2010 is believed by many to be pronounced "twenty-ten" when it comes. However, if it is pronounced that way rather than "two thousand ten" what about the years 2021 to 2029? Doesn't "twenty twenty-one" etc. seem repetitive and difficult to say in fast speech? That's the problem with the "twenty-ten" pronunciation.
Pronouncing the years 2021 through 2029
<<Doesn't "twenty twenty-one" etc. seem repetitive and difficult to say in fast speech?>>
I don't think so. We already have 1919, "nineteen nineteen".
<<That's the problem with the "twenty-ten" pronunciation.>>
I prefer the "twenty" pronunciations over the "two-thousand" pronunciations, because they're less cumbersome, and they're consistent with the way that we refer to other centuries. (As I pointed out on another thread, everybody says that William of Normandy invaded England in "ten sixty-six".)
I don't think so. We already have 1919, "nineteen nineteen".
<<That's the problem with the "twenty-ten" pronunciation.>>
I prefer the "twenty" pronunciations over the "two-thousand" pronunciations, because they're less cumbersome, and they're consistent with the way that we refer to other centuries. (As I pointed out on another thread, everybody says that William of Normandy invaded England in "ten sixty-six".)
<<Doesn't "twenty twenty-one" etc. seem repetitive and difficult to say in fast speech?>>
I don't think so. We already have 1919, "nineteen nineteen". >>
Yeah, we have 1919 "nineteen nineteen", but we don't have for instance a "nineteen nineteen one", "nineteen nineteen two" etc. "twenty twenty" (for 2020) itself doesn't seem difficult to say, but when followed by another word e.g. "twenty twenty-one" (2021) or especially "twenty-twenty two" (2022) it seems more difficult to say in fast speech.
I don't think so. We already have 1919, "nineteen nineteen". >>
Yeah, we have 1919 "nineteen nineteen", but we don't have for instance a "nineteen nineteen one", "nineteen nineteen two" etc. "twenty twenty" (for 2020) itself doesn't seem difficult to say, but when followed by another word e.g. "twenty twenty-one" (2021) or especially "twenty-twenty two" (2022) it seems more difficult to say in fast speech.
You raise a valid point, but I think "two thousand twenty-two" is too long.
Maybe I'm a grumpy mood today but I can't believe people are whinging about saying "twenty-twenty-two". Whinge whinge... It's a bit difficult to say in fast speech...whinge whinge.
Say it slower George. Problem sorted.
Say it slower George. Problem sorted.
Twenty ten/twenty twenty, etc, do sound rather difficult to say in fluid speech, for me at least, considering I already speak fast and find it difficult to control the speed of my voice.
I personally dislike the use of "twenty" and prefer " two thousand". "Twenty" seems too... futuristic, for lack of a better word. I'd like just stick to what's normal to me and say it as "two thousand and ten" etc.
It also bothers me that we don't say "twenty oh one/two/three..." but we're supposed to say "twenty ten". I find the sudden change in how we're supposed to say the year rather annoying.
I personally dislike the use of "twenty" and prefer " two thousand". "Twenty" seems too... futuristic, for lack of a better word. I'd like just stick to what's normal to me and say it as "two thousand and ten" etc.
It also bothers me that we don't say "twenty oh one/two/three..." but we're supposed to say "twenty ten". I find the sudden change in how we're supposed to say the year rather annoying.
<<It also bothers me that we don't say "twenty oh one/two/three..." but we're supposed to say "twenty ten". I find the sudden change in how we're supposed to say the year rather annoying.>>
On the contrary, I think the "sudden annoying change" was when we departed from our consistent system of "ten, eleven...seventeen, eighteen, nineteen," and started saying "two thousand". ;-)
On the contrary, I think the "sudden annoying change" was when we departed from our consistent system of "ten, eleven...seventeen, eighteen, nineteen," and started saying "two thousand". ;-)
<<On the contrary, I think the "sudden annoying change" was when we departed from our consistent system of "ten, eleven...seventeen, eighteen, nineteen," and started saying "two thousand". ;-)>>
Indeed. It went from "1900" (nineteen hundred) to "1901" (nineteen oh one) not *(nineteen hundred one), so logically it should have gone from "2000" (two thousand) to "2001" (twenty oh one).
Indeed. It went from "1900" (nineteen hundred) to "1901" (nineteen oh one) not *(nineteen hundred one), so logically it should have gone from "2000" (two thousand) to "2001" (twenty oh one).
Lazar;
Hehe, yes, I know what you mean and I do realise that the "two thousand" was the "real" change, if you will, but, what I mean by "sudden change" is that, when we hit the year 2000, we all said "the year two thousand" not "the year twenty hundred" and all the years that follow(ed), up until 2010, will be said as "two thousand" But, when it comes to 2010, we have to suddenly change to (or change -back- to) the "twenty" way of saying the year, so I find it rather annoying to deal with :P
Hehe, yes, I know what you mean and I do realise that the "two thousand" was the "real" change, if you will, but, what I mean by "sudden change" is that, when we hit the year 2000, we all said "the year two thousand" not "the year twenty hundred" and all the years that follow(ed), up until 2010, will be said as "two thousand" But, when it comes to 2010, we have to suddenly change to (or change -back- to) the "twenty" way of saying the year, so I find it rather annoying to deal with :P
I prefer "two thousand and ten" for 2010 as "twenty ten" sounds like the time 20:10.
I'd call 20:10 "ten past eight".
"Twenty" vs. "two thousand" don't be annoyed, just let it be. Illogical ... in a way, yes, but on a deeper more interesting level it makes perfect sense.
I s'pose there was something special about Y2K: something about that nice round number, 2000. You see a two and three zeros, what is it? Two thousand. I guess people were too excited to notice the first change much less get annoyed.
On the other hand, a comparison to 1900 isn't that fair "nineteen hundred" is the most concise name for this number (in normal English) whereas you couldn't say the same for "twenty hundred", which if it weren't a year but just a number, would see quite odd or even plain wrong.
I s'pose we've stuck with that momentum since in calling the last few years "two thousand (and) one", "... two", "... three", etc. But this must also have been fueled by the wish to avoid having to use "oh" as in "twenty oh seven". Perhaps retrospecively these years will be renamed as "twenty" something.
But once we hit 2010 we'll have no "oh" to avoid and the magic of the millenium will be a decade ago. It would make sense that we revert to the regular system.
Now; I have decent eyesight, I may not have twenty-twenty vision but I can see all right; however I've got no crystal ball but I don't predict that "twenty twenty-one", "... -two", "... -three", etc. will cause that much of a problem. A little repetitive, sure, but we'll get use to it: we'll have ten years.
"Twenty" vs. "two thousand" don't be annoyed, just let it be. Illogical ... in a way, yes, but on a deeper more interesting level it makes perfect sense.
I s'pose there was something special about Y2K: something about that nice round number, 2000. You see a two and three zeros, what is it? Two thousand. I guess people were too excited to notice the first change much less get annoyed.
On the other hand, a comparison to 1900 isn't that fair "nineteen hundred" is the most concise name for this number (in normal English) whereas you couldn't say the same for "twenty hundred", which if it weren't a year but just a number, would see quite odd or even plain wrong.
I s'pose we've stuck with that momentum since in calling the last few years "two thousand (and) one", "... two", "... three", etc. But this must also have been fueled by the wish to avoid having to use "oh" as in "twenty oh seven". Perhaps retrospecively these years will be renamed as "twenty" something.
But once we hit 2010 we'll have no "oh" to avoid and the magic of the millenium will be a decade ago. It would make sense that we revert to the regular system.
Now; I have decent eyesight, I may not have twenty-twenty vision but I can see all right; however I've got no crystal ball but I don't predict that "twenty twenty-one", "... -two", "... -three", etc. will cause that much of a problem. A little repetitive, sure, but we'll get use to it: we'll have ten years.
If people pronounced the year 2000 as two thousand then it was understandable as it was easier to say than twenty hundred, but when the year 2010 comes it will be the reverse situation - twenty ten will be easier than two thousand and ten (unlike the Americans we add the definite article in dates - today is the twenty eighth of March for example). Simple logic doesn't seem to come into this business at all - saying "two thousand" for year 2000 should have had people saying "one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine" , but of course that would have been ludicrous.
I notice that many people in the British media, at least, are saying "twenty o'seven" rather than "two thousand and seven". Pretty wise as it will be stupid to say that I hope to reach retirement age in twenty forty seven rather than two thousand and forty seven (assuming, of course, the State retirement age will be same as it is currently_. Maybe I may have to labour on until April twenty sixty two or some date around that time.
Twenty two forty hours - British Summer Time - Twenty eighth of March - Twenty o' seven.
I notice that many people in the British media, at least, are saying "twenty o'seven" rather than "two thousand and seven". Pretty wise as it will be stupid to say that I hope to reach retirement age in twenty forty seven rather than two thousand and forty seven (assuming, of course, the State retirement age will be same as it is currently_. Maybe I may have to labour on until April twenty sixty two or some date around that time.
Twenty two forty hours - British Summer Time - Twenty eighth of March - Twenty o' seven.
Yeah, there's a pattern to why we pronounce certain years in certain ways.
For years from about 1010-1999, the "two-part" pronunciation for years was standard, because it was usually the quickest to say and had become universally standard as signifying a year.
In 2000, however, there was an obstacle for this trusted tradition. First of all, "two thousand" was a mere 3 syllables, whereas the usually "quicker" alternative (twenty hundred) was 4 syllables, giving "two thousand" the upper hand. Secondly, everyone was so excited by the "year Two Thousand", and certainly "twenty hundred" could not adequately express that excitement.
So, we naturally continued to use that system into the 2000s decade, and in fact saying "twenty oh seven" saves no effort over saying "two thousand seven".
In 2010, however, this will revert back to our usual case. "Twenty ten" is shorter than "two thousand (and) ten", and there's no doubt in my mind that it will eventually be used by the majority of English speakers.
So although I can agree with the "two thousand" usage for now, this will definitely change in 2010.
Imagine having to say "two thousand and seventy seven", which is NINE syllables! Heck, even "one thousand nine hundred ninety" for 1990 is only EIGHT syllables. So bring on "twenty seventy seven".
For years from about 1010-1999, the "two-part" pronunciation for years was standard, because it was usually the quickest to say and had become universally standard as signifying a year.
In 2000, however, there was an obstacle for this trusted tradition. First of all, "two thousand" was a mere 3 syllables, whereas the usually "quicker" alternative (twenty hundred) was 4 syllables, giving "two thousand" the upper hand. Secondly, everyone was so excited by the "year Two Thousand", and certainly "twenty hundred" could not adequately express that excitement.
So, we naturally continued to use that system into the 2000s decade, and in fact saying "twenty oh seven" saves no effort over saying "two thousand seven".
In 2010, however, this will revert back to our usual case. "Twenty ten" is shorter than "two thousand (and) ten", and there's no doubt in my mind that it will eventually be used by the majority of English speakers.
So although I can agree with the "two thousand" usage for now, this will definitely change in 2010.
Imagine having to say "two thousand and seventy seven", which is NINE syllables! Heck, even "one thousand nine hundred ninety" for 1990 is only EIGHT syllables. So bring on "twenty seventy seven".
I agree completely that "twenty twenty-five" and the like is pretty repetitive, but since we'll be saying "twenty" from 2010-2020, I doubt we'll dump it in favor of "two thousand" just for one decade. Most people, however, will probably say things like "back in '21" instead of using the "twenty" for this decade. They will also say things like "from twenty twenty-five through twenty-nine, this happened". People will just avoid saying the whole year name in succession with other years of the decade.