Discussion Forum

Please consider registering
guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Wildcard usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

Topic RSS
What to call this decade and the years in it, part billion
Topic Rating: 0 (0 votes) 
2009/03/14
12:00pm
San Diego, California
Admin
Forum Posts: 1420
Member Since:
2007/08/02
Offline

When Do We Start Calling Years ‘Twenty-Somethings'? Dan Gillmor, guest-blogging at Boing Boing, reopens the endless conversation about what to call the decade we're currently in and how to refer to the years themselves. This is a conversation that has been had since well into the 1990s. What's funny is, as I've mentioned on the air, what I hear people saying is “twenty-nine,” meaning 2009, but they never write it that way nor seem to notice that's what they're saying.

2009/03/16
12:46pm
Darrell
Seattle, WA
Member
Forum Posts: 18
Member Since:
2009/03/16
Offline

I am for making things as simple as possible. Which ever is simpler, should be the way to go. Saying “two thousand nine” is the same complexity as “twenty oh nine”. “Twenty nine” is not correct because that is too easily confused with the year “29″. I prefer “two thousand nine” because, while possessing the same number of syllables, it seems more grammatically correct than “twenty oh nine”.

2009/03/16
3:18pm
San Diego, California
Admin
Forum Posts: 1420
Member Since:
2007/08/02
Offline
3
0

"Twenty-nine" to mean "2009" seems not to cause any confusion. For one thing, there are few reasons to think that anyone means "2029" or "1929," especially since "twenty-nine" used in this way is always wrapped in the context of a larger conversation in which the time frame is readily apparent. Listen for it. You'll see that it only seems like it might be confusing when you try to talk about the usage. If you don't talk about it, it does its job unconfusingly.

2009/03/16
8:06pm
San Diego, CA
Admin
Forum Posts: 828
Member Since:
2007/08/02
Offline
4
0

I will start listening for that. I'm not aware of having heard it. "Twenty-oh-nine," yes. (And so far, I've not confused that with 8:40 a.m. or p.m.)

2009/03/17
7:53am
Glenn
Admin
Forum Posts: 1578
Member Since:
2009/03/03
Offline
5
0

Or, in military or European usage, 8:09 PM (20:09)

2009/03/19
6:12pm
Pup
New Member
Forum Posts: 1
Member Since:
2009/03/19
Offline
6
0

That's odd. I've never heard the "twenty-nine" format in speech. Have you also heard it in reference to other centuries (e.g. "It burned down during the Nineteen-Six earthquake")?

One thing I don't like hearing is "two thousand and nine" when the correct way to refer to it would be "two thousand nine" as used in this thread. But that's just a peeve of mine that probably belongs in a different thread. :lol:

As far as what to call this decade, "the oughts" didn't really stick. Maybe we'll just always refer to it as "just after the turn of the century (or millennium)" as we often hear it for the beginning of the 20th century.

Sorry if any of this has been covered before – first post. :cool:

pup

2010/02/02
11:45am
lindzlou
Hillcrest, CA
Member
Forum Posts: 10
Member Since:
2008/10/24
Offline
7
0

For 2009, my favorite was definitely double ought nine. But what about 2010? I haven't been able to think of anything to call 2010 yet… Any ideas?

2010/02/03
11:46am
Admin
Forum Posts: 619
Member Since:
2007/08/23
Offline

lindzlou,

Just continue the "ought" thought; call it ought ten. That should work through ought ninty-nine.

A new millenium only comes once in a thousand years. Let's not miss this opportunity.

Emmett

2010/02/03
1:03pm
Glenn
Admin
Forum Posts: 1578
Member Since:
2009/03/03
Offline

Just continue the "ought" thought; call it ought ten. That should work through ought ninty-nine.

A new millenium only comes once in a thousand years. Let's not miss this opportunity.


Perhaps we ought, as several have suggested. But I believe the spelling you ought to use is aught.

I know that in the 1900s, my college's reunion classes used "Class of aughty-two," etc. To me, dates with aught evoke the turn of a different century.

2010/02/03
1:20pm
Admin
Forum Posts: 619
Member Since:
2007/08/23
Offline
10
0

The OED has much more support for ought representing the number zero than it does for aught.

Emmett

2010/08/04
10:06am
Admin
Forum Posts: 619
Member Since:
2007/08/23
Offline
11
0

Here is a science fiction story set in the near future. It calls a decade the "naughts". However, the reason this story is online is that an earlier draft of it was printed. The printed phrase was, "nau-[line break]oughts-teens".

When I saw it in print, I took it as an independent usage of my "ought" prefixing of all years/decades of this century. After seeing the corrected reprint, I am not so sure.

Emmett

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 1147

Currently Online: Dick
2 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

Heimhenge: 750

Bob Bridges: 676

Ron Draney: 619

RobertB: 427

tromboniator: 370

Robert: 352

Dick: 350

samaphore: 319

dilettante: 287

Raffee: 238

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 604

Members: 2990

Moderators: 1

Admins: 5

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 1

Topics: 3084

Posts: 16237

Newest Members: Haerlee, pampmap, Lisbet, holahada, Twisted2014, BMayer, pyrogue, Zednotzee, bensabio, trombone_player

Moderators: Grant Barrett (1420)

Administrators: Martha Barnette (828), Grant Barrett (1420), EmmettRedd (619), Glenn (1578), timfelten (0)