Discussion:
2012 but mainly about 2010
(too old to reply)
Isabelle Cecchini
2008-08-25 15:22:37 UTC
Permalink
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.

But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
--
Isabelle Cecchini
HVS
2008-08-25 15:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us
lowly foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced
twenty-twelve in the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011
will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does
ten end the series begun with one, or does it mark a new
beginning?
Definitely "twenty-ten" to my mind's ear.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
the Omrud
2008-08-25 15:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
First (or otherwise) discussed here in 2003:

http://tinyurl.com/5cz8pa

Yes, twenty-ten, as in the film. Five years ago I was close-to-flamed
for assuming that people knew there was a film named 2010, but there it is.
--
David
Isabelle Cecchini
2008-08-25 15:40:32 UTC
Permalink
HVS, the Omrud, thanks. That's settled, then.
--
Isabelle Cecchini
Andreas Andersen
2008-08-25 15:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
http://tinyurl.com/5cz8pa
Yes, twenty-ten, as in the film. Five years ago I was close-to-flamed for
assuming that people knew there was a film named 2010, but there it is.
And in the song:


--
Andreas
Glenn Knickerbocker
2008-08-25 16:54:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Yes, twenty-ten, as in the film.
Uh?
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/152844/2010/overview
Post by the Omrud
Alternate Titles: TWO THOUSAND TEN, 2010: The Year We Make Contact,
2010: Odyssey Two
I haven't seen it in way too long to remember for sure, but was the year
ever even spoken in the film?

I do expect to hear and use "twenty ten," but "twenty 'leven" is a
common enough jocular expression that I suspect we'll be back to "two
thousand eleven" until reporting on the Olympics and U.S. elections
drills "twenty twelve" into our heads for good.

¬R
Mark Brader
2008-08-25 16:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten?
http://tinyurl.com/5cz8pa
Yes, twenty-ten, as in the film.
But the date isn't pronounced in the movie, is it? When the book came
out, I pronounced it "two thousand and ten", to go with the previous
book, and when the movie followed, I stayed with that. Today I'd call
that year "twenty-ten", but you're talking about 1984.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, ***@vex.net
We can design a system that's proof against accident and stupidity;
but we CAN'T design one that's proof against deliberate malice.
--a spaceship designer in Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey"
the Omrud
2008-08-25 22:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by the Omrud
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten?
http://tinyurl.com/5cz8pa
Yes, twenty-ten, as in the film.
But the date isn't pronounced in the movie, is it? When the book came
out, I pronounced it "two thousand and ten", to go with the previous
book, and when the movie followed, I stayed with that. Today I'd call
that year "twenty-ten", but you're talking about 1984.
I've called the book and film Twenty-Ten since they were published/made.
I don't supposed I've discussed either with many people, but I would
have been startled to hear either of them called Two Thousand and Ten.
--
David
Robert Bannister
2008-08-26 01:21:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve
in the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten
end the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
http://tinyurl.com/5cz8pa
Yes, twenty-ten, as in the film. Five years ago I was close-to-flamed
for assuming that people knew there was a film named 2010, but there it is.
I haven't seen the film, but I'm pretty sure I read the book, and back
then I was still mentally saying "two thousand and ten". Over the last
couple of years, however, I've been hearing "twenty-ten" more and more
and have got used to it. "Twenty-oh-eight" is still a no-no, so I would
agree with Isabelle that 2010 is a new beginning.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
2008-08-25 15:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....

I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Purl Gurl
2008-08-25 15:54:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult.
Y2K syndrome.
--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
Cece
2008-08-25 16:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Wow! I thought I was the only one who said "twenty oh eight";
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s. A couple decades ago, I knew people who gave their
birth-years as "nineteen oh three" and "nineteen oh seven"; I figured
this millennium would be the same way.
John Varela
2008-08-25 16:18:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:05:03 -0400, Cece wrote
(in article
Post by Cece
Post by R H Draney
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Wow! I thought I was the only one who said "twenty oh eight";
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s. A couple decades ago, I knew people who gave their
birth-years as "nineteen oh three" and "nineteen oh seven"; I figured
this millennium would be the same way.
I say two-double-oh-eight. I'm nearly alone in that. The reason is that
I had to take a basic series of required courses in mechanical
engineering numbered 2.001, 2.002, and 2.003 that were pronounced
two-double-oh-one, etc. (The courses were in mechanics, strength of
materials, and vibrations.)
--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
Maria C.
2008-08-25 19:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Varela
Post by Cece
Post by R H Draney
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us
lowly foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced
twenty-twelve in the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011
will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does
ten end the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult....r
Wow! I thought I was the only one who said "twenty oh eight";
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single
digit]" since the 1990s. A couple decades ago, I knew people who
gave their birth-years as "nineteen oh three" and "nineteen oh
seven"; I figured this millennium would be the same way.
I say two-double-oh-eight. I'm nearly alone in that. The reason is
that I had to take a basic series of required courses in mechanical
engineering numbered 2.001, 2.002, and 2.003 that were pronounced
two-double-oh-one, etc. (The courses were in mechanics, strength of
materials, and vibrations.)
I say two-thousand-eight. I may have started out (in 2001) with the
"and" included, but, if so, I've pretty much dropped it. (I wish I had
recorded how I said the date in the earlier years of this century. Then
I'd know for sure.)

Re comparing "nineteen-oh-seven" to "twenty-oh-seven": That doesn't work
for me. Something about "twenty" doesn't go with the "oh." Future: I'm
sure I'd say twenty-one-oh-eight, but it's hard to say what people
living in that year will call it. (Maybe it won't even be in English.)

Other, for me:
Two thousand ten (probably, but the "and" may reappear)
two thousand eleven
two thousand twelve
two thousand thirteen etc.

"Twenty-" anything (twenty-thirteen, etc.) as a year name seems strange
to me. Why this should be so is puzzling. I certainly had no problem
saying Ten-sixty-six and "ten-[other years] during history classes. So
why doesn't twenty-[whatever] work?

I'm sure there is a logical explanation, and it has something to do with
being too informal.
--
Maria C.
Chuck Riggs
2008-08-26 15:41:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:14:56 -0400, "Maria C." <***@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

<snip>
Post by Maria C.
Two thousand ten (probably, but the "and" may reappear)
two thousand eleven
two thousand twelve
two thousand thirteen etc.
Why try to buck the majority opinion on this series of numbers, Maria?
Or do you think you won't be?
Post by Maria C.
"Twenty-" anything (twenty-thirteen, etc.) as a year name seems strange
to me. Why this should be so is puzzling. I certainly had no problem
saying Ten-sixty-six and "ten-[other years] during history classes. So
why doesn't twenty-[whatever] work?
I'm sure there is a logical explanation, and it has something to do with
being too informal.
There's no logic to this, it seems to me. People are following their
ears and, generally, what sounds good to Sam sounds good to Joe.
--
Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Prai Jei
2008-08-25 16:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published "2001 A
Space Oddity"
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Purl Gurl
2008-08-25 16:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published "2001 A
Space Oddity"
Arthur C. Clarke is an avid fan of David Bowie.
--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
John Kane
2008-08-25 17:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.  
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published "2001 A
Space Oddity"
Arthur C. Clarke is an avid fan of David Bowie.
Not any more RIP

John Kane Kingston ON Canada
Purl Gurl
2008-08-26 03:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kane
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published
"2001 A Space Oddity"
Arthur C. Clarke is an avid fan of David Bowie.
Not any more RIP
Wait! Arthur C. Clarke is a famous science fiction writer
and always will be a famous science fiction writer.

Clarke is a famous sci-fi writer.

Why is he no longer a David Bowie fan?
--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
Don Aitken
2008-08-26 12:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by John Kane
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published
"2001 A Space Oddity"
Arthur C. Clarke is an avid fan of David Bowie.
Not any more RIP
Wait! Arthur C. Clarke is a famous science fiction writer
and always will be a famous science fiction writer.
Clarke is a famous sci-fi writer.
Why is he no longer a David Bowie fan?
Interesting question. When somebody is dead, you can still say that he
"is" a famous writer, but I wouldn't say that he "is" a fan of
anything - that has to be "was".
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Purl Gurl
2008-08-26 15:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by John Kane
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published
"2001 A Space Oddity"
Arthur C. Clarke is an avid fan of David Bowie.
Not any more RIP
Wait! Arthur C. Clarke is a famous science fiction writer
and always will be a famous science fiction writer.
Clarke is a famous sci-fi writer.
Why is he no longer a David Bowie fan?
Interesting question. When somebody is dead, you can still say that he
"is" a famous writer, but I wouldn't say that he "is" a fan of
anything - that has to be "was".
Would you be comfortable writing,

"Picasso is a fan of cubist painting style?"
--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
John Kane
2008-08-26 16:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by John Kane
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.  
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published
"2001 A Space Oddity"
Arthur C. Clarke is an avid fan of David Bowie.
Not any more RIP
Wait! Arthur C. Clarke is a famous science fiction writer
and always will be a famous science fiction writer.
Clarke is a famous sci-fi writer.
Why is he no longer a David Bowie fan?
Interesting question. When somebody is dead, you can still say that he
"is" a famous writer, but I wouldn't say that he "is" a fan of
anything - that has to be "was".
Would you be comfortable writing,
"Picasso is a fan of cubist painting style?"
No. I'd even have a problem with "Clarke is a famous sci-fi writer"
in a lot of contexts although I see what you mean.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada
Purl Gurl
2008-08-26 16:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kane
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by John Kane
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published
"2001 A Space Oddity"
Arthur C. Clarke is an avid fan of David Bowie.
Not any more RIP
Wait! Arthur C. Clarke is a famous science fiction writer
and always will be a famous science fiction writer.
Clarke is a famous sci-fi writer.
Why is he no longer a David Bowie fan?
Interesting question. When somebody is dead, you can still say that he
"is" a famous writer, but I wouldn't say that he "is" a fan of
anything - that has to be "was".
Would you be comfortable writing,
"Picasso is a fan of cubist painting style?"
No. I'd even have a problem with "Clarke is a famous sci-fi writer"
in a lot of contexts although I see what you mean.
Ah, context, quite the Billy Rub.

Arthur C. Clarke is a famous sci-fi writer. Clarke was
a fan of David Bowie.

Rather problematic, yes?

This is one of the more fun quirks of English language.
Clarke is off pushing up daisies on Alturus 5 out in the
Gamma sector yet we still treat him, in grammar, as alive.

Well, alive in some aspects but otherwise dead.
--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
J. J. Lodder
2008-08-26 17:06:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by John Kane
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published
"2001 A Space Oddity"
Arthur C. Clarke is an avid fan of David Bowie.
Not any more RIP
Wait! Arthur C. Clarke is a famous science fiction writer
and always will be a famous science fiction writer.
Clarke is a famous sci-fi writer.
Why is he no longer a David Bowie fan?
Interesting question. When somebody is dead, you can still say that he
"is" a famous writer, but I wouldn't say that he "is" a fan of
anything - that has to be "was".
Would you be comfortable writing,
"Picasso is a fan of cubist painting style?"
Of course he isn't.

He invented it,

Jan
Purl Gurl
2008-08-26 17:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by John Kane
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published
"2001 A Space Oddity"
Arthur C. Clarke is an avid fan of David Bowie.
Not any more RIP
Wait! Arthur C. Clarke is a famous science fiction writer
and always will be a famous science fiction writer.
Clarke is a famous sci-fi writer.
Why is he no longer a David Bowie fan?
Interesting question. When somebody is dead, you can still say that he
"is" a famous writer, but I wouldn't say that he "is" a fan of
anything - that has to be "was".
Would you be comfortable writing,
"Picasso is a fan of cubist painting style?"
Of course he isn't.
He invented it,
I understand. Picasso invented cubist style painting
but Picasso is not or was not a fan of cubist style.

Makes sense.
--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
unknown
2008-08-27 04:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by John Kane
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published
"2001 A Space Oddity"
Arthur C. Clarke is an avid fan of David Bowie.
Not any more RIP
Wait! Arthur C. Clarke is a famous science fiction writer
and always will be a famous science fiction writer.
Clarke is a famous sci-fi writer.
Why is he no longer a David Bowie fan?
Interesting question. When somebody is dead, you can still say that he
"is" a famous writer, but I wouldn't say that he "is" a fan of
anything - that has to be "was".
Would you be comfortable writing,
"Picasso is a fan of cubist painting style?"
Of course he isn't.
He invented it,
John Denver in _Oh God!_; "But I'm not even religious!
God: "Neither am I."
--
roses are #FF0000
violets are #0000FF
all my base
are belong to you
J. J. Lodder
2008-08-27 07:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by John Kane
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single
digit]" since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published
"2001 A Space Oddity"
Arthur C. Clarke is an avid fan of David Bowie.
Not any more RIP
Wait! Arthur C. Clarke is a famous science fiction writer
and always will be a famous science fiction writer.
Clarke is a famous sci-fi writer.
Why is he no longer a David Bowie fan?
Interesting question. When somebody is dead, you can still say that he
"is" a famous writer, but I wouldn't say that he "is" a fan of
anything - that has to be "was".
Would you be comfortable writing,
"Picasso is a fan of cubist painting style?"
Of course he isn't.
He invented it,
John Denver in _Oh God!_; "But I'm not even religious!
God: "Neither am I."
He can thank himself for being an atheist,

Jan
R H Draney
2008-08-26 17:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purl Gurl
Would you be comfortable writing,
"Picasso is a fan of cubist painting style?"
Not with the question mark inside the quotes, I wouldn't...better example:

"Cecil B DeMille is a fan of Sally Rand."

....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Purl Gurl
2008-08-26 17:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Purl Gurl
Would you be comfortable writing,
"Picasso is a fan of cubist painting style?"
"Cecil B DeMille is a fan of Sally Rand."
DeMille is also a fan of Ayn but, darn it, Ayn ran
off with Frank.

Picky! Picky! Picky! Ok, you caught me. I lost track of
alternating between American punctuation and British
punctuation. Well, maybe I confused myself with focusing
on that bank teller; she is British.
--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
Mark Brader
2008-08-25 16:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published
"2001 A Space Oddity"
Har.

The movie of "2001: A Space Odyssey" came out before the book, thanks
to Kubrick's manipulations.
--
Mark Brader | "Must undefined behavior obey *all* the laws of physics,
***@vex.net | or is the restriction limited to time travel?"
Toronto | --Heather Downs
Don Aitken
2008-08-25 21:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published
"2001 A Space Oddity"
Har.
The movie of "2001: A Space Odyssey" came out before the book, thanks
to Kubrick's manipulations.
And it was the publicity material for the movie which specified the
pronunciation "two thousand and one". Entirely Kubrick's fault. I'm
glad to hear we won't have to put up with this whim of his for much
longer.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
the Omrud
2008-08-25 22:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published
"2001 A Space Oddity"
Har.
The movie of "2001: A Space Odyssey" came out before the book, thanks
to Kubrick's manipulations.
Shirley, the film came first because the script came first. Clarke
wrote the book afterwards. The film is based on an earlier Clarke short
story, of course, named "The Sentinal".
--
David
Don Aitken
2008-08-25 23:12:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:02:28 GMT, the Omrud
Post by the Omrud
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Prai Jei
Post by Cece
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.
It goes back before that - back to when Arthur C. Clarke published
"2001 A Space Oddity"
Har.
The movie of "2001: A Space Odyssey" came out before the book, thanks
to Kubrick's manipulations.
Shirley, the film came first because the script came first. Clarke
wrote the book afterwards. The film is based on an earlier Clarke short
story, of course, named "The Sentinal".
We've done this before, but what the hell. Work on the film and the
book proceeded in parallel, but the book was substantially finished
well before the film was released. Its publication was then delayed
because Kubrick insisted on what he described as "minor changes" which
he never had time to do. The idea that the book is a "novelisation" of
the film is entirely wrong. There are lots of differences; the climax
of the book takes place in orbit round Saturn, not Jupiter, as in the
film. They dropped large quantities of Saturn material at a late stage
in despair at their inability to make the rings look like anything but
a model.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
LaReina del Perros
2008-08-25 20:14:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Cece
Post by Cece
Post by R H Draney
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult....r
Wow! I thought I was the only one who said "twenty oh eight";
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s. A couple decades ago, I knew people who gave their
birth-years as "nineteen oh three" and "nineteen oh seven"; I figured
this millennium would be the same way.
I'm a "twenty-oh-eight"er, which infuriates some of the people I know.
Jonathan Morton
2008-08-25 20:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by LaReina del Perros
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Cece
Post by Cece
Post by R H Draney
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult....r
Wow! I thought I was the only one who said "twenty oh eight";
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s. A couple decades ago, I knew people who gave their
birth-years as "nineteen oh three" and "nineteen oh seven"; I figured
this millennium would be the same way.
I'm a "twenty-oh-eight"er, which infuriates some of the people I know.
Moi aussi. The mistake we made - allowing for the fact that 2000 was "two
thousand" (because "twenty hundred" is longer) - was not insisting on
"twenty-oh-one" at once.

As 2010 approaches, I am making determined efforts to nail any "two thousand
and..." efforts once and for all.

Regards

Jonathan
Irwell
2008-08-25 22:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan Morton
Post by LaReina del Perros
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Cece
Post by Cece
Post by R H Draney
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult....r
Wow! I thought I was the only one who said "twenty oh eight";
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s. A couple decades ago, I knew people who gave their
birth-years as "nineteen oh three" and "nineteen oh seven"; I figured
this millennium would be the same way.
I'm a "twenty-oh-eight"er, which infuriates some of the people I know.
Moi aussi. The mistake we made - allowing for the fact that 2000 was "two
thousand" (because "twenty hundred" is longer) - was not insisting on
"twenty-oh-one" at once.
As 2010 approaches, I am making determined efforts to nail any "two thousand
and..." efforts once and for all.
Ten sixty-six and all that!
Battle of Hastings - One thousand and sixty-six,
not on.
John Kane
2008-08-26 16:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by LaReina del Perros
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Cece
Post by R H Draney
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult....r
Wow!  I thought I was the only one who said "twenty oh eight";
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.  A couple decades ago, I knew people who gave their
birth-years as "nineteen oh three" and "nineteen oh seven"; I figured
this millennium would be the same way.
I'm a "twenty-oh-eight"er, which infuriates some of the people I know.
Here here.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada
Purl Gurl
2008-08-26 17:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kane
Post by LaReina del Perros
Post by Cece
Post by R H Draney
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult.
Wow! I thought I was the only one who said "twenty oh eight";
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s. A couple decades ago, I knew people who gave their
birth-years as "nineteen oh three" and "nineteen oh seven"; I figured
this millennium would be the same way.
I'm a "twenty-oh-eight"er, which infuriates some of the people I know.
Here here.
"I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult."
- R. H. Draney


You white boys will never learn time is meaningless.

More easy to use, "last year", "this year", "next year" along
with "in the past" or "in the future", maybe even "right now".

Reminds of a story.

During June, this year, I am making a rent monies deposit at
our bank; ATM will not accept cash. Conversation with teller
is interesting, she starts,

"You dated your deposit slip 2007. Can you change this?"

"This is 2007."

"No, this year is 2008".

"What happened to 2007?"

"2007 was last year".

"No, last year was 2006. This is 2007."

"You are a year behind".

"No, you are a year ahead."

"Ok, whatever, could you change the date to this year?"

"Sure!"

I line out 2007 and write "This Year" then hand back
my deposit slip to her, well, more fumbled around to
slide my deposit slip through an eighth inch gap in her
two inch thick clear Plexiglas.

Do you know how frustrating this is to slide three-thousand
dollars in hundred dollar bills through an eighth inch
slot in thick Plexiglas? This annoys me, greatly. Reminds
of working at spoon feeding our girl when she was a baby.
This is why I nursed her until she was five. I would have
nursed her longer except her kindergarten teacher freaked
out when I showed up in her classroom to nurse our girl.

So, anyhow, this bank teller looks at my deposit slip dated
"This Year", her jaw drops, her jaw snaps shut, she gives me
a "you are an idiot" look then processes my deposit.

Good there was two inch thick Plexiglas between us;
I think she would have reached out and pinched my
head off, most certainly.

This year is 2007, ain't it? Does not matter, time
is meaningless except when you look in a lying mirror.

Maybe next year my bath mirror will become truthful
and not fake those wrinkles and graying hair. Maybe
next year or in the near future.
--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
R H Draney
2008-08-26 20:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purl Gurl
"You dated your deposit slip 2007. Can you change this?"
"This is 2007."
"No, this year is 2008".
"What happened to 2007?"
"2007 was last year".
"No, last year was 2006. This is 2007."
"You are a year behind".
"No, you are a year ahead."
"Ok, whatever, could you change the date to this year?"
"Sure!"
I line out 2007 and write "This Year" then hand back
my deposit slip to her, well, more fumbled around to
slide my deposit slip through an eighth inch gap in her
two inch thick clear Plexiglas.
To quote an old .sig file of mine:

"It *can't* be 2001! I'm still writing 19100 on all my checks!"

....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
unknown
2008-08-27 04:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Kane
Post by LaReina del Perros
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Cece
Post by R H Draney
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult....r
Wow!  I thought I was the only one who said "twenty oh eight";
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s.  A couple decades ago, I knew people who gave their
birth-years as "nineteen oh three" and "nineteen oh seven"; I figured
this millennium would be the same way.
I'm a "twenty-oh-eight"er, which infuriates some of the people I know.
Here here.
Where? Where?
Post by John Kane
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
--
roses are #FF0000
violets are #0000FF
all my base
are belong to you
John Kane
2008-08-27 16:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by John Kane
Here here.
Where? Where?
24 sussex Drive Ottawa ON.

Nice little fixer-upper rumoured to be on the market soon.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada
Tasha Miller
2008-08-26 04:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cece
Post by R H Draney
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us
lowly foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced
twenty-twelve in the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011
will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does
ten end the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year
after "nineteen ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Wow! I thought I was the only one who said "twenty oh eight";
everyone I've heard has been sayng "two thousand (and) [single digit]"
since the 1990s. A couple decades ago, I knew people who gave their
birth-years as "nineteen oh three" and "nineteen oh seven"; I figured
this millennium would be the same way.
I say "two thousand and eight"* and I expect to continue to number the years
that way until we reach 2010 or 2011 at the earliest. I'm equally
comfortable with "nineteen oh three" and "nineteen hundred and three" and I
am more likely to say fifteen hundred and thirty than one thousand, five
hundred and thirty in normal speech.

"Twenty ten/eleven" sound just about as good as two thousand and
ten/eleven" but I expect I'll have fully transitioned by "twenty twenty-one"
at the latest. I don't think I've ever heard the "twenty oh eight" form in
normal conversation around me. I do say "twenty-one oh five" though.

*Actually closer to 'two thous'n d'n eight", so not really four syllables.
Evan Kirshenbaum
2008-08-26 15:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tasha Miller
I say "two thousand and eight"* and I expect to continue to number
the years that way until we reach 2010 or 2011 at the earliest.
At the earliest. My driver's license got renewed recently, and it's
now good through 2013. My reflex was (and is) to say "two thousand
thirteen". Similarly, my credit card expires in "two thousand
eleven". If I start regularly hearing "twenty" when the time comes
around, I'll doubtless switch, but until then, apparently not.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There is something fascinating
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |about science. One gets such
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |wholesale returns of conjecture out
|of such a trifling investment of
***@hpl.hp.com |fact.
(650)857-7572 | Mark Twain

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
R H Draney
2008-08-26 17:17:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Tasha Miller
I say "two thousand and eight"* and I expect to continue to number
the years that way until we reach 2010 or 2011 at the earliest.
At the earliest. My driver's license got renewed recently, and it's
now good through 2013. My reflex was (and is) to say "two thousand
thirteen". Similarly, my credit card expires in "two thousand
eleven". If I start regularly hearing "twenty" when the time comes
around, I'll doubtless switch, but until then, apparently not.
My mortgage will be paid off in 2013, which I've been calling "twenty thirteen"
ever since I refinanced it in 1993 (it's officially a thirty-year mortgage, but
I've been doing principal pre-payments from the beginning)....

My own driver's license is good through 2024, and I've *never* heard anybody
call it "two thousand [and] twenty-four"....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
tony cooper
2008-08-26 19:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Tasha Miller
I say "two thousand and eight"* and I expect to continue to number
the years that way until we reach 2010 or 2011 at the earliest.
At the earliest. My driver's license got renewed recently, and it's
now good through 2013. My reflex was (and is) to say "two thousand
thirteen". Similarly, my credit card expires in "two thousand
eleven". If I start regularly hearing "twenty" when the time comes
around, I'll doubtless switch, but until then, apparently not.
My mortgage will be paid off in 2013, which I've been calling "twenty thirteen"
ever since I refinanced it in 1993 (it's officially a thirty-year mortgage, but
I've been doing principal pre-payments from the beginning)....
My own driver's license is good through 2024, and I've *never* heard anybody
call it "two thousand [and] twenty-four"....r
At least we know how 2525 will be said, and have known since 1969.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Default User
2008-08-26 20:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by tony cooper
My own driver's license is good through 2024, and I've never heard
anybody call it "two thousand [and] twenty-four"....r
At least we know how 2525 will be said, and have known since 1969.
Well, if Man is still alive.




Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
R H Draney
2008-08-26 20:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by tony cooper
Post by R H Draney
My own driver's license is good through 2024, and I've *never* heard anybody
call it "two thousand [and] twenty-four"....r
At least we know how 2525 will be said, and have known since 1969.
As long as the world's not run by Baileys....

http://www.tv.com/cleopatra-2525/show/1588/summary.html

....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
unknown
2008-08-25 21:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult....r
Not difficult at all. Folks 'round here call this year "two oh eight".
We seldom get it confused with the actual year 208.
--
roses are #FF0000
violets are #0000FF
all my base
are belong to you
R H Draney
2008-08-25 21:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by R H Draney
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult....r
Not difficult at all. Folks 'round here call this year "two oh eight".
We seldom get it confused with the actual year 208.
Do they also recite web addresses with only two Ws?...r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
unknown
2008-08-25 22:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by unknown
Post by R H Draney
"Twenty ten"...just like this is "twenty oh eight", and the year after "nineteen
ninety-nine" was "twenty hundred"....
I don't see why people insist on making these things difficult....r
Not difficult at all. Folks 'round here call this year "two oh eight".
We seldom get it confused with the actual year 208.
Do they also recite web addresses with only two Ws?...r
Sometimes with 2, sometimes with none at all. There seems to be a
common misconception that the "www." is always part of the URL, and
need not be specified.
--
roses are #FF0000
violets are #0000FF
all my base
are belong to you
R H Draney
2008-08-25 23:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by R H Draney
Do they also recite web addresses with only two Ws?...r
Sometimes with 2, sometimes with none at all. There seems to be a
common misconception that the "www." is always part of the URL, and
need not be specified.
That misconception has bitten me, back when I used to have a homepage that
didn't include the prefix, and if you entered it into a browser you'd be told
that the page didn't exist....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Mike Barnes
2008-08-26 06:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
There seems to be a
common misconception that the "www." is always part of the URL, and
need not be specified.
Bizarre. I take no heed of whether "www." is specified or not. I type it
in only if I find that the URL doesn't work without it. It's *very*
rarely necessary.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Evan Kirshenbaum
2008-08-26 15:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Barnes
There seems to be a common misconception that the "www." is always
part of the URL, and need not be specified.
Bizarre. I take no heed of whether "www." is specified or not. I
type it in only if I find that the URL doesn't work without it. It's
*very* rarely necessary.
This is a good example of both a self-fulfilling prophecy and the
Principle of Least Astonishment. Nothing in the specifications says
it should work, but because so many people expect it to, people who
run web sites go to the trouble of setting up their name servers to
make sure it will.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The skinny models whose main job is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to display clothes aren't hired for
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |their sex appeal. They're hired
|for their resemblance to a
***@hpl.hp.com |coat-hanger.
(650)857-7572 | Peter Moylan

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Mike Barnes
2008-08-26 18:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
There seems to be a common misconception that the "www." is always
part of the URL, and need not be specified.
Bizarre. I take no heed of whether "www." is specified or not. I
type it in only if I find that the URL doesn't work without it. It's
*very* rarely necessary.
This is a good example of both a self-fulfilling prophecy and the
Principle of Least Astonishment. Nothing in the specifications says
it should work, but because so many people expect it to, people who
run web sites go to the trouble of setting up their name servers to
make sure it will.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I get the impression that you
regard the "www." URL as the "correct" one and the "www."-less URL as
something additionally provided by the webmaster as a courtesy to those
who type the name in wrong. In contrast I think of neither of those URL
forms as being any more correct than the other, in general. But for an
individual site it's up to the webmaster to include "www." in the domain
name, or not (my preference is "not"), and in either case he should
ensure that the other form works for the visitor who gets it "wrong".

So when I type in an address without a "www.", it works because the
webmaster intended it that way, or because he intended a "www." but cut
me some slack, or (conceivably: I can't be bothered to test this out)
the webmaster intended a "www." and made no provision for anyone who
missed it out, but my browser noticed that the "www."-less form didn't
work and tried it with the "www." for me.

It's certainly easy to speak and type a URL without the "www.".
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Evan Kirshenbaum
2008-08-26 20:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Barnes
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
There seems to be a common misconception that the "www." is always
part of the URL, and need not be specified.
Bizarre. I take no heed of whether "www." is specified or not. I
type it in only if I find that the URL doesn't work without it. It's
*very* rarely necessary.
This is a good example of both a self-fulfilling prophecy and the
Principle of Least Astonishment. Nothing in the specifications says
it should work, but because so many people expect it to, people who
run web sites go to the trouble of setting up their name servers to
make sure it will.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I get the impression that
you regard the "www." URL as the "correct" one and the "www."-less
URL as something additionally provided by the webmaster as a
courtesy to those who type the name in wrong. In contrast I think of
neither of those URL forms as being any more correct than the other,
in general. But for an individual site it's up to the webmaster to
include "www." in the domain name, or not (my preference is "not"),
and in either case he should ensure that the other form works for
the visitor who gets it "wrong".
So when I type in an address without a "www.", it works because the
webmaster intended it that way, or because he intended a "www." but
cut me some slack, or (conceivably: I can't be bothered to test this
out) the webmaster intended a "www." and made no provision for
anyone who missed it out, but my browser noticed that the
"www."-less form didn't work and tried it with the "www." for me.
What goes after the "http://" in an HTTP URL is a hostname.
Historically, a machine would have a single name, or perhaps a main
name and a few aliases. A domain name (e.g., "hp.com", "co.uk", or
"standford.edu") might, but probably wouldn't have a DNS record that
identified the name as referring to a single machine that users could
connect to--and if it did, it would be a machine that already had a
function. When organizations began to bring up web sites, the domain
tended to exist already, and a machine would be identified to be used
as the server. Originally, these tended to be named (within their
domains) "web" or "mosaic", but quickly, the convention of naming the
machine "www" arose.

When people began to try connecting connecting without specifying the
machine name (but only the domain name), organizations had to go to
the trouble of either adding DNS records that said "'foo.org' is
another name for 'www.foo.org'" or putting web servers on the existing
"foo.org" machine that always responded by telling the browser to try
the request again on "www.foo.org". Neither decision would be in the
scope of what a webmaster would be able to approve for any large
organization.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If we have to re-invent the wheel,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can we at least make it round this
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time?

***@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Garrett Wollman
2008-08-26 21:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
What goes after the "http://" in an HTTP URL is a hostname.
Even though I know why he didn't do it that way,[1] I still curse Tim
under my breath whenever this issue comes up for not using SRV
records.

-GAWollman

[1] Or at least I think I do. I could ask him next time I drop by
W3C's weekly group lunch, but it's probably not worth the bother.
Last time, I did ask him how he pronounces "www" and he said
"double-you double-you double-you" but admitted to sometimes saying
"dub-dub-dub" or "wuh-wuh-wuh". Another W3C person piped up with the
observation that a colleague has registered "uu3.org".
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
***@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Evan Kirshenbaum
2008-08-26 21:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
What goes after the "http://" in an HTTP URL is a hostname.
Historically, a machine would have a single name, or perhaps a main
name and a few aliases. A domain name (e.g., "hp.com", "co.uk", or
"standford.edu") might, but probably wouldn't
insert comma
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
have a DNS record that identified the name as referring to a single
machine that users could connect to--and if it did, it would be a
machine that already had a function.
I'm not sure what it "might" do without a comma there.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The Elizabethans had so many words
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for the female genitals that it is
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |quite hard to speak a sentence of
|modern English without inadvertently
***@hpl.hp.com |mentioning at least three of them.
(650)857-7572 | Terry Pratchett

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Mike Barnes
2008-08-26 22:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
There seems to be a common misconception that the "www." is always
part of the URL, and need not be specified.
Bizarre. I take no heed of whether "www." is specified or not. I
type it in only if I find that the URL doesn't work without it. It's
*very* rarely necessary.
This is a good example of both a self-fulfilling prophecy and the
Principle of Least Astonishment. Nothing in the specifications says
it should work, but because so many people expect it to, people who
run web sites go to the trouble of setting up their name servers to
make sure it will.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I get the impression that
you regard the "www." URL as the "correct" one and the "www."-less
URL as something additionally provided by the webmaster as a
courtesy to those who type the name in wrong. In contrast I think of
neither of those URL forms as being any more correct than the other,
in general. But for an individual site it's up to the webmaster to
include "www." in the domain name, or not (my preference is "not"),
and in either case he should ensure that the other form works for
the visitor who gets it "wrong".
So when I type in an address without a "www.", it works because the
webmaster intended it that way, or because he intended a "www." but
cut me some slack, or (conceivably: I can't be bothered to test this
out) the webmaster intended a "www." and made no provision for
anyone who missed it out, but my browser noticed that the
"www."-less form didn't work and tried it with the "www." for me.
What goes after the "http://" in an HTTP URL is a hostname.
Historically, a machine would have a single name, or perhaps a main
name and a few aliases. A domain name (e.g., "hp.com", "co.uk", or
"standford.edu") might, but probably wouldn't have a DNS record that
identified the name as referring to a single machine that users could
connect to--and if it did, it would be a machine that already had a
function. When organizations began to bring up web sites, the domain
tended to exist already, and a machine would be identified to be used
as the server. Originally, these tended to be named (within their
domains) "web" or "mosaic", but quickly, the convention of naming the
machine "www" arose.
When people began to try connecting connecting without specifying the
machine name (but only the domain name), organizations had to go to
the trouble of either adding DNS records that said "'foo.org' is
another name for 'www.foo.org'" or putting web servers on the existing
"foo.org" machine that always responded by telling the browser to try
the request again on "www.foo.org". Neither decision would be in the
scope of what a webmaster would be able to approve for any large
organization.
Thanks for the historical perspective. Nevertheless, it seems to me that
the "www." prefix is a pragmatic convention rather than something in
"the specifications". But I'm still not entirely sure what you meant by
"it should work" above so I might have misunderstood.

Looking at (for instance) http://alt-usage-english.org with and without
the "www.", can you tell that one is a primary URL and the other is
provided purely for potential visitors who get it wrong? And if so,
which is which?
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Evan Kirshenbaum
2008-08-26 22:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Barnes
Thanks for the historical perspective. Nevertheless, it seems to me
that the "www." prefix is a pragmatic convention rather than
something in "the specifications". But I'm still not entirely sure
what you meant by "it should work" above so I might have
misunderstood.
The specifications say that you give the name of the machine. If the
machine is named "www" (in domain "foo.org"), then nothing makes it
reasonable to expect that "foo.org" (or "web-server.foo.org" or
"workstation36.foo.org" or "random.porn.com") should be an alias for
the same machine. The only reason that people make sure that it is is
that they've noticed that people expect it to be.
Post by Mike Barnes
Looking at (for instance) http://alt-usage-english.org with and without
the "www.", can you tell that one is a primary URL and the other is
provided purely for potential visitors who get it wrong? And if so,
which is which?
If both exist, then the assumption would be that
"alt-usage-english.org" is a domain, potentially containing many
machines, and "www" is a machine within it. Now, in this case,
there's probably only a single machine in that domain, which goes by
many names (e.g., "www", "mail", "ftp", and "alt-usage-english" (in
.org)) and the machine is probably shared with other domains, but the
principle is the same.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If the human brain were so simple
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |That we could understand it,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |We would be so simple
|That we couldn't.
***@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Mike Barnes
2008-08-27 07:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
Thanks for the historical perspective. Nevertheless, it seems to me
that the "www." prefix is a pragmatic convention rather than
something in "the specifications". But I'm still not entirely sure
what you meant by "it should work" above so I might have
misunderstood.
The specifications say that you give the name of the machine. If the
machine is named "www" (in domain "foo.org"), then nothing makes it
reasonable to expect that "foo.org" (or "web-server.foo.org" or
"workstation36.foo.org" or "random.porn.com") should be an alias for
the same machine. The only reason that people make sure that it is is
that they've noticed that people expect it to be.
So do the specifications say that you can't call a machine "foo.org",
and ensure that "www.foo.org" is an alias for the same machine"?
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
Looking at (for instance) http://alt-usage-english.org with and without
the "www.", can you tell that one is a primary URL and the other is
provided purely for potential visitors who get it wrong? And if so,
which is which?
If both exist, then the assumption would be that
"alt-usage-english.org" is a domain, potentially containing many
machines, and "www" is a machine within it. Now, in this case,
there's probably only a single machine in that domain, which goes by
many names (e.g., "www", "mail", "ftp", and "alt-usage-english" (in
.org)) and the machine is probably shared with other domains, but the
principle is the same.
Actually "www." is the only alias that I know of. For mail, FTP, Telnet,
etc, I use simply "alt-usage-english.org", as specified by the people
who host the site. On the evidence it seems likely to me that they
provided the "www." alias purely because people expect it to be there.

I agree that in the large corporate world things probably wouldn't be
done like that, but the large corporate world isn't the only world.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Evan Kirshenbaum
2008-08-27 15:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Barnes
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
Thanks for the historical perspective. Nevertheless, it seems to me
that the "www." prefix is a pragmatic convention rather than
something in "the specifications". But I'm still not entirely sure
what you meant by "it should work" above so I might have
misunderstood.
The specifications say that you give the name of the machine. If the
machine is named "www" (in domain "foo.org"), then nothing makes it
reasonable to expect that "foo.org" (or "web-server.foo.org" or
"workstation36.foo.org" or "random.porn.com") should be an alias for
the same machine. The only reason that people make sure that it is is
that they've noticed that people expect it to be.
So do the specifications say that you can't call a machine "foo.org",
and ensure that "www.foo.org" is an alias for the same machine"?
Of course not. It's perfectly acceptable (although before this a
trifle weird) to say that a machine is "www" (in domain "foo.org") and
also "foo" (in domain "org"). That's what I meant about "going to the
trouble of setting up name servers to make sure it will work". And
this was something that wasn't done much before people started
assuming that the actual machine name was optional. People assume
"that's the way it just works" and other people have to do something
to ensure that they're not surprised.

Note that many older domains already had single machines that were
named for the domain, a holdover from the days when there was only one
network-connect machine in the organization. Typically, they would be
larger central machines. At Stanford, when I was there,
"stanford.edu", the main Computer Science Department machine, had been
renamed "SCORE" when other machines in the domain got net
connectivity, but they retained "STANFORD" as an alias. Of course,
such machines weren't the ones you'd want to use as web servers, so
changing "stanford" to be a web server meant removing the alias.

Note also that, unless I'm mistaken, you only get to do this once at a
time. If your DNS record says that "foo" (in "org") is at a
particular IP address so that connections can be made on the HTTP
port, you can't also say that it's somewhere else to make connections
on another port. So anybody who had already done this aliasing to
help out users of FTP, Gopher, WAIS, or whatever, had to either use
the same machine or break earlier user's assumptions.

(Mail is handled differently. When DNS was created, it was recognized
that entities would want to be able to receive mail "@foo.org", but
have some machine within the domain actually receive the mail, so
there's an explicit (MX) record that is used to specify a different
name to use for sending mail.)
Post by Mike Barnes
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
Looking at (for instance) http://alt-usage-english.org with and without
the "www.", can you tell that one is a primary URL and the other is
provided purely for potential visitors who get it wrong? And if so,
which is which?
If both exist, then the assumption would be that
"alt-usage-english.org" is a domain, potentially containing many
machines, and "www" is a machine within it. Now, in this case,
there's probably only a single machine in that domain, which goes by
many names (e.g., "www", "mail", "ftp", and "alt-usage-english" (in
.org)) and the machine is probably shared with other domains, but
the principle is the same.
Actually "www." is the only alias that I know of. For mail, FTP,
Telnet, etc, I use simply "alt-usage-english.org", as specified by
the people who host the site. On the evidence it seems likely to me
that they provided the "www." alias purely because people expect it
to be there.
Their ISP did (as mine does for "kirshenbaum.net"). Checking, I see
that "www", "mail", "ftp", and "alt-usage-english" do, indeed, resolve
to the same IP address, but nothing else seems to.
Post by Mike Barnes
I agree that in the large corporate world things probably wouldn't
be done like that, but the large corporate world isn't the only
world.
Sure, but if it wasn't for the large corporations (and universitites
and other entities that already had established internal networks
before bringing up external-facing web sites) doing this, people would
never have internalized the notion that they should expect it.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little
|practice, writing can be an
***@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog!
(650)857-7572 | Calvin

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Mike Barnes
2008-08-27 20:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
Thanks for the historical perspective. Nevertheless, it seems to me
that the "www." prefix is a pragmatic convention rather than
something in "the specifications". But I'm still not entirely sure
what you meant by "it should work" above so I might have
misunderstood.
The specifications say that you give the name of the machine. If the
machine is named "www" (in domain "foo.org"), then nothing makes it
reasonable to expect that "foo.org" (or "web-server.foo.org" or
"workstation36.foo.org" or "random.porn.com") should be an alias for
the same machine. The only reason that people make sure that it is is
that they've noticed that people expect it to be.
So do the specifications say that you can't call a machine "foo.org",
and ensure that "www.foo.org" is an alias for the same machine"?
Of course not. It's perfectly acceptable (although before this a
trifle weird) to say that a machine is "www" (in domain "foo.org") and
also "foo" (in domain "org"). That's what I meant about "going to the
trouble of setting up name servers to make sure it will work".
At the risk of flogging a dead horse - I have no problem at all with the
idea of one machine serving the domain name and simultaneously serving a
subdomain of that domain. The issue I've actually been concerned with
all along (and clearly haven't been explaining very well) is your
apparent assumption that the name "www.foo.org" is a given and that the
extra trouble is taken to honour "foo.org". To me it's quite possible
and acceptable to view it the other way round, and I still haven't
worked out whether you agree or disagree with that.
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
[...]
Post by Mike Barnes
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
Looking at (for instance) http://alt-usage-english.org with and without
the "www.", can you tell that one is a primary URL and the other is
provided purely for potential visitors who get it wrong? And if so,
which is which?
If both exist, then the assumption would be that
"alt-usage-english.org" is a domain, potentially containing many
machines, and "www" is a machine within it. Now, in this case,
there's probably only a single machine in that domain, which goes by
many names (e.g., "www", "mail", "ftp", and "alt-usage-english" (in
.org)) and the machine is probably shared with other domains, but
the principle is the same.
Actually "www." is the only alias that I know of. For mail, FTP,
Telnet, etc, I use simply "alt-usage-english.org", as specified by
the people who host the site. On the evidence it seems likely to me
that they provided the "www." alias purely because people expect it
to be there.
Their ISP did (as mine does for "kirshenbaum.net"). Checking, I see
that "www", "mail", "ftp", and "alt-usage-english" do, indeed, resolve
to the same IP address, but nothing else seems to.
Post by Mike Barnes
I agree that in the large corporate world things probably wouldn't
be done like that, but the large corporate world isn't the only
world.
Sure, but if it wasn't for the large corporations (and universitites
and other entities that already had established internal networks
before bringing up external-facing web sites) doing this, people would
never have internalized the notion that they should expect it.
I'm not sure what you mean by that last "it". Speaking for myself as a
browser user, I've never seen the point of that "www.", and although I
initially suspected that there was some technical reason for its
presence (as well as the history that you've described), subsequent
developments appear to indicate that it was never really necessary. I
don't think that the actions of large corporations and universities had
any influence on my thinking.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Irwell
2008-08-27 20:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Barnes
At the risk of flogging a dead horse -
Pretty safe once rigeur mortis has set in.
Evan Kirshenbaum
2008-08-27 20:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Barnes
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
Thanks for the historical perspective. Nevertheless, it seems to me
that the "www." prefix is a pragmatic convention rather than
something in "the specifications". But I'm still not entirely sure
what you meant by "it should work" above so I might have
misunderstood.
The specifications say that you give the name of the machine. If the
machine is named "www" (in domain "foo.org"), then nothing makes it
reasonable to expect that "foo.org" (or "web-server.foo.org" or
"workstation36.foo.org" or "random.porn.com") should be an alias for
the same machine. The only reason that people make sure that it is is
that they've noticed that people expect it to be.
So do the specifications say that you can't call a machine "foo.org",
and ensure that "www.foo.org" is an alias for the same machine"?
Of course not. It's perfectly acceptable (although before this a
trifle weird) to say that a machine is "www" (in domain "foo.org") and
also "foo" (in domain "org"). That's what I meant about "going to the
trouble of setting up name servers to make sure it will work".
At the risk of flogging a dead horse - I have no problem at all with the
idea of one machine serving the domain name and simultaneously serving a
subdomain of that domain. The issue I've actually been concerned with
all along (and clearly haven't been explaining very well) is your
apparent assumption that the name "www.foo.org" is a given and that the
extra trouble is taken to honour "foo.org". To me it's quite possible
and acceptable to view it the other way round, and I still haven't
worked out whether you agree or disagree with that.
It's acceptable, it's possible, and for any organization that had more
than one machine before they decided to put up a web site, it's highly
unlikely to be the case.

Any organization that has a domain and multiple machines within it
almost certainly runs their own name server. That means that
"www.foo.org" is host "www" served by foo.org's name server, which is
owned by the Foo entity. Changing records on your own name server is
easy. "foo.org", on the other hand, is the "foo" record on "org"'s
nameserver (actually, one of the root nameservers, which handle the
first level down in the non-country-specific heirarchies). Changing
things there is a bit more hassle, which is why such domain names
tended not to be used as hostnames except for legacy purposes.

[snip]
Post by Mike Barnes
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
I agree that in the large corporate world things probably wouldn't
be done like that, but the large corporate world isn't the only
world.
Sure, but if it wasn't for the large corporations (and universitites
and other entities that already had established internal networks
before bringing up external-facing web sites) doing this, people
would never have internalized the notion that they should expect it.
I'm not sure what you mean by that last "it".
That specifying a hostname of "foo.org" was identical to specifying a
hostname of "www.foo.org".
Post by Mike Barnes
Speaking for myself as a browser user, I've never seen the point of
that "www.",
The point is to specify the machine running the web server that you
want to talk to. Originally, these were simply the preexisting names
of the computers that people brought up web servers on. When
universities and companies started allocating dedicated machines for
the purpose, they initially chose lots of different names (e.g.,
"web", "web-server", "mosaic", "external", "http"). These names
distinguished these particular machines from the hundreds or thousands
of other machines in the domain.

Because it was important to specify the correct machine (or you
wouldn't find a web server), when people started assuming that
organizations had web sites, it was important that they be able to
guess what, e.g., "ford.com"'s web server probably was called, and the
convention was pretty quickly established that it would be "www".

The result of this was that the vast majority of URLs that people saw
began "http://www." and people started thinking of the "www." as part
of the format rather than part of the name. That is, they started
reanalyzing "http://www.foo.org" as

[http://www.][foo.org]

rather than

[http://][www.foo.org]

Since the "http://" part had always been optional, they thought of the
"www." as optional, too, and assumed that "foo.org" should work. And,
since this isn't unreasonable, people who ran web sites went to the
trouble of ensuring that it would.
Post by Mike Barnes
and although I initially suspected that there was some technical
reason for its presence (as well as the history that you've
described), subsequent developments appear to indicate that it was
never really necessary. I don't think that the actions of large
corporations and universities had any influence on my thinking.
Sure they did. If "sears.com" and "mit.edu" and "times.co.uk" and the
like hadn't been kludged to work, you never would have come to the
expectation that the web site hostname would be the domain name rather
than the name of a specific machine in the domain.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If I may digress momentarily from
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |the mainstream of this evening's
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |symposium, I'd like to sing a song
|which is completely pointless.
***@hpl.hp.com | Tom Lehrer
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Robert Bannister
2008-08-27 01:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
There seems to be a common misconception that the "www." is always
part of the URL, and need not be specified.
Bizarre. I take no heed of whether "www." is specified or not. I
type it in only if I find that the URL doesn't work without it. It's
*very* rarely necessary.
This is a good example of both a self-fulfilling prophecy and the
Principle of Least Astonishment. Nothing in the specifications says
it should work, but because so many people expect it to, people who
run web sites go to the trouble of setting up their name servers to
make sure it will.
This is true, but it is also the case that browsers have been able to
insert the http:// and the www all by themselves for a long time now.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
2008-08-27 03:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
There seems to be a common misconception that the "www." is always
part of the URL, and need not be specified.
Bizarre. I take no heed of whether "www." is specified or not. I
type it in only if I find that the URL doesn't work without it. It's
*very* rarely necessary.
This is a good example of both a self-fulfilling prophecy and the
Principle of Least Astonishment. Nothing in the specifications says
it should work, but because so many people expect it to, people who
run web sites go to the trouble of setting up their name servers to
make sure it will.
This is true, but it is also the case that browsers have been able to
insert the http:// and the www all by themselves for a long time now.
Even when doing so results in an incorrect address (as it would have when I had
my personal homepage at Sprint)?...r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
unknown
2008-08-27 04:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
There seems to be a common misconception that the "www." is always
part of the URL, and need not be specified.
Bizarre. I take no heed of whether "www." is specified or not. I
type it in only if I find that the URL doesn't work without it. It's
*very* rarely necessary.
This is a good example of both a self-fulfilling prophecy and the
Principle of Least Astonishment. Nothing in the specifications says
it should work, but because so many people expect it to, people who
run web sites go to the trouble of setting up their name servers to
make sure it will.
I was under the impression that many browsers try both forms. I based
that feeling on slashdot.org, which was deliberately named in such a
way as to prevent the hoi polloi from finding it. It now comes up on
FireFox even with the "www." present. It didn't used to.
--
roses are #FF0000
violets are #0000FF
all my base
are belong to you
Mike Barnes
2008-08-27 07:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
There seems to be a common misconception that the "www." is always
part of the URL, and need not be specified.
Bizarre. I take no heed of whether "www." is specified or not. I
type it in only if I find that the URL doesn't work without it. It's
*very* rarely necessary.
This is a good example of both a self-fulfilling prophecy and the
Principle of Least Astonishment. Nothing in the specifications says
it should work, but because so many people expect it to, people who
run web sites go to the trouble of setting up their name servers to
make sure it will.
I was under the impression that many browsers try both forms. I based
that feeling on slashdot.org, which was deliberately named in such a
way as to prevent the hoi polloi from finding it. It now comes up on
FireFox even with the "www." present. It didn't used to.
Similarly, but for different reasons, www.groups.google.com used not to
work (it was simply groups.google.com). Browsers could cope with that,
but many people couldn't, so now the "www." form works as well.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Evan Kirshenbaum
2008-08-27 15:13:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Barnes
Post by unknown
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Mike Barnes
There seems to be a common misconception that the "www." is
always part of the URL, and need not be specified.
Bizarre. I take no heed of whether "www." is specified or not. I
type it in only if I find that the URL doesn't work without
it. It's *very* rarely necessary.
This is a good example of both a self-fulfilling prophecy and the
Principle of Least Astonishment. Nothing in the specifications
says it should work, but because so many people expect it to,
people who run web sites go to the trouble of setting up their name
servers to make sure it will.
I was under the impression that many browsers try both forms. I based
that feeling on slashdot.org, which was deliberately named in such a
way as to prevent the hoi polloi from finding it. It now comes up on
FireFox even with the "www." present. It didn't used to.
Similarly, but for different reasons, www.groups.google.com used not to
work (it was simply groups.google.com). Browsers could cope with that,
but many people couldn't, so now the "www." form works as well.
For both of those, DNS reports addresses (almost certainly from the
same pool) both with and without the "www", so it's probably not the
browser doing it in these cases.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this: if enough people get together
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take
|something and not pay for it.
***@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Robert Bannister
2008-08-27 01:29:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Barnes
Post by unknown
There seems to be a
common misconception that the "www." is always part of the URL, and
need not be specified.
Bizarre. I take no heed of whether "www." is specified or not. I type it
in only if I find that the URL doesn't work without it. It's *very*
rarely necessary.
Precisely. Most browsers will automatically try whichever one works, and
they've been doing this for ages.
--
Rob Bannister
Mike Barnes
2008-08-25 17:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten
end the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
For me the series started in twenty-hundred. I spoke of it in this
group, some ten or more years ago.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Philip Eden
2008-08-25 17:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Barnes
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten
end the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
For me the series started in twenty-hundred. I spoke of it in this
group, some ten or more years ago.
Ditto

pe
Pat Durkin
2008-08-25 20:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve
in the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be
twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten
end the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
No idea. But I just recalled having heard only yesterday: "Twenty O O"
for 2000. I don't recall having heard that option here when we turned
the century.
R H Draney
2008-08-25 21:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Durkin
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve
in the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be
twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten
end the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
No idea. But I just recalled having heard only yesterday: "Twenty O O"
for 2000. I don't recall having heard that option here when we turned
the century.
By that time it was at least a year too late....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
2008-08-25 21:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Pat Durkin
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve
in the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be
twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten
end the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
No idea. But I just recalled having heard only yesterday: "Twenty O O"
for 2000. I don't recall having heard that option here when we turned
the century.
By that time it was at least a year too late....r
Uh oh.

Bait alert! Bait Alert!

Swim round it.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Philip Eden
2008-08-25 22:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Pat Durkin
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve
in the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be
twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten
end the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
No idea. But I just recalled having heard only yesterday: "Twenty O O"
for 2000. I don't recall having heard that option here when we turned
the century.
By that time it was at least a year too late....r
Been there; done that.

pe
R H Draney
2008-08-25 22:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Philip Eden
Post by R H Draney
Post by Pat Durkin
No idea. But I just recalled having heard only yesterday: "Twenty O O"
for 2000. I don't recall having heard that option here when we turned
the century.
By that time it was at least a year too late....r
Been there; done that.
Sometimes you people can be no fun at all....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Chuck Riggs
2008-08-26 15:31:07 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:22:37 +0200, Isabelle Cecchini
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
Twenty-ten, I imagine. (We didn't say nineteen hundred and ten, did
we?)
--
Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
2008-08-26 16:22:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:31:07 +0100, Chuck Riggs
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:22:37 +0200, Isabelle Cecchini
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
Twenty-ten, I imagine. (We didn't say nineteen hundred and ten, did
we?)
I didn't, but I wasn't around 100+ years ago.

This is just to make the point that how we might say 1910 now is
not necessarily the same as it was said then.

A tangential thought:

I have little trouble saying "nineteen hundred" and "twenty-one
hundred" but balk at "twenty hundred". The latter doesn't seem
to flow easily.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
R H Draney
2008-08-26 17:29:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:31:07 +0100, Chuck Riggs
Post by Chuck Riggs
Twenty-ten, I imagine. (We didn't say nineteen hundred and ten, did
we?)
I didn't, but I wasn't around 100+ years ago.
This is just to make the point that how we might say 1910 now is
not necessarily the same as it was said then.
How about splitting the difference, chronologically-speakingwise?...in 1969, a
song in an episode of "H R Pufnstuf" included the verse:

I can't figure out what's the matter with men.
My phone hasn't rung since nineteen-ten.
Not even a wrong number every now and then.
I'm the loneliest witch in town.
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I have little trouble saying "nineteen hundred" and "twenty-one
hundred" but balk at "twenty hundred". The latter doesn't seem
to flow easily.
It's the sequence of number words ending in zero that bothers you, isn't
it?...did you see the "Million Dollar Mermaid" poster that Nobuko recently
linked to?...the number "one million" is rendered in kanji as "hundred,
ten-thousand", which is perfectly normal for Japanese numbers....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Evan Kirshenbaum
2008-08-26 18:07:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:31:07 +0100, Chuck Riggs
Post by Chuck Riggs
Twenty-ten, I imagine. (We didn't say nineteen hundred and ten, did
we?)
I didn't, but I wasn't around 100+ years ago.
This is just to make the point that how we might say 1910 now is
not necessarily the same as it was said then.
How about splitting the difference,
chronologically-speakingwise?...in 1969, a song in an episode of "H
I can't figure out what's the matter with men.
My phone hasn't rung since nineteen-ten.
Not even a wrong number every now and then.
I'm the loneliest witch in town.
On the other hand, I see both "nineteen eight" and "nineteen aught
eight" (from different people) in the same piece in the _NY Times_ in
January, 1908, so it seems likely that we don't say 1908 now the way
they said it then. "Nineteen-eight" shows up earlier, too:

How we'd rejoice in nineteen-eight
Electing a Triumvirate
To rule the land--Fairbanks and Taft
And Root-Roosevelt abaft! [8/2/1907]

The earliest in this form that I see in the _NY Times_ is

Old Æsop wrote a Fable,
And little did he ken
That it would be
in Nineteen-Three
As up-to-date as then [5/17/1903]

(Of course, poetry's not the best example, but it's pretty much the
only way you're likely to see it spelled out if it's *not* an unusual
pronunciation. Normally, they'd just write, e.g., "1903".)

Looking at Google Books, I see that the copyright date of William Reed
Hopper Dunroy's _Tumbleweeds_ is given as "NINETEEN ONE".

On the other hand, I see "Nineteen-O-Eight" (in reference to the
incoming class at Columbia University), in 1904. But that's the only
"nineteen-o" reference I see in the _NY Times_ from the decade. In
Google Books, I see

Wishing one and all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, hoping
to see everyone out in nineteen oh nine, with an up-to-date OH Are
Tea card.[1]

_The Railroad Telegrapher_, 1908

but that's all.

[1] "Order of Railroad Telegraphers".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not to fall into Spooner's trap
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring
|bankers.
***@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum
2008-08-26 21:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
On the other hand, I see both "nineteen eight" and "nineteen aught
eight" (from different people) in the same piece in the _NY Times_ in
January, 1908, so it seems likely that we don't say 1908 now the way
When checking to see how they did it a century earlier (apparently
"eighteen hundred and eight", less often without "and"), I came across
an indication that the date of the turn of that century was no less
contentious:

Art. 35. _Etiologia; or, an _Answer to the Question, When does the
Nineteenth Century Commence? 8vo. 43 pp. 1s. Johnson. 1800

Whether this pamphlet has, or has not, had much influence in
settling the great dispute on the topic mentioned in its title, we
know not; but it seems to us to place it inmany instances, in a
very good light.

_The British Critic_, 1801
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Usenet is like Tetris for people
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |who still remember how to read.
Palo Alto, CA 94304

***@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
CDB
2008-08-26 21:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:31:07 +0100, Chuck Riggs
Post by Chuck Riggs
Twenty-ten, I imagine. (We didn't say nineteen hundred and ten,
did we?)
I didn't, but I wasn't around 100+ years ago.
This is just to make the point that how we might say 1910 now is
not necessarily the same as it was said then.
How about splitting the difference,
chronologically-speakingwise?...in 1969, a song in an episode of "H
I can't figure out what's the matter with men.
My phone hasn't rung since nineteen-ten.
Not even a wrong number every now and then.
I'm the loneliest witch in town.
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I have little trouble saying "nineteen hundred" and "twenty-one
hundred" but balk at "twenty hundred". The latter doesn't seem
to flow easily.
It's the sequence of number words ending in zero that bothers you,
isn't it?...did you see the "Million Dollar Mermaid" poster that
Nobuko recently linked to?...the number "one million" is rendered
in kanji as "hundred, ten-thousand", which is perfectly normal for
Japanese numbers....r
Chinese too. "Millionaire", IIRC, is "baiwan lao weng",
hundred-tenthousand old boy. But ITWM "hundred myriad".

The character she drew attention to is interesting. The Japanese may
have borrowed it from the Chinese character-list because of its
resemblance to $, but in Chinese it's a literary word (fú) meaning
"not" (according to my dictionary), and a phonetic element (fu, fo).
unknown
2008-08-27 04:31:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:31:07 +0100, Chuck Riggs
Post by Chuck Riggs
Twenty-ten, I imagine. (We didn't say nineteen hundred and ten, did
we?)
I didn't, but I wasn't around 100+ years ago.
This is just to make the point that how we might say 1910 now is
not necessarily the same as it was said then.
How about splitting the difference, chronologically-speakingwise?...in 1969, a
I can't figure out what's the matter with men.
My phone hasn't rung since nineteen-ten.
Not even a wrong number every now and then.
I'm the loneliest witch in town.
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I have little trouble saying "nineteen hundred" and "twenty-one
hundred" but balk at "twenty hundred". The latter doesn't seem
to flow easily.
It's the sequence of number words ending in zero that bothers you, isn't
it?...did you see the "Million Dollar Mermaid" poster that Nobuko recently
linked to?...the number "one million" is rendered in kanji as "hundred,
ten-thousand", which is perfectly normal for Japanese numbers....r
How very French of them. "Four twenty ten nine".
--
roses are #FF0000
violets are #0000FF
all my base
are belong to you
R H Draney
2008-08-27 06:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
Post by R H Draney
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I have little trouble saying "nineteen hundred" and "twenty-one
hundred" but balk at "twenty hundred". The latter doesn't seem
to flow easily.
It's the sequence of number words ending in zero that bothers you, isn't
it?...did you see the "Million Dollar Mermaid" poster that Nobuko recently
linked to?...the number "one million" is rendered in kanji as "hundred,
ten-thousand", which is perfectly normal for Japanese numbers....r
How very French of them. "Four twenty ten nine".
99 is considered a "white" number in Japanese (the character for "one hundred",
with the single stroke that means "one" deleted, leaves the character meaning
"white")....

For those wondering how the "million" business works, the Japanese (and the
Chinese as well, I'm led to believe) break up large numbers into groups of four
digits instead of three...there's a separate and independent word for "one",
"ten", "hundred", "thousand" and "ten thousand"..."one hundred thousand" is
rendered as "ten ten-thousands", "one million" as "hundred ten-thousands", "ten
million" as "thousand ten-thousands"...then there's another new word for
"hundred million" which gets the "ten", "hundred" and "thousand" prefixes as
subsequent powers of ten are needed, and yet another new word for "trillion"....

An advantage of this over the Western system is that new number-words are needed
less frequently, allowing Japanese to express much larger quantities with fewer
unique names....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Don Aitken
2008-08-27 12:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by unknown
Post by R H Draney
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I have little trouble saying "nineteen hundred" and "twenty-one
hundred" but balk at "twenty hundred". The latter doesn't seem
to flow easily.
It's the sequence of number words ending in zero that bothers you, isn't
it?...did you see the "Million Dollar Mermaid" poster that Nobuko recently
linked to?...the number "one million" is rendered in kanji as "hundred,
ten-thousand", which is perfectly normal for Japanese numbers....r
How very French of them. "Four twenty ten nine".
99 is considered a "white" number in Japanese (the character for "one hundred",
with the single stroke that means "one" deleted, leaves the character meaning
"white")....
For those wondering how the "million" business works, the Japanese (and the
Chinese as well, I'm led to believe) break up large numbers into groups of four
digits instead of three...there's a separate and independent word for "one",
"ten", "hundred", "thousand" and "ten thousand"..."one hundred thousand" is
rendered as "ten ten-thousands", "one million" as "hundred ten-thousands", "ten
million" as "thousand ten-thousands"...then there's another new word for
"hundred million" which gets the "ten", "hundred" and "thousand" prefixes as
subsequent powers of ten are needed, and yet another new word for "trillion"....
An advantage of this over the Western system is that new number-words are needed
less frequently, allowing Japanese to express much larger quantities with fewer
unique names....r
Then there is the Indian system, where it goes down from three digits
to two when you get above tens of thousands, so you get numbers like
10,00,00,000. A hundred thousand is "one lakh" and ten million is "one
crore"; they don't use millions. This system, which is very ancient,
is still in general use. I don't know how they deal with even larger
numbers, but I'm sure they have a way; Hindu mathematicians were
handling really large numbers long before the West.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
the Omrud
2008-08-27 13:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Then there is the Indian system, where it goes down from three digits
to two when you get above tens of thousands, so you get numbers like
10,00,00,000. A hundred thousand is "one lakh" and ten million is "one
crore"; they don't use millions. This system, which is very ancient,
is still in general use. I don't know how they deal with even larger
numbers, but I'm sure they have a way; Hindu mathematicians were
handling really large numbers long before the West.
Then there's the Triganic Pu, subdivided into eight Ningis. The Ningi is
a "triangular rubber coin six thousand eight hundred miles a side" and
hence nobody has ever owned enough Ningis to own one Pu.
--
David
Mark Brader
2008-08-27 16:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Then there is the Indian system, where it goes down from three digits
to two when you get above tens of thousands, so you get numbers like
10,00,00,000. A hundred thousand is "one lakh" and ten million is "one
crore"; they don't use millions. This system, which is very ancient,
is still in general use. I don't know how they deal with even larger
numbers, but I'm sure they have a way; Hindu mathematicians were
handling really large numbers long before the West.
There's a further series of words increasing by a factor of 100 each time.
Wikipedia claims that they are not often used and lakh and crore are more
often just used in combination.
--
Mark Brader "I suppose that the distances from us [to the
Toronto stars] vary so much that some are two or three
***@vex.net times as remote as others." -- Galileo
Chuck Riggs
2008-08-27 13:59:43 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:22:22 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:31:07 +0100, Chuck Riggs
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:22:37 +0200, Isabelle Cecchini
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
Twenty-ten, I imagine. (We didn't say nineteen hundred and ten, did
we?)
I didn't, but I wasn't around 100+ years ago.
This is just to make the point that how we might say 1910 now is
not necessarily the same as it was said then.
I have little trouble saying "nineteen hundred" and "twenty-one
hundred" but balk at "twenty hundred". The latter doesn't seem
to flow easily.
I agree, as I probably did in 1999, for I remember this discussion
turned into a long AUE thread about that time.
--
Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Robert Bannister
2008-08-27 01:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:22:37 +0200, Isabelle Cecchini
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
Twenty-ten, I imagine. (We didn't say nineteen hundred and ten, did
we?)
Depends on who "we" are. We BrE speakers did and do.
--
Rob Bannister
Chuck Riggs
2008-08-27 14:08:06 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:33:39 +0800, Robert Bannister
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:22:37 +0200, Isabelle Cecchini
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
Twenty-ten, I imagine. (We didn't say nineteen hundred and ten, did
we?)
Depends on who "we" are. We BrE speakers did and do.
Not in any British film I can remember. Would the Web back you up,
Rob?
--
Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
far
2008-08-26 20:11:53 UTC
Permalink
On Aug 25, 6:22 pm, Isabelle Cecchini
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
--
Isabelle Cecchini
The year two thousand and ten , I believe is the right choice.

Farnoosh
pritsy
2008-08-26 23:57:23 UTC
Permalink
"far" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0e6f9bde-b599-4ca5-87c4-***@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 25, 6:22 pm, Isabelle Cecchini
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
With all the talk about the Olympics, it now seems obvious to us lowly
foreigners that 2012 is, and is going to be, pronounced twenty-twelve in
the English-speaking world. I presume that 2011 will be twenty-eleven.
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
--
Isabelle Cecchini
The year two thousand and ten , I believe is the right choice.

Or two thousand ten, in Westpondian.

However, I think that the winner will be the one with the fewest syllables:
twenty ten over two thousand ten, twenty thirty over two thousand thirty.
The reason we say two thousand eight is that twentyeight was already taken.
We will have the same problem in the year 3000. Sigh!
R H Draney
2008-08-27 00:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by far
Post by Isabelle Cecchini
But what about 2010? Twenty-ten? or two thousand (and) ten? Does ten end
the series begun with one, or does it mark a new beginning?
The year two thousand and ten , I believe is the right choice.
Or two thousand ten, in Westpondian.
twenty ten over two thousand ten, twenty thirty over two thousand thirty.
The reason we say two thousand eight is that twentyeight was already taken.
We will have the same problem in the year 3000. Sigh!
*We* won't, but someone else will....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Evan Kirshenbaum
2008-08-27 00:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by pritsy
However, I think that the winner will be the one with the fewest
syllables: twenty ten over two thousand ten, twenty thirty over two
thousand thirty. The reason we say two thousand eight is that
twentyeight was already taken. We will have the same problem in the
year 3000.
Actually sooner. If 1901 was pronounced "nineteen one" (as,
apparently, it was), then there's a possibility that 2101 will be
"twenty-one one". But it's not likely. I think that with telephone
numbers and citywide house numbering (which was still new and not that
widespread then), we're far more used to reading numbers with zeros in
them than people were back then.
Post by R H Draney
Sigh!
*We* won't, but someone else will....r
I'm planning on sticking around.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There are two types of people -
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |those who are one of the two types
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |of people, and those who are not.
| Leigh Blue Caldwell
***@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Cece
2008-08-27 15:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by pritsy
However, I think that the winner will be the one with the fewest
syllables: twenty ten over two thousand ten, twenty thirty over two
thousand thirty.  The reason we say two thousand eight is that
twentyeight was already taken. We will have the same problem in the
year 3000.
Actually sooner.  If 1901 was pronounced "nineteen one" (as,
apparently, it was), then there's a possibility that 2101 will be
"twenty-one one".  But it's not likely.  I think that with telephone
numbers and citywide house numbering (which was still new and not that
widespread then), we're far more used to reading numbers with zeros in
them than people were back then.
Post by R H Draney
Sigh!
*We* won't, but someone else will....r
I'm planning on sticking around.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
    HP Laboratories                    |There are two types of people -
    1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |those who are one of the two types
    Palo Alto, CA  94304               |of people, and those who are not.
                                       |           Leigh Blue Caldwell
    (650)857-7572
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Until recently, I knew people who gave their birth years as "nineteen
oh two," "nineteen oh three," and "nineteen oh seven." They'd mention
the date of their parents' marriage: "nineteen hundred." Now, "two
thousand" worked better than "twenty hundred," but on January 1, 2001,
I began saying "twenty oh one."

On the other hand, there's a furniture store with TV ads about their
interest-free time-purchases until "two thousand and thirteen." (This
is not the same furniture store that used to have ads about their
wonderful bedroom "[suts]." That's the one that changed from [swits].)
Evan Kirshenbaum
2008-08-27 16:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cece
Actually sooner.  If 1901 was pronounced "nineteen one" (as,
apparently, it was), then there's a possibility that 2101 will be
"twenty-one one".  But it's not likely.  I think that with
telephone numbers and citywide house numbering (which was still new
and not that widespread then), we're far more used to reading
numbers with zeros in them than people were back then.
Until recently, I knew people who gave their birth years as
"nineteen oh two," "nineteen oh three," and "nineteen oh seven."
I wonder if they always did that or if they gave it as "nineteen two",
"nineteen three", and "nineteen seven" when they were young. And, if
so, when they switched.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Politicians are like compost--they
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |should be turned often or they start
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to smell bad.

***@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
R H Draney
2008-08-27 20:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Cece
Until recently, I knew people who gave their birth years as
"nineteen oh two," "nineteen oh three," and "nineteen oh seven."
I wonder if they always did that or if they gave it as "nineteen two",
"nineteen three", and "nineteen seven" when they were young. And, if
so, when they switched.
Could have been some time in the nineteen and thirties....r
--
Evelyn Wood just looks at the pictures.
Don Aitken
2008-08-27 21:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Cece
Until recently, I knew people who gave their birth years as
"nineteen oh two," "nineteen oh three," and "nineteen oh seven."
I wonder if they always did that or if they gave it as "nineteen two",
"nineteen three", and "nineteen seven" when they were young. And, if
so, when they switched.
Could have been some time in the nineteen and thirties....r
The only person I have ever heard who says that is Bob Dylan, in his
radio series. He doesn't *always* put in the "and", but he does it
more often than not.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
CDB
2008-08-27 21:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Cece
Until recently, I knew people who gave their birth years as
"nineteen oh two," "nineteen oh three," and "nineteen oh seven."
I wonder if they always did that or if they gave it as "nineteen two",
If they didn't, they ought two.
Post by R H Draney
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
"nineteen three", and "nineteen seven" when they were young.
And, if so, when they switched.
Could have been some time in the nineteen and thirties....r
In the U.S. and A.

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...