British English 2010

[Rachel Adams]

Hello,

Which is a more common way of saying 2010 two thousand and ten or twenty ten?

 

[emsr2d2]

Re: Bitish English 2010

Hello.

Which is [STRIKE]a[/STRIKE] the more common way of saying 2010 - "two thousand and ten" or "twenty ten"?

I don't think either one is more common than the other. It's just personal choice.

There is a spelling error in your title.

 

[jutfrank]

Re: Bitish English 2010

It's hard to know for sure. I would guess twenty ten.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Re: British English 2010

I don't think either one is more common than the other. It's just personal choice.

There is a spelling error in your title.

I will edit it, if you tell me how. I tried, but looks like I can edit my question only. Sorry, for the typo.
Are the examples in bold correct?
The year 1066 ten sixty-six
One thousand and sixty-six

Number- 1066 one thousand and sixty-six/ten sixty-six

The year 1709 seventeen o nine, seventeen hundred and nine
The year 1901 nineteen o one, nineteen hundred and one

 

[Rover_KE]

Re: Bitish English 2010

To amend your title, click on Edit Post and then Go Advanced.

 

[GoesStation]

Re: British English 2010

Are the examples in bold correct?
The year 1066 ten sixty-six:tick:
One thousand and sixty-six:cross:

Number- 1066 one thousand and sixty-six:tick:/ten sixty-six:cross:

The year 1709 seventeen o nine:tick:, seventeen hundred and nine:tick:
The year 1901 nineteen o one:tick:, nineteen hundred and one:tick:

1066 is a significant and well-known year in British history, so the spoken ten sixty-six is rather a fixed phrase in British English and for other Anglophones aware of British history.

 

[Tdol]

Which is a more common way of saying 2010 two thousand and ten or twenty ten?

I hear both in British English.

 

[Rachel Adams]

I hear both in British English.

I mean would native speakers (BrE) use them interchangeably to talk about numbers? Ten sixty-six books, for example. I read many examples, so I am not asking anymore if the year 1066 can be proounced as one thousand and sixty-six. The answer is -No!

 

[Rachel Adams]

Re: Bitish English 2010

I don't think either one is more common than the other. It's just personal choice.

There is a spelling error in your title.

Is the year 2010 an exeption? Why can it be pronounced as ''two thousand and ten'' or as ''twenty ten''?

 

[emsr2d2]

Re: Bitish English 2010

It's not an exception. It's the same for each year after 2010 too.

2011 = twenty eleven/two thousand and eleven
2015 = twenty fifteen/two thousand and fifteen

However, the same didn't go for the first nine years of the decade. We didn't say "twenty oh one/two/three" etc. I can't tell you why!

 

[emsr2d2]

I mean would native speakers (BrE) use them interchangeably to talk about numbers? Ten sixty-six books, for example. I read many examples, so I am not asking anymore if the year 1066 can be pronounced as one thousand and sixty-six. The answer is no!

No, if you're talking about a number of things, use the standard way of saying numbers.

"I have a/one thousand and sixty-six books".
"He has two thousand and nineteen pairs of shoes".

 

[Tdol]

I mean would native speakers (BrE) use them interchangeably to talk about numbers? Ten sixty-six books, for example. I read many examples, so I am not asking anymore if the year 1066 can be proounced as one thousand and sixty-six. The answer is -No!

We are, however, dealing with a new set of dates and trying to find the most convenient way of saying them. 1066 is history and we don't have to say it often. We have to use dates for this century all the time, so popularity and usage will determine which form wins out in the end. Before the millennium, when we didn't say 2000+ dates often, we generally used the longer two-thousand-and form, but how often did we have to do that?

 

[Rachel Adams]

Re: Bitish English 2010

It's not an exception. It's the same for each year after 2010 too.

2011 = twenty eleven/two thousand and eleven
2015 = twenty fifteen/two thousand and fifteen

However, the same didn't go for the first nine years of the decade. We didn't say "twenty oh one/two/three" etc. I can't tell you why!

Thank you so much. After posting my question, I came across this rule: for the first years after 2010, you may hear two different versions. 2012 Two thousand and twelve, twenty twelve. Under ''the first years after 2010'', they mean 2011-15 including it, am I right?

 

[emsr2d2]

Re: Bitish English 2010

"The first years" doesn't have a specific meaning. It might depend on when the article you were reading was written. As far as I'm concerned, the rule applies to every year from 2010 onwards, including this year - 2019 can be "twenty nineteen" or "two thousand and nineteen".

 

[Rachel Adams]

Re: Bitish English 2010

"The first years" doesn't have a specific meaning. It might depend on when the article you were reading was written. As far as I'm concerned, the rule applies to every year from 2010 onwards, including this year - 2019 can be "twenty nineteen" or "two thousand and nineteen".

I tried to insert the picture of that rule, but it didn't work.

 

[jutfrank]

Re: Bitish English 2010

However, the same didn't go for the first nine years of the decade. We didn't say "twenty oh one/two/three" etc.

People do say that. I think it's becoming more common, too.

 

[Rover_KE]

Re: Bitish English 2010

We didn't say "twenty oh one/two/three" etc.

I always did, though I was in a very small minority. It seemed more logical, and still does.

People do say that. I think it's becoming more common, too.

That's right. People are saying that when referring back to those years.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Re: Bitish English 2010

At the time I said 'two thousand and three'. When I now refer back to that time, I normally say simply 'oh three'. If I want/need to include the '20', I think I still say 'two thousand'.

Do you mean you pronounce 2003 as simply 'oh three'. You completely omit 'two thousand' if you are refering to those years?

 

[emsr2d2]

Re: Bitish English 2010

Piscean doesn't pronounce 2003 as "oh three" but refers to it as "oh three". As long as the context made it clear that he was talking about a year, we would know what he meant. In the same way, if someone asked me when I was I at secondary school, I'd say "eighty eight to ninety two". Since it's patently obvious that I can't be talking about 1888 to 1892, no one would have trouble realising I mean 1988 to 1992.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Re: Bitish English 2010

Piscean doesn't pronounce 2003 as "oh three" but refers to it as "oh three". As long as the context made it clear that he was talking about a year, we would know what he meant. In the same way, if someone asked me when I was I at secondary school, I'd say "eighty eight to ninety two". Since it's patently obvious that I can't be talking about 1888 to 1892, no one would have trouble realising I mean 1988 to 1992.

I undertsnad now. Thank you. One last question. Why ''eighty eight and ninety two'' are not hyphened?