2008

Rick   Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:35 pm GMT
Why do we say "two thousand eight" for this year? It should be "twenty oh eight" not "two thousand eight", after all we don't refer to "1908" as "one thousand nine hundred and eight", do we?
Guest   Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:30 pm GMT
But we refer to 1008 as one thousand oh eight.

Seriously, it's not going to change until 2010, when many people will switch to saying "twenty ten". Some will still say two thousand ten.
Damian in Edinburgh   Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:46 pm GMT
We've been here before on this one. Logic dictates: Twenty-oh-eight.

I don't recall anyone ever having said one thousand nine hundred and eight when referring to 1908 or that the Battle of Hastings took place in one thousand and sixty six. Why should the periods from 1000 - 1009 or 2000 and 2009 be treated differently on this one?
Travis   Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:54 pm GMT
At least here, it is not actually "two thousand eight" at all, but rather "two thousand and eight", with the "and" generally being reduced to just [n̩ː] or [ɛ̞̃ːn].
Guest   Wed Jul 30, 2008 3:59 am GMT
<<Why should the periods from 1000 - 1009 or 2000 and 2009 be treated differently on this one?>>

Because it is treated differently.
Caspian   Wed Jul 30, 2008 7:31 am GMT
In Britain, there is always a distinct 'and' to 'Two thousand and eight'.
Rick   Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:58 am GMT
What happened when a couple thousand people got hungry on New Year's Eve?

2008.
Skippy   Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:11 am GMT
lol wow...
Northwesterner   Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:20 am GMT
Interestingly enough, I don't put in the "and". It's always two thousand eight. I've never heard anyone that I can remember saying the "and"--although I might not have noticed if someone did. Maybe the reason that I don't put in the "and", is because my teachers were on a crusade against adding "and" where it doesn't belong: 256 is two hundred fifty-six not two hundred and fifty six. However, for some reason 256 with the "and" in it doesn't sound too odd to me (although I don't say it like that), but 2008 with the "and" in it does. "And" is reserved for decimals.
Guest   Thu Jul 31, 2008 2:47 am GMT
It would be hard to tell. In fast speech:

Two thousand and eight => two thousand 'n' eight => two thousan' 'n' eight

"n' 'n'" sounds pretty much like "n'"
George   Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:27 pm GMT
To me an 'and' should always be present after the hundreds' and before the tens' digits, for example 256 is read 'two hundred and fifty six', or even when some of them are zero, 2008 is read 'two thousand and eight'.

I've noticed the 'and' is sometimes lacking when I hear many Americans speak, but not all of them, particularly not on the US National Public Radio.

This missing 'and' would sometimes confuse me and I would think 'two hundred fifty six' was '200, 56' and was part of a list, although context usually avoided genuine confusion. The 'and' was more likely to be present in more formal American contexts, so if you are faced with a choice it seems best to have it there.

The 'and' can often be contracted to 'n'.
Northwesterner   Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:22 am GMT
>>
To me an 'and' should always be present after the hundreds' and before the tens' digits, for example 256 is read 'two hundred and fifty six', or even when some of them are zero, 2008 is read 'two thousand and eight'. <<

Most Education books deprecate the use of the "and". However, most people don't follow that rule. I tend to follow it, probably because my teachers tended to stress it. Many people in the class didn't follow that rule. Some people think it sounds better/more natural with the "and". I just interviewed three people: 2 of them put in the "and" in 256: two hundred fifty six. They did not put in the and when reading out third millennium dates, interestingly enough though--and I was listening pretty carefully.
George   Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:20 pm GMT
<<Most Education books deprecate the use of the "and".>>

I've never seen that, although I haven't been looking. In any case, I'm not sure what the reason for anyone to particularly want it to be absent could be. It makes more sense to have an 'and' in that it is essential a list of numbers which should be added together: 200 + 56 = 256.

The only argument I can imagine is that 'and' would be better placed between the tens and units, for example, two hundred, fifty and six, that is 200 + 50 + 6 = 256. However no-one says that. Compare this with the old nursery rhyme 'four and twenty blackbirds baked in a pie...'.

I assume from your name you conducted your poll in the US, so it confirms Americans sometimes omit it, but nevertheless, it is there a good fraction of the time. I think it sounds much better to have an 'and'.
Damian in Edinburgh   Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:37 pm GMT
It is now my tea break and here in Scotland (and the rest of the United Kingdom) it is sixteen thirty seven hours British Summer Time on Friday the first of August twenty hundred and eight.
Travis   Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:49 pm GMT
That's the thing - to me at least, to omit the "and" feels very unnatural and almost artificial. For instance, 256 is normally "two hundred and fifty six" here, with actually saying "two hundred fifty six" out loud sounding rather wrong to me. Mind you that the "and" is not necessarily readily apparent in that it is always highly reduced except in careful speech, but it is normally still there in everyday speech here.