2010 vs. 2010

[exbass94]

It annoys the crap out of me when people say “two-thousand-ten” instead of “twenty-ten.” Since pretty much forever, we’ve pronounced the years as “nineteen ninety five” (1995) not “one-thousand-nine-hundred and five.” So why the hell are people saying crap like “two thousand and thirteen” and “two thousand and twenty four”? It sounds really stupid IMO. The logical way to say the years is the same way we’ve always have.

So, which way to do you pronounce 2010?

 

[LittleHorse]

i've caught myself saying two thousand ten despite knowing in my head that I want to say twenty ten, since that's what EVERYBODY around seems to say. Mostly I say twenty ten though.

Just wait until you hear someone abbreviate it by saying Oh-Ten, as if just continuing on from "oh eight", "oh nine"...i've heard it a couple times and just had to bite my tongue because what I wanted to say would not have been constructive for anyone involved.

 

[Chance]

Well, I say it the correct way. Because the number 2010 isn't said 20-10. It's 2010.

Of course, you could always say two-oh-one-oh.

But no one ever really said 20-01 20-02 ect. So I guess it just carried over? idgaf...

But now it makes more sense to say 20-10... hmmm... again, idgaf.

 

[harriw]

The problem is you couldn't do that for the last 10 years - if you called 2005 "20-05", it would come out at "25" and no-one would know what you were talking about. I could see people slipping into the "oh-10" thing though...

I'm fine with either one, but I suppose "20-10" is quicker to spit out than "two thousand ten" (even if it isn't technically the right way to say it).

 

[LittleHorse]

The problem is you couldn't do that for the last 10 years - if you called 2005 "20-05", it would come out at "25" and no-one would know what you were talking about. I could see people slipping into the "oh-10" thing though...

I'm fine with either one, but I suppose "20-10" is quicker to spit out than "two thousand ten" (even if it isn't technically the right way to say it).

technically right or not, it's just been common vernacular for at least the last century.

20-oh-five could have worked just as well as nineteen oh five did. I think people just got into saying two thousand because of the milliennial significance.

Nobody said one thousand nine hundred five when it was 1905.

 

[Will]

What pisses me off is people that think 2010 is the start of the new decade when the start of the new decade is Jan 1, 2111. I know it depends on whether you think of it as a 0-9 or a 1-10 thing, but I think of it as a 1-10 thing. I know the calendar we use was made long after the first year, but IF we decided to use this year as the first year, would we have called it Year Zero?

"The date today is January 4, 0000, in the zero-ith year of Our Lord."

No. It's the first year. Or the tenth year.

We are in the last year of the first decade. It is the year two-thousand ten, no the year twenty-ten. I can't help it that everyone in the 20th century was lazy.

 

[kunar]

ill just call it "ten" so nobody has anything to complain about... or maybe everybody will complain, i dunno. following your logic, its the way it should be. it was "ninety-six" or "ninety-eight" for short, so now its just "ten"

 

[LittleHorse]

What pisses me off is people that think 2010 is the start of the new decade when the start of the new decade is Jan 1, 2111. I know it depends on whether you think of it as a 0-9 or a 1-10 thing, but I think of it as a 1-10 thing. I know the calendar we use was made long after the first year, but IF we decided to use this year as the first year, would we have called it Year Zero?

"The date today is January 4, 0000, in the zero-ith year of Our Lord."

No. It's the first year. Or the tenth year.

We are in the last year of the first decade. .

Me and basically the entire engineering, statistics, and computer programming community disagree.

If we're measuring time from an event or arbitrary point in time, then it makes sense to start at zero. Just like a 24 hour day goes from 0000 to 2359, it would make sense that a decade would start from 0 and end at 9 and a century from 00 to 99.

It makes more sense that way because to know how long it's been since that event or point in time, all we need to know is the current year. So it's been 2010 years since the starting point. If we started already at one, then the beginning would have been 2009 years ago instead of 2010. Any time you did any sort of calculation you'd have to include a (-1).

It is the year two-thousand ten, no the year twenty-ten. I can't help it that everyone in the 20th century was lazy

So I guess nobody should use contractions like can't then, because it's lazy. Language is like a living organism, evolving along with it's speakers. When a way of saying something becomes popular enough that it's almost universally accepted by society, then it essentially becomes correct.

 

[LittleHorse]

ill just call it "ten" so nobody has anything to complain about... or maybe everybody will complain, i dunno. following your logic, its the way it should be. it was "ninety-six" or "ninety-eight" for short, so now its just "ten"

but that was before the Y2k bug, we have to use 4 digits for our years now.

 

[kunar]

but that was before the Y2k bug, we have to use 4 digits for our years now.

meh... the first two digits are way over rated

 

[rockwerks]

It annoys the crap out of me when people say “two-thousand-ten” instead of “twenty-ten.” Since pretty much forever, we’ve pronounced the years as “nineteen ninety five” (1995) not “one-thousand-nine-hundred and five.” So why the hell are people saying crap like “two thousand and thirteen” and “two thousand and twenty four”? It sounds really stupid IMO. The logical way to say the years is the same way we’ve always have.

So, which way to do you pronounce 2010?

Id pronounce it as what it actually should be the year is two thousand and ten, not twenty ten. People are being correct when they say two thousand thirteen. It may be stupid to you but it is actually the correct terminology. I bet you like Ebonics too

 

[Will]

Me and basically the entire engineering, statistics, and computer programming community disagree.

But years are names, not numbers. You don't start off by saying "We are in Year Zero."

I'm also an engineer of sorts and user of mathmatics. And I think years are 1-10 because names are--like a book series. Nobody has the zero-ith series of M*A*S*H in their video collection.

 

[adsm08]

I don't think it really matters. The reason we have split it into a pair of 2 digit numbers for the last couple hundred years was because to say one-thousand-nine-hundred and ninety-five or something like that is akward. Thats not the case anymore. Saying two-thousand ten isn't akward.

Up even into the 17 and 1800s it was considered proper to say out the full number of the year. That wasn't even fully dropped until (I think) sometime in the 1920s. saying it xx-xx is a fairly recent thing relatively speaking.

While I say it two-thousand ten, I think that at this point either one could probably be considered correct grammatically speaking.

 

[LittleHorse]

But years are names, not numbers. You don't start off by saying "We are in Year Zero."

I'm also an engineer of sorts and user of mathmatics. And I think years are 1-10 because names are--like a book series. Nobody has the zero-ith series of M*A*S*H in their video collection.

Turns out the commonly used Gregorian calendar had no year zero. However, the calendar used by astronomers since the 1700s DOES have a year zero to correct the inherent flaw in the Gregorian calendar. No surprise to me that I would agree with astronomers moreso than historians. The Gregorian calendar going directly from 1 BC to 1 AD makes absolutely no sense to me. The astronomical calender merely inserts a zero between BC and AD, leaving AD the same and the entire BC scale back by a year.

Being that I'm siding with the astronomers, I don't agree that years are names, they are measurements from a starting point.

Look at the way we talk about centuries. The 20th century refers to the 1900s. It was the 20th century because we were talking about events that happened during it, but it was the 1900s because we had not completed 20 centuries - the years were counting what we had completed, not what we had started. I don't get paid for a months work until I've worked for a month.

When you're born, your age is measured from the point you were born. You aren't born already 1 year old. When you've completed 1 year, you are 1 year old, just as we have completed 2010 years. When we have completed 2011 years it will be 2011, and it will be the 2012th year.

Why astronomers get this and historians don't I cannot fathom.

 

[exbass94]

I bet you like Ebonics too

Wow, way to make judgements about someone you don't know asshole. I suppose you say one thousand nine hundred and ninety eight when referring to the year 1998? After all, according to you, that is the correct way to say it. Hypocrite.