2009

mrsl · Post by **mrsl** » December 31st, 2008, 1:14 pm

This is just something that's been bugging me since New Years Eve of 2001, and I would love to hear from some of you if you think like I do. When I say bugging me, I really mean it makes me want to screech.

I was born, January, Nineteen, forty-five. I was not born January, One Thousand, nine hundred, and forty-five. We went through the seventeen hundreds, the eighteen hundreds, and the nineteen hundreds, so why is tomorrow not going to be twenty, oh, nine? I've been saying twenty, oh since 2001 and people look at me like I'm from Mars, then they have to absorb what I'm saying.

The year 2000 was understandable because there is no other way to say it. Even when we talk about the Viking wars in the tenth century, we say ten, oh 6, or whatever. Radio and TV, movie trailers, and all other announcers refer to this twenty second century as the years of two thousand seven or eight, etc. When do you think it will become twenty something, or will we always be saying two thousand, forty five, or later two thousand, one hundred and forty five, etc.?

** ** ** See you in Twenty Oh Nine!!! ** ** ** **

These are the nutsy things I think of when I don't have anything to do. Christmas is over so all my orders are shipped and when I watch TV, I'm daydreaming and thinking these crazy thoughts.

Anne

jdb1 · Post by **jdb1** » December 31st, 2008, 2:09 pm

I'm with you, Anne.

In fact, I can recall discussions on this very topic that we had when I was younger. How would we designate the years in our new century?

I don't get this "two thousand nine" thing. If someone in Brooklyn lives at 2009 Bay Parkway, we don't say "he lives at two thousand nine," we say "he lives at twenty-oh-nine."

I think this way of saying the years stems, at least in part, from the movie 2001, which was always referred to as "Two Thousand One" to emphasize the Twenty-First Century connection. This movie takes place in the "two thousands," not the "nineteen hundreds." People became used to designating the new century in that way long before the century arrived.

srowley75 · Post by **srowley75** » December 31st, 2008, 2:23 pm

We could designate the year in Jethro Bodine style: "Twenty Naught Nine."

-Stephen

bryce · Post by **bryce** » December 31st, 2008, 6:29 pm

There are better things worth caring about... like moving election day to July!

mrsl · Post by **mrsl** » January 1st, 2009, 1:19 am

I agree Bryce but this is the holiday season, you gotta lighten up a little and have a little fun. I would rather think about silly stuff right now after months and years of chagrin over Dubya, months of discussing the election, and now with our governor in more hot soup . . . at least I'm not going to bite my fingernails off worrying about how people say the year.

Anne

bryce · Post by **bryce** » January 1st, 2009, 12:40 pm

Oh, I was having fun! I suppose that was the driest of dry jokes I could have made. It was just some friendly ribbing in Judith's direction which I fully expect back in kind, probably something along the lines of "Yes, Bryce, there are more important things worth caring about... oh wait, you don't care about anything!" regarding my views on politics.

January 1st, 2009, 12:49 pm

Dear folks at SSO,
I just wanted to say Happy New Year to everyone!
Lookin' fine in 2009!

silentscreen · Post by **silentscreen** » January 1st, 2009, 3:00 pm

A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE! From my point of view, I hope this one is better.

Moraldo Rubini · Post by **Moraldo Rubini** » January 1st, 2009, 11:39 pm

silentscreen wrote:A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE! From my point of view, I hope this one is better.

No kidding! What a rough, traumatic year. So glad to see 2008 walk out that door, and watch 20-oh-9 march in. Happy new year!

vallo · Post by **vallo** » January 2nd, 2009, 7:48 am

I couldn't agree about getting out of 2008, it wasn't a banner year for me. But 2009 has promise. Happy New Year everyone, Hope it's Happy and Healthy and Classic...

Bill

jdb1 · Post by **jdb1** » January 2nd, 2009, 10:20 am

bryce wrote:Oh, I was having fun! I suppose that was the driest of dry jokes I could have made. It was just some friendly ribbing in Judith's direction which I fully expect back in kind, probably something along the lines of "Yes, Bryce, there are more important things worth caring about... oh wait, you don't care about anything!" regarding my views on politics.

Bryce, my friend, I wish you health, happiness and lots of cuddly puppies in the coming year, however we designate it.

Synnove · Post by **Synnove** » January 2nd, 2009, 10:37 am

That's interesting, I hadn't thought about that so much but I remember the discussions at the turn of the century. Here, I hear people say both. I know my grandfather was very vehement about it being the twenty-hundreds.

English is a beautiful language which is much richer than mine. There's just one thing that bothers not only me, but a lot of other children trying to learn English: that you call the 1600s the 17th century and the 1800s the 19th century and so on. It doesn't matter to me how many times you rationalize this. For me it will never entirely make sense.

Oh well. Happy New Year everyone. I wish you all the best for twenty-o-nine!

jdb1 · Post by **jdb1** » January 2nd, 2009, 12:50 pm

So what do you in Sweden say for the 1600s - do you call it the 16th Century? But it isn't, you know. Those years are the seventeenth group of hundreds, by modern (i.e., not ancient) time reckoning. Everyone tends to forget about those wonderful years from AD 1 (or maybe AD 0) to 100 -- that was the 1st Century. So years 101, 102, 103, etc. are in the 2nd Century, and so on. I find this century time counting even more confusing in the BC years. Then you have to do it backwards.

It's all very arbitrary anyway -- why do we have to think in terms of decades, or centuries? Human life doesn't generally fall into those timespans. The concept of the generation makes more sense to me. But that requires an agreed-upon timeframe for a generation. When I was in school, we were taught that a generation meant 33 years. Does it still, now that life expectancy is, at least theoretically, longer?

Synnove · Post by **Synnove** » January 2nd, 2009, 2:55 pm

jdb1 wrote:So what do you in Sweden say for the 1600s - do you call it the 16th Century? But it isn't, you know. Those years are the seventeenth group of hundreds, by modern (i.e., not ancient) time reckoning. Everyone tends to forget about those wonderful years from AD 1 (or maybe AD 0) to 100 -- that was the 1st Century. So years 101, 102, 103, etc. are in the 2nd Century, and so on. I find this century time counting even more confusing in the BC years. Then you have to do it backwards.

We just call it the 1600's. There's nothing wrong with the English way of saying it at all, of course it makes perfect sense. In this case it's our language that's lacking. It's just one of those differences that throws me off the loop. I read one thing and think of one particular time period and sometimes don't discover my mistake until a while later. Considering most of my course books are in English it can be a problem. That has more to do with how inflexibile my mind is than with anything else though.

I just thought, as long as we're talking minor annoyances with counting years. Anyway, Re. 2009, I don't know. Maybe people think it sounds like it has more gravitas? Maybe it's easier to say nineteen-o-nine than twenty-o-nine because nineteen ends with a consonant? There are probably many nonsensical explanations. I guess one will have to google it.

Post by **movieman1957** » January 2nd, 2009, 3:25 pm

I think it mostly has to do with the way it sounds. Two Thousand Nine must have a better tone than Twenty-0-Nine.

I think some of that will change at 2010. At least we have a year to work on it.

The Silver Screen Oasis

The Silver Screen Oasis

2009

2009