Seldom at a loss for words.


ABOUT THE BLOGGER
Photo 8
Abode: Nine Forward
Interests: Writing, Singing, Working Out

Clickage Here Will Land You My Complete Profile

RECENTLY POSTED

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]

IMPORTANT LINKAGE
Thanks for stopping by! Your visit here isn't complete until you do the comment thing. Don't make me pull over, just do it! Click on the "reflections" link at the end of a post.


*A WHOLE NOTHER THING:
A selection of words from my vast vocabulary, including the ubiquitous "the," the always versatile "and," and the more obscure "incontrovertible," arranged in frequently meaningful, sometimes profound, yet often pedestrian sentences and statements, designed with one goal in mind-- that being, to communicate; keeping in mind the oft-used bromide, "Never use two words when one will do the same job as two or more words would have done, unless you just want to take up space and sound important," which is, I must concede, too often a secret objective of mine indeed. And yet, now, the secret is out.




GrandmaBAuntRuth
Who ARE these women?


© MMX Mattquist. Some Rights Reserved


Sunday, April 19, 2009

Please, please: Twenty-ten, NOT two-thousand-ten

2010.

I need to get started now, because we're already way into using these dates even though we aren't there yet. But PLEASE, next year is 2010; 20-10; TWENTY-TEN.

It is NOT Two-thousand ten (and it certainly is NOT, as the British love to put it, "Two-thousand-and-ten").

Twenty-ten is less syllables and it's much easier to say. It's also consistent with how we've all been raised, to say 1986 (for example). Say that date out loud, and then be consistent when you say, "2010."


link | posted by Matt Norquist at 4/19/2009 06:29:00 PM |


1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous commented at 6:11 AM, May 11, 2009~  

Totally agreed. The only reason we did not say "twenty one" for 2001, "twenty two" for 2002, etc., was the ambiguity with the numbers 21, 22, etc. But for years in the 21st century after 2009, there is no longer any ambiguity.

I am not quite sure why we didn't anticipate the ambiguity problem by saying "twenty oh one," "twenty oh two," etc. Perhaps it was the influence of the momentous year 2000. Had we agreed to call it "twenty hundred" (like "nineteen hundred" for 1900), then "twenty oh one" etc. might have been more natural.

It seems logical to revert to the convention established in the previous centuries of designating the century with a cardinal number ("twenty") and following it with the cardinal number for the year within that century (like "ten").

Want to Comment? CLICK--> Post a Comment

powered by Blogger | designed by mela | tweaked by matt

Get awesome blog templates like this one from BlogSkins.com