Comments on: It’s twenty-ten, not two-thousand ten

By: Frasiamor

Frasiamor — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:02:30 +0000

hiya

Just saying hello while I read through the posts

hopefully this is just what im looking for looks like i have a lot to read.

By: hamsox42

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:04:46 +0000

Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution forbids the regulation of slavery until 1808, and says “one thousand eight hundred and eight”.

By: Jazz

Jazz — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:21:33 +0000

Agree with Sandy @13 that 2012 is “twenty twelve” and not “two thousand twelve”. Could pretty much finish the thousand conceit right there.

Maybe this is the real reason the Mayan calendar ended at that time. Those folks just had no sense for abbreviation.

By: Joe Loy

Joe Loy — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:56:13 +0000

“Just because we were wrong for hundreds of years doesn’t mean we should keep being wrong? :)” ~ David K

“Of course it does & of course we should.” / ~the Conservatives ;>

By: David K.

David K. — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:54:48 +0000

“No, that’s not a good argument, because it doesn’t attempt to explain why 1999 was universally called nineteen ninety-nine, instead of one thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine.”

Just because we were wrong for hundreds of years doesn’t mean we should keep being wrong? :)

By: Sandy Underpants

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:08:27 +0000

The scariest part of 2012 is that I pronounce it “twenty-twelve” as well. This could be the downfall of my Two Thousands dream. Maybe that was the Mayan’s plan all along. Damn them!

By: Mike Marchand

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:15:35 +0000

MARTY: Where are we? When are we?
DOC: We’re descending toward Hill Valley, California, at 4:29 pm, on Wednesday, October 21st, two thousand fifteen.
MARTY: Two thousand fifteen? You mean we’re in the future?
JENNIFER: Future? Marty, what do you mean? How can we be in the future?
MARTY: Uh, Jennifer, um, I don’t know how to tell you this, but, uh . . . you’re in a time machine.
JENNIFER: And this is the year two thousand fifteen?
DOC: October 21st, two thousand fifteen.

Despite this, I’m going to say “twenty-ten.” So have most of the idiots I know (who unfortunately are nevertheless my friends and family) who’ve bought into the Mayan-calendar nonsense. They virtually all call it “twenty-twelve.” As a nonbeliever in that hokum, someone else can tell me what it calls itself, because my word for it is a lot less polite.

By: Joe Loy

Joe Loy — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:52:14 +0000

Brendan, this question is not exactly unPrecedented. To cite just one example from very Recent history, your paternal grandfather always told me (and I’ve no reason to Doubt him :) that he was born in “Nineteen Ten.” For me, that settles the matter: I will remark the centennial of my Dad’s birth in March of Twenty Ten. (Notwithstanding that some of Dad’s contemporaries might have named his birth-year as “Nineteen and Ten”; and, enviously, that of his comely young bride as “Nineteen and Twenty-four.” :)

By: Brendan Loy

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:39:08 +0000

Sandy, without even thinking, as I was reading your comment, I mentally read it as “by the time twenty-twenty rolls around.”

I suspect there will be a lot of inconsistency on this issue until 2013, at which point “twenty-thirteen” will become the dominant usage by far. Something about “ten” and “twelve” being monosyllabic, and “eleven” starting with a vowel, gives the “two-thousand” form a bit of a foothold for the first three years of the 2010s, but once we get into the “teen” years, it’ll be all over.

By: Sandy Underpants

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:34:40 +0000

I understand the logic in twenty-ten, but I don’t believe that people in 1010 called it ten-ten, not after 900 years of saying “hundred” are they going to now pass up the opportunity to say thousand in stating the date. I’m going with the two thousand ten/eleven/twelve deal, and when we get to 2101 I’ll go back to the twenty-one o’one. It’s just not practical American english to say twenty-ten, and proper english has never been an enforceable attribute in this country. The influence of rap music on our American vocabulary alone makes me wonder if grade school English will be a class that any student will be able to pass by the time 2020 rolls around. Pronounce that however you wish.

By: B. Minich

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:11:13 +0000

The sad part is I did that completely from memory. But it proves my point that it is twenty ten, not two thousand and ten.

By: B. Minich

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:57:14 +0000

Let me just remind you of something . . .

“In AD Twenty-one oh one (2101), war was beginning.”

“What happen?!?!”

“Someone set up us the bomb.”

“We get signal.”

“Its you!”

CATS: “How are you gentlemen?

“All Your Base Are Belong To Us.

“You are on the way to destruction”

“What you say?!?!?!”

“You have no chance to survive, make your time! HA HA HA HA!”

By: dcl

dcl — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:44:07 +0000

Because that is the societally accepted paradigm for dealing with time and or dates. More specifically the grammatically accepted paradigm for large numbers is different than that for the date–possibly, we’ll get to that.

However, in a formal context the grammar tends to revert back to the “correct” form employed for large numbers. e.g. “I present to you the graduating class of nineteen hundred and ninety nine”. Which, actually, goes to David’s potentially valid point, the one I said I would get back to. Which is that the year paradigm for this millennia is not yet set. Nineteen ninety nine isn’t short hand for one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine. It is short hand for nineteen hundred ninety nine. Twenty hundred tends not to be an accepted form where as 11 hundred fifty seven is. However, 10 hundred is also not acceptable though ten sixty six is an accepted form.

In short. As far as language and grammar are concerned dates are different. But don’t forget it is simply a societal convention. Which means that the debate, in terms of what will get picked up, is valid. Though unlikely to favor the two thousand ten crowed in the long run such an eventuality is certainly both conceivable and more grammatical.

By: Brendan Loy

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:38:06 +0000

this recession may even have ended by 2101

LOL.

Actually, by 2101, President For Life Obama will have outlawed recessions in the United Socialist States of America. Sarah Palin warned us!!!

By: Jazz

Jazz — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:32:29 +0000

Brendan’s analysis overlooks the fact that the unwieldiness of “One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ten” relative to “Nineteen Ten” is larger than the unwieldiness of “Two Thousand and Ten” relative to “Twenty Ten”. This is obviously due to the fact that “One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ten” requires an extra concept (e.g. the Nine Hundred) vs.”Two Thousand and Ten”.

Does the distinction matter? To my ear, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ten is surely wa-a-a-a-y too long, but Two Thousand and Ten is a more borderline call vs. Twenty Ten. I personally like Two Thousand and Ten better, because it sounds elegant, and at a time when the whole world is going to hell, a bit of elegance in the vernacular is a good thing. Am I willing to absorb the inconvenience relative to Twenty Ten?

I think so. But let’s do talk again in 2101, which will surely be Twenty-One oh One and not the horrid Two Thousand One Hundred and One. (Further, this recession may even have ended by 2101, thus obviating the necessity of casual elegance).