annus", not "mille" + "anus", I'm sure you have helped med remember it now. SignatureBertel, Denmark > On the subject of spelling, however, I would be pedantic and insist that > there are two n's in "millennium". It comes from Latin "mille" + > "annus", not "mille" + "anus", and it has nothing to do with the sign of > the swinging tit in that famous Chinese street. Somehow it never occurs to me to translate street names into Latin. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> On the subject of spelling, however, I would be pedantic and insist that >> there are two n's in "millennium". It comes from Latin "mille" + >> "annus", not "mille" + "anus", and it has nothing to do with the sign of >> the swinging tit in that famous Chinese street. >> > Somehow it never occurs to me to translate street names into Latin. I speak no Russian, but before visiting St Petersburg taught myself Cyrillic. Being able to transliterate street names in my head made it much easier to remember my way around as once I'd done that I had a word I could remember. SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk >Ian Dalziel skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >A millenium is a thousand years - any thousand years. Indeed. The second millennium AD, however is one specific millennium. SignatureIan D >>Ian Dalziel skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Indeed. The second millennium AD, however is one specific millennium. Indeed. Is that the specific millennium that's 13 days shorter than its predecessor or the one that's 353 days longer? SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A handgun is like a Lawyer. You 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |don't want it lying around where Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the children might be exposed to |it, but when you need one, you need kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |it RIGHT NOW, and nothing else will (650)857-7572 |do. | Bill McNutt http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:16:49 -0800 from Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>: > > Indeed. The second millennium AD, however is one specific millennium. > > Indeed. Is that the specific millennium that's 13 days shorter than > its predecessor or the one that's 353 days longer? And let's not even get into the problems with "second millennium AD". SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Ian Dalziel skrev: >> <starts> Did someone call for a pedant? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > A millenium is a thousand years - any thousand years. Actually, that's a millennium, as Ian wrote it. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >agree with "twenty ten") is the last year of this decade and the new >one does not start until next year. I think you would approve of this letter to the editor of The Times (of London) in 1900 and reprinted today: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6972818.ece From The Times January 1, 2010 A new century? January 1, 1900 Sir, .... .... So we shall not commence our 20th century until we commence out 1901st year a year hence. JOHN ATTFIELD SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years > 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Chuck Riggs, > An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE OK people time to pickup those brickbats, empty bottles, TV remotes, shoes and anything else handy and small enough to throw because it's time for... Pedant's Corner. If 2000 was the last year of the old decade/millennium then 2010 (I agree with "twenty ten") is the last year of this decade and the new one does not start until next year. Correct. But for some strange reason most countries marked January 1st 2000 as the first day of this millenium, and it follows from that. The old millenium didn't really end of course until the last day of 2000. > Correct. But for some strange reason most countries marked January > 1st 2000 as the first day of this millenium, and it follows from > that. The old millenium didn't really end of course until the last > day of 2000. Lest anybody think that this is a modern dispute: Several dissertations have appeared in the public journals on the question, whether the year 1800 begins the nineteenth century. In 1700 there were many papers on the same subject; but it is sufficient to consider that centuries are counted like everything else, from one to a hundred, and therefore it is 1801 that must begin the new century. The only thing that could occasion this error is, the transition from 17 to 18 hundreds. It has appeared to many people that this is changing the century. _The Philosophical Magazine_, 2/1800 It is a singular circumstance that Dryden, as well as some other eminent men of that day, should have follen into the errour respecting the beginning of the century, which has found some partisans in our own time; conceiving that the seventeenth century closed on the 24th of March, 1699, and that the new century began on the following day: in conformity to which notion a splendid Jubilee was celebrated at Rome in the year 1700. By this kind of reckoning, the second century began in the year 100 and the first, in opposition to the decisive evidence furnished by the word itself, consisted of only _ninety-nine_ years! Edmond Malone, _The Critical and MIscellaneous Prose Works of John Dryden_, 1800 That the first century, during which time nobody thought of it as the first century and which, when first described as such, used a calendar that was later discovered to be incorrect, was 1% short doesn't bother me all that much. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The bathwater, in this case, does 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not appear to ever have contained Palo Alto, CA 94304 |any baby. | kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | ronniecat (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Correct. But for some strange reason most countries marked January >> 1st 2000 as the first day of this millenium, and it follows from [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > calendar that was later discovered to be incorrect, was 1% short > doesn't bother me all that much. There are some countries where they seldom use ordinal numbers for the centuries but instead talk about the 1800s etc. In Sweden, for example, there can be no disputing that the 1900s started on 1 January 1900, even though the Swedes had to wait another year for the twentieth century to begin. SignatureJames James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com>: >There are some countries where they seldom use ordinal numbers for the >centuries but instead talk about the 1800s etc. How sensible. I can't be the only one here who finds the whole "15th century started in 1401" thing needlessly confusing and error-prone. What's the point? >In Sweden, for example, there can be no disputing that the 1900s >started on 1 January 1900, Good. I like it. The same applies here of course, the difference being that people there don't bang on about the so-called "twentieth century". >even though the Swedes had to wait another year for the twentieth >century to begin. So none of those centuries BC count? SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England >OK people time to pickup those brickbats, empty bottles, TV remotes, >shoes and anything else handy and small enough to throw because it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >agree with "twenty ten") is the last year of this decade and the new >one does not start until next year. If you're talking about the first decade of the 21st century, yes, it ends next year. But most people talk about decades in terms of the last two digits of the year. The Fifties of the 20th century were the years from 1950 to 1959, but the sixth decade of the 20th century was the years 1951-1960. 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 > People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years > 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Chuck Riggs, > An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE The one letter common to all between 10 to 19 is the E The E-ies? As far as 3tenties" as someone mentioned? what do tents have to do with this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees >> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >As far as 3tenties" as someone mentioned? what do tents have to do >with this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees I think the idea behind "tenties" is that is rhymes with (or fits the pattern of) twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On Jan 1, 3:28 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 06:22:18 -0800 (PST), aquachimp > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Peter Duncanson, UK > (in alt.usage.english) Ah. Understood. Thanks. Tennties? >>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the >>> years 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > pattern of) twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, > seventies, eighties and nineties. I've seen one complaint to the effect "that it sounds rather too much like a trousered erection". SignatureJames > >>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the > >>> years 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > -- > James Well, the noughties sound a bit like the naughties so how about the teeties (teetees) to suggest an after prank giggle. > I think the idea behind "tenties" is that is rhymes with (or fits the > pattern of) twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, seventies, > eighties and nineties. But when I'm doing rough and ready counting, "tenty" comes after "ninety": ninety-eight, ninety-nine, tenty, tenty-one, tenty-two... I only seem to fall into this way of counting when scoring board games. SignatureRob Bannister >>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > pattern of) twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, sixties, seventies, > eighties and nineties. Not rhyme, fer sure. Homoeoteleuton or sommat. I'm still holding out for "teens". 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 ) > >>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years > >>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I'm still holding out for "teens". I thought I'd check out something, but to my surprise the answer , from On Jan 2, 11:25 am, aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > >>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years > > >>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I thought I'd check out something, but to my surprise the answer , > from (Sigh) I thought I'd check out something, but to my surprise the answer, from a quick glance it seems what I'm looking for is not to be found in Numismatics (or the "Money" section, though did find that according to wiki, "the refusal of an offer to pay in legal tender extinguishes the debt in the same way acceptance does") I thought thee would be a categorisation for sub units; like cents/ pence like "fifty-three pounds and thirty-five pence". it pounds remain pounds long after the first. And then I was thinking of "decade" and somehow thought of a deck of cards. The deck is like the pound, made up of the cards.. and so I offer the Deckties. "aquachimp" <aquachimp@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote : I thought I'd check out something, but to my surprise the answer, from a quick glance it seems what I'm looking for is not to be found in Numismatics (or the "Money" section, though did find that according to wiki, "the refusal of an offer to pay in legal tender extinguishes the debt in the same way acceptance does") I thought thee would be a categorisation for sub units; like cents/ pence like "fifty-three pounds and thirty-five pence". it pounds remain pounds long after the first. And then I was thinking of "decade" and somehow thought of a deck of cards. The deck is like the pound, made up of the cards.. and so I offer the Deckties. +++++++++++++++++++++ But that looks as though it ought to rhyme with "neckties". pe On Jan 2, 12:56 pm, "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> wrote: > "aquachimp" <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > pe Hmm, true; The Decksies? But then some might wonder about why boats (on deck) are involved. So how about Decsies? (from decade) Though I have to confess I don't know what that sound like. >On Jan 2, 12:56 pm, "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >So how about Decsies? (from decade) Though I have to confess I don't >know what that sound like. Sometime in the future in the UK a period might in retrospectr be dubbed the "Ant 'n' Decsies" for the activities of two TV presenters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_and_Dec SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On Jan 2, 5:38 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 07:27:53 -0800 (PST), aquachimp > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Peter Duncanson, UK > (in alt.usage.english) (-: As anyone who cares to find out will have discovered, in some parts of the world (inc. UK) I'm known PJ and it was a matter of great amusement for a number of people to be introduced to my colleague of the time who's name really was Duncan. But, I am neither Any or Dec. But more back on topic; Is there a useful classification in writing that might help, like a term to distinguish symbols which provide no meaning on their own until combined to create a "word" and I don't mean letters or the alphabet? Other than that, I notice that a group called Pearl Jam had an album called Ten.. there's no reason why a name referencing an individual or band or whatever can't be used for this decade. The Jammies. Or given the logic of "...ties" ahrm... The Aquaties? (but unsure when the age of Aquarius actually begins/began.) Or, from 10th ... The Tenthzies? Or decagon-ties? aquachimp filted: >Other than that, I notice that a group called Pearl Jam had an album >called Ten.. there's no reason why a name referencing an individual or >band or whatever can't be used for this decade. The Jammies. If you're going to invoke pop culture, you'd do better with Bo Derek.... >Or given the logic of "...ties" >ahrm... The Aquaties? (but unsure when the age of Aquarius actually >begins/began.) > >Or, from 10th ... The Tenthzies? >Or decagon-ties? Most of those carry bits of additional concepts, not just the number ten.... How about The Dixies?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > aquachimp filted: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > How about The Dixies?...r Search engine suggested I also try "The pixies" No such confusion with The Tenthzies. > -- > A pessimist sees the glass as half empty. > An optometrist asks whether you see the glass > more full like this?...or like this? aquachimp filted: >> aquachimp filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Search engine suggested I also try "The pixies" >No such confusion with The Tenthzies. Knowing the trouble some people have with adjacent fricatives (try to get people to pronounce "sixths"), I'd expect that to mutate into something like "tent-disease"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > aquachimp filted: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > An optometrist asks whether you see the glass > more full like this?...or like this? "Some" will call it a dickade to. But sinse Tenthzies doesn't float your boat, and you've not commented on Tennies, or Tennties, how about Tennyties? >> aquachimp filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >But sinse Tenthzies doesn't float your boat, and you've not commented >on Tennies, or Tennties, how about Tennyties? There may be material for a poem in this -- in the style of Tennyson, of course) SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On Jan 3, 3:03 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 04:51:26 -0800 (PST), aquachimp > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >In which the first word of each line will start with a: J K L M N O P Q R S (or in reverse) (or in appropriate acronym style) Perhaps the name for the decade could be taken from the author of the winning accomplishment in that effort. > On Jan 3, 3:03 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Perhaps the name for the decade could be taken from the author of the > winning accomplishment in that effort. In the interests of sparing people a whole decade known as "the hoggies", I have written a separate poem that does not attempt to satisfy the requirements for this competition. SignatureJames > > On Jan 3, 3:03 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > -- > James Ah, but did you know that there was an unannounced element to the competition whereby an entrant could circumvent the "first word in each line will start with...", rule by making it the last letter in each respective word, and the first letter an O,E,T,T,F,F,S,S,E,N? However, in line with the "...ties" rule it could only be named the Hoggties (though I find Hoggities is better) OR, the Jameties. That aside, I note that the entry you've posted is Silent. But were it to be deemed the winner and the decade to be called the Silent Years, it would, alas, be open to confusion with the 1900s of the same period, and this therefore disqualifies it. Sorry 'bout that. >>> On Jan 3, 3:03 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > it would, alas, be open to confusion with the 1900s of the same > period, and this therefore disqualifies it. Sorry 'bout that. Horses for courses, or as the French say, "hors concours". SignatureJames >On Jan 2, 12:56 pm, "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >So how about Decsies? (from decade) Though I have to confess I don't >know what that sound like. Dexys Midnight Runners? SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>On Jan 2, 12:56 pm, "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Dexys Midnight Runners? Oh come on! SignatureOnline waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk > >>So how about Decsies? (from decade) Though I have to confess I don't > >>know what that sound like. > > > Dexys Midnight Runners? > > Oh come on! You know something; I think you've just inspired me. Teenagers and those from 10 to 12 inclusively belong in the 10 to 19 age group. It's the one thing they have in common. The Common years? Now, whether tis "noble" is a matter for those who can walk on eggshells with out breaking them further still. > -- > Online waterways route planner |http://canalplan.eu > Plan trips, see photos, check facilities |http://canalplan.org.uk On 08 Jan 2010, aquachimp wrote > On Jan 8, 8:01 am, Nick <3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to 19 age group. > It's the one thing they have in common. It is the one thing they've got in common, but it strikes me as fairly meaningless: 11-year-olds and 19-year-olds don't have anything else in common. Besides -- nieces, nephews, and other kids I've known who have turned 13 seem to be very aware (and proud) of the fact that they're now "teenagers", and that kids who are only 12 aren't. An obvious "false group" is "drivers between the ages of 16 and 24" (who have more accidents than those aged 25 to 34, and are consequently charged higher premiums). 16-24 is clearly a "group" only because that's how statisticians have long chosen to break down the figures; common sense and experience says that a 23- or 24-year-old driver has much more in common with drivers aged 25-30 than with a newly-qualified 18-year-old. (In many cases, I'd guess the 20-somethings can be more dangerous, as they've driven long enough to get cocky -- it was certainly the case when I was that age.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 07:27:53 -0800 (PST), aquachimp > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Dexys Midnight Runners? Thanks. That's precisely what I had in mind, but I have next to no ability to work out stuff like that. > -- > Richard Bollard > Canberra Australia > > To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. On Jan 1, 3:22 pm, aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years > > 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > As far as 3tenties" as someone mentioned? what do tents have to do > with this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees Er, apologies for the cock-ups. That should have read; As far as "tenties" as someone mentioned? What do tents have to do with this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now to continue; I prefer Tennies It has the common"...ies" bit common And since all but ten have at least two Es, the two Ns reflect that quality whilst placing the lone Ten to the fore, acknowledging it thus. aquachimp filted: >The one letter common to all between 10 to 19 is the E >The E-ies? > >As far as 3tenties" as someone mentioned? what do tents have to do >with this? Surely Tenies, No? Or even the Tennies or Tennees The one *digit* all those years share is the "1" in third position...perhaps we should call our newborn decade "the Onesies"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >aquachimp filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The one *digit* all those years share is the "1" in third position...perhaps we >should call our newborn decade "the Onesies"....r A columnistr in our local evening paper has suggested that the 2010s be called the "twenteens", adding "(got anything better?)". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On Jan 1, 5:47 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > >aquachimp filted: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > A columnistr in our local evening paper has suggested that the 2010s be > called the "twenteens", adding "(got anything better?)". Humph! There is no "teen" in 10, 11, or 12. "Got any better,?" Tenties Tennties Tennies and Onesies are 4 already. > -- > Peter Duncanson, UK > (in alt.usage.english) >>aquachimp filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >A columnistr in our local evening paper has suggested that the 2010s be >called the "twenteens", adding "(got anything better?)". If he is about to suggest the twentwents for the 2020s, I'm not listening. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>aquachimp filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >If he is about to suggest the twentwents for the 2020s, I'm not >listening. I didn't mention that he is a she. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>aquachimp filted: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >I didn't mention that he is a she. At home or only when dressing up for town? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > aquachimp filted: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > An optometrist asks whether you see the glass > more full like this?...or like this? Hmm. Definetly has some charm of childish appeal. If we could then just get everyone to say the Ohsies, Onesies, Twosies, Threesies etc, with the option of the woopsies for the ones deemed do have been a bit shitty. But just between us, I don't think it'll catch on with the grown ups (-: > People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years > 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on > the decade starting tomorrow, what do you think people will wind up > calling it? "The teens", as I suggested to someone this morning? This problem is a granfalloon: at least it did not matter to our ancestors who called 1800-1810 either "the Napoleonic Wars" or perhaps "the Regency" and definitely called 1901-1910 the Edwardian era. Perhaps nomenclature has been made a problem only by journalists who envy the successful coinages of the Roaring Twenties and the Dirty Thirties. Perhaps the problem is made worse because we now have so few monarchs and they live so long . . . SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >This problem is a granfalloon: at least it did not matter to our >ancestors who called 1800-1810 either "the Napoleonic Wars" >or perhaps "the Regency" and definitely called 1901-1910 >the Edwardian era. Maybe your ancestors did, but mine certainly did not. (I can't say what French-speaking people in northern Maine, or German- and Polish-speaking immigrants in New York City, actually would have called that decade, but I feel fairly certain that they would not have named it after the King of England.) -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 >> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > problem is made worse because we now have so few > monarchs and they live so long . . . So we've just had the ipod decade then. >>> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >>> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> -- > So we've just had the ipod decade then. The iDecade. Not to be confused with The Me Decade. 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 ) >> People who speak BrE finally settled on the Noughties for the years >> 2000 to 2009, after much of the decade had passed. To get a drop on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >problem is made worse because we now have so few >monarchs and they live so long . . . You're complicating my question needlessly. While you are probably safe in betting your last dollar that the next decade will be called the twenties, my question to the group was what will we call this one. The "teens" has nearly won the day, it seems. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE |
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.