Future Tense – Production Notes

ABC Radio National

Future Tense           

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact

What year is this?

Author: RNFutureTense

 

We got the following email from Val Sherwell about the way the year 2010 should be pronounced…

 Dear Anthony

I have got you in my sights; nothing I might say about the quality of your program which is always interesting, but because you refer to the year as ‘Two thousand and ten’.  Why on earth anyone would use that long-winded expression is beyond me. Never before, ever, has the year not been expressed in a neat fashion like 1920, 1500.  So why not twenty ten?  I have addressed several people on RN about this, and thankfully they have dropped the ‘two thousand and blah blah’, though I am sure this is not because I was the only one who wrote about it.  Thank you.  Maybe next week it will be twenty ten, one can only hope.

 A good question. And here was my response…

Val,

Okay, now I have some time for a decent reply. By the way, you are in fact the only person who has raised this with me.

I wasn’t actually aware that I expressed the year in the way that you described, but there we are. That said, on reflection I think it’s not a bad way to describe it.

I would argue that there was a change in the naming  convention at the beginning of this century (actually in the final year of last century to be accurate, ie: the year 2000). 

Throughout this first decade of the 21st Century there was near universal acceptance of the longer form of description, ie: it was commonplace to describe 2008 as ‘two-thousand and eight’, not ‘twenty-o-eight’. Even the year 2000 was described in this way, never as ‘twenty-hundred’.

This was very different (as you point out) from past centuries, where for instance 1908 was universally described as ‘nineteen-o-eight’ and the year 1900 as ‘nineteen hundred’.  So in a sense my usage of ‘two-thousand and ten’ could be argued to be more consistent than ‘twenty ten’.

I am also a believer in the idea that we should, by and large, follow common discourse and I think most ordinary people say ‘two thousand and ten’. Though I stand to be corrected and certainly wouldn’t die in a ditch over it. Will also have to check what the ABC style-guide says.

 Cheers Antony

 And Val’s response to my response…

Sure.  I think the two thousand and ….. came about because somehow twenty whatever is difficult when you have another nought in front of the 20.  However, having said ,that once you get to a whole number, i.e. 10 it is much easier, neater and closer to our historical way of expressing the year.

I hear lots of people using ‘twenty ten’, and many using what I call the long-winded way.  As you say, what it really matters is a row of beans.  Wonder what your blog readers will think.  Let me know as I do not waste time on blogs, too too busy reading silly jokes!

Your thoughts?

 

This entry was posted on Friday, February 12th, 2010 at 3:15 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “What year is this?”

February 13th, 2010 at 5:21 pm

Robert Green says:

I think the ‘two thousand and…’ is better whilst the second part starts with a vowel (i.e. ‘twenty-o-eight’) simply due to the fact that twenty has a phonetic vowel at its end and the two conjoined are awkward to enunciate. ‘Twenty-o-eight’ simply doesn’t roll off the tongue!

In the previous millennium the first part finished in a phonetic consonant and therefore made enunciation much easier (e.g. ‘fourteen eleven’).

So maybe there will be a change from the previous decade’s common discourse. I personally think that ‘two thousand and ten’ is not that tortuous to say and the alternative is maybe simply another example of society becoming lazy with its language.

February 16th, 2010 at 10:10 am

RNFutureTense says:

Checked with the ABC bods responsible for our style and pronunciation guides, they say ‘Twenty-ten’ is the ABC-endorsed pronunciation.

February 17th, 2010 at 10:59 am

RNFutureTense says:

Here it is – the determination from SCOSE – the ABC’s ‘Standing Committee On Spoken English’.

SCOSE guidance on the issue:

“2010 twenty ten
Twenty ten is better than two thousand and ten. Subsequent dates should follow the same pattern.”

What do you think?

March 16th, 2010 at 7:10 pm

Vaudy Peng says:

Twentyten may be consistent but what value consistency? it is after all just a shorthand like writing BBQ. The long way is more comunicative. In Indonesia I found it conceptually hard to get used to saying nineteen thousand and ninety five ( sembilanbelas ribu sembilanpuluh lima) as is their convention. Although had no trouble if that figure was a cost in currency. So used to a meaningless 2×2 digit code that the whole-number meaning is lost. To retain meaning a diversity of expressions should be ok. The thing signified stays fixed. As with the time: 9 pm, nine o clock in the evening or 2100 EST.

Leave a Reply

  • Recent posts

    • The book that changed my way of thinking…
    • How to write about science…
    • 2013 season kicks off
    • 1593
    • Christmas/New Year listening on Future Tense…
    • Big Ideas – my speech to the VITTA Conf on education
    • Launch photos
    • “The Future and Related Nonsense”
    • My responses to Booktopia’s “Ten Terrifying Questions”
    • “The Future and Related Nonsense”
  • Categories

    • Agriculture (1)
    • Audio (7)
    • Digital media (4)
    • Education (4)
    • Environment (2)
    • Finance (1)
    • Future Tense book (8)
    • geoengineering (1)
    • GoMA Talks (3)
    • Information (27)
    • Innovation (2)
    • International politics (1)
    • Listeners (2)
    • Metrics (1)
    • Podcasts (2)
    • Politics (1)
    • Program information (30)
    • Public events (2)
    • Robots (1)
    • Science (10)
    • Science Fiction (16)
    • Social Media (4)
    • Space (3)
    • Uncategorized (17)
    • Upcoming stories (7)
    • Update on story we've covered (4)
    • World Wide Web (2)
  • Archives

    • March 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • December 2011
    • October 2011
    • April 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
  • Subscribe

    • Blog RSS 2.0 feed
    • Full program podcast
    • Separate stories podcasts
    • Program RSS 2.0 feed
  • Find us here too

    •      
  • Contributors

    • Andrew Davies

Copyright © 2013 - Future Tense – Production Notes | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)