19th century vs. 1800s

Guest   Sat Sep 29, 2007 6:02 pm GMT
I find "1800s" to be more commonly used than "19th century". Is that the case?
furrykef   Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:51 pm GMT
Hmm, quite possibly. I tend to use four-digit numbers for centuries, myself, so I, and others, don't have to remember to subtract in my head (i.e., 16th century is 1500s, not 1600s). But it's more common for dates earlier than, I'm guessing, 1700, at least in the U.S., possibly because the 1700s were when things started to take off here: the American Revolution, the Constitution, the Industrial Revolution... the last of these applying to other countries as well, of course. Or maybe it's just the cutoff between "recent history" and "ancient history" in the minds of the people.

- Kef
Guest   Sat Sep 29, 2007 10:49 pm GMT
<<Hmm, quite possibly. I tend to use four-digit numbers for centuries, myself, so I, and others, don't have to remember to subtract in my head (i.e., 16th century is 1500s, not 1600s). But it's more common for dates earlier than, I'm guessing, 1700, at least in the U.S., possibly because the 1700s were when things started to take off here: the American Revolution, the Constitution, the Industrial Revolution... the last of these applying to other countries as well, of course. Or maybe it's just the cutoff between "recent history" and "ancient history" in the minds of the people.

- Kef>>

What about with the 20th century though? For me, "20th century" is the only option. Unlike with "1800s", "1700s", "1600s", "1500s" etc. "1900s" does not refer to the whole century, just the decade from "1900" to "1909".
furrykef   Sun Sep 30, 2007 1:28 am GMT
Correct. 1900s almost always refers to the decade, since it's still recent enough.

- Kef