some random thoughts....39 responses total.
hmmm......I was just thinking.... almost all the years of the last millenium were pronounced in a two digit by two digit format; such as ten-sixty-six for (10)(66). And all last century everything was: nineteen-oh-one, nineteen-ten, nineteen-ninety-nine, etc.. so shouldn't this year be refered to as twenty-oh-three instead of two-thousand-three?
Probably, but I suspect folks will stick with "two-thousand" at least through the end of this decade. I started to write, "through the end of this century", but I think "twenty-ten" will turn the trick.
This response has been erased.
I think it's because 'twentyhundred' just doesn't sound right, so people said 'two thousand' instead. It's sort of stuck after that.
They dont have to say 'twenty hundred', they could say something like 'twenty oh three'.
Right, but I'm saying that when the year rolled over to 2000, people said 'two thousand'. In 1900, I bet they said 'nineteen hundred'. I think that set the pattern of speech for at least the next few years.
Yeah, I agree. But then again "Nineteen hundred" rolls off the tongue a little easier than "one thousand nine hundred and naught". ;)
This response has been erased.
All things purchaseable from a TV ad are $19.95.
This response has been erased.
"If you order now..."
I pronounce the current year "EM EM EYE EYE EYE".
(I suspect at least part of the usage of '2000' stems from the wide-spread discussion of the "Y2K bug.")
From an amateur quasi-linguist perspective, (make of that what you will), the "two thousand and three" usage probably arises from the fact that the word "twenty" ends in a vowel, whereas (for example), "nineteen" in "nineteen oh one" ends in a consonant, which makes it easier to say (some languages either reduce one vowel in a group of two or more to a diphthong - like "Bay" - or prohibit anything but consonant-vowel or vowel-consonant combinations).
I prefer duo-deca-centa-trey
Re #14: you can avoid that problem by giving the date in octal, which is "thirty seven twenty three" (base 8).
God, what a geek.
Thank you!
You should.
*chuckle*
re 16: No such number as thirty seven in octal :)
37[8] would be 31[10]. 3700[8] is 1984[10]. Why not pronounce "37[8]" as "thirty-seven"?
Know why programmers can't tell the difference between Christmas and Halloween? 31(OCT) = 25(DEC).
Re #21: interesting point. "thirty" is certainly a decimal quantity - but then we don't have a compact way of *stating* octal numbers. How should one state 3723[8]? Just saying "three seven two three" works, but we use a verbal shorthand in [10] by saying "thirty seven twenty three". What is the verbal shorthand for 37[8] since, as pointed out, "thirty" is not an octal quantity?
I don't see "irty" or "orty" as inherently base ten. It ocurred to me once that I could count in binary out loud as "one, ten, eleven, one hundred, one hundred one, one hundred ten, one hundred eleven..." Granted I'm probably abusing some Latin language roots pretty badly with "hundred", "thousand", etc.
OK, it does make sense to say "thirty" in octal is 30[8], which is 24[10]. So "thirty seven twenty three" is 3723[8]. My mins is again at rest....
Re #25 : YOu may not see "irty" or "orty" as inherently base ten , but adding ten to "forty" does give us "fifty" .... Also under normal speak we mean decimal numbers when we dont specifically mention a bse. To use 3723 we either have to indicate that its octal in some way or let everyone convert to octal and make it default :) .
Just don't try it in hexadecimal. 'Thirty-Dee' is likely to confuse a lot of people. ;>
Adding ten[10] to forty gives fifty only in base [10]. I'll agree that a more consistent nomenclature is needed. Is 10 "ten" in all bases? It is awkward in base [2] (especially as no one tries to speak binary). However sholmes is correct, that if one doesn't specify a base, base [10] is usually assumed, unless there are other clues. I wasn't arguing against that - only that 3723[8] avoids the problem of having the century end in a vowel.
I seem to recall from long ago school days that numbers in bases other than ten were to be recited by saying the numerals folled by "base N".
Practical, but hardly poetic.
The notation M[N] is ambiguous unless one stipulates that N is always written in a particular base. The discussion seems to assume that it is, and that the base is decimal. That seems excessively decimalcentric. Better to have a base-independent way of referring to bases.
I suppose you could resort to using a mark (such as a dot) for every digit in the base being used, i.e. 1101[..] = 15[........] = 13[..........] (with a preceding unary minus if necessary to indicate a negative integer base.) simple and unambiguous, but really, really cumbersome...
I strongly question the randomness of the above thoughts.
On to another random thought. The last decade was "the nineties." The one before it was "the eighties." Will this one be "the oughties?" Or perhaps, "the naughties?" Or something else altogether?
MONTREAL! DID YOU GO TO THE PLATEAU DISTRICT?
"Oughties", because everyone is thinking and talking about what they "ought" to do.
There is a website devoted to this very question: http://www.wwmeli.org/newdate/decades.html
Ain't da web wonderfull? ;-)
You have several choices: