# EN: two thousand (and) one



## Sese21

Bonjour,
Pourriez-vous me rappeler la règle quand on met two thousand AND one ou quand on ne met pas AND après two thousand?
Merci!


----------



## quinoa

Have a look here.


----------



## CélineK.

If you're speaking correctly, you never say "and" for a whole number.  "Two thousand one" is 2001, as outlined in quinoa's link.  AND is only used for decimals "Two thousand and three tenths" 2000.3  Some people, though, still do say "and" for whole numbers.  You wouldn't be misunderstood if you did.


----------



## geostan

CélineK. said:


> If you're speaking correctly, you never say "and" for a whole number.  "Two thousand one" is 2001, as outlined in quinoa's link.  AND is only used for decimals "Two thousand and three tenths" 2000.3  Some people, though, still do say "and" for whole numbers.  You wouldn't be misunderstood if you did.



I would in this case. Two thousand and one sounds perfectly fine to me.


----------



## radagasty

geostan said:


> I would in this case. Two thousand and one sounds perfectly fine to me.


 
Likewise to me. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that 'two thousand one' sounds wrong. I hadn't realised that this usage was normative in some parts of the world.

The Arabian Nights I would call _One Thousand and One Nights. _Could one really omit the _and_?


----------



## 1mike12

When speaking quickly or scientifically, it is ok to say "two thousand one"

Traditionally, you had to pronounce it "two thounsand and one"


----------



## CélineK.

I disagree; it may be common place to say the 'and', but it's not grammatically, or even traditionally correct.


----------



## Strelitzian

Hello all 

I've never met anyone who hasn't said "and" when quoting a number such as "2001", and to my ears it sounds very strange. 

However, I would omit the "and" when a number follows the "2000" that is, say, three digits, such as "two thousand one hundred", and this follows for most of my peers, although it's not set in stone.

Sometimes, when it comes to talking about the year, something like "two thousand ten" would be spoken aloud as "*twenty* ten". Again, it varies from person to person.


----------



## 1mike12

Again, in US english, there is no difference between the two. It does not sound strange at all saying it either way. It's just quicker to drop the "and"

I have noticed that smaller children say the "And". For instance when they play hide and seek

"one hundred and four, one hundred and five, ready or not, here I come! "

When you are in mathematics, science, or broadcasting, when it is important to speak clearly and succinctly, you omit the "and"

"tangent of one thousand fourty two " tan(1042
"one hundred sixteen kelvin" 116K
"The two thousand eight olympiad in Beijing!"


----------



## theironduck

1mike12 said:


> When you are in mathematics, science, or broadcasting, when it is important to speak clearly and succinctly, you omit the "and"
> 
> "tangent of one thousand fourty two " tan(1042
> "one hundred sixteen kelvin" 116K
> "The two thousand eight olympiad in Beijing!"


 
In British English the examples above would be (most likely):

tan(1042) = "tangent of one thousand AND fourty two" or "one-oh-four-two" or "one-zero-four-two" 
116K = "one hundred AND sixteen kelvin" 
2008 = "two thousand AND eight" or "twenty-oh-eight" (but never "twenty-zero-eight")


----------



## geostan

CélineK. said:


> I disagree; it may be common place to say the 'and', but it's not grammatically, or even traditionally correct.



Not grammatically correct? That's going a bit far. I think I speak proper English, and I never say _two thousand one_. Yet, I don't doubt that there are those who do.


----------



## brian

geostan said:


> Not grammatically correct? That's going a bit far.



Especially considering no sources whatsoever have been provided to back up such a be-all-end-all statement. 

Grammar aside (whatever _that_ means here), the fact is that the use of _and_ is indeed common. I myself use it all the time, though sometimes I don't.

That being said, I will admit that the use of _and_ is indeed a bit arbitrary! Consider the following, where asterisks (*) denote incorrect forms:

(1) we pronounce _28_ as _twenty-eight_ and not *_twenty *and* eight_.

(2) we pronounce _528_ as either _five-hundred twenty-eight_ or _five-hundred *and* twenty-eight_; it cannot be *_five-hundred *and* twenty _(*_and_, (1) above)_ eight_.

(3) we pronounce _7,528_ as _seven-thousand five-hundred twenty eight_ or _seven-thousand five-hundred *and* twenty-eight_, but not *_seven-thousand *and* five-hundred _(*_and_, (2) above)_ twenty _(*_and_, (1) above) _eight_.

(4) we pronounce _2,007,528_ as _two-million seven-thousand five-hundred twenty-eight_ or _two-million seven-thousand five-hundred *and* twenty eight_, but not *_two-million *and* seven-thousand _(*_and_, (3) above) _five-hundred_ (*_and_, (2) above) _twenty_ (*_and_, (1) above) _eight_.

... and so on ...

So it seems the only time you can use _and_ is immediately before numbers of the form (1), along with 1-20 of course, in expressions greater than 100. Why is it that _and_ is acceptable there and not elsewhere? To put it very generally:

. . . _n-trillion n-billion n-million n-thousand n-hundred *and *n-"ty"-n. 

_That is the only place _and_ can go. Pretty odd._
_ 
So, yes, it is a bit arbitrary, and also not really based on any mathematical principle that I can tell - but that does NOT make it ungrammatical!


----------



## berndf

brian said:


> So it seems the only time you can use _and_ is immediately before numbers of the form (1), along with 1-20 of course, in expressions greater than 100. Why is it that _and_ is acceptable there and not elsewhere? To put it very generally:
> 
> . . . _n-trillion n-billion n-million n-thousand n-hundred *and *n-"ty"-n. _
> 
> That is the only place _and_ can go. Pretty odd.
> 
> So, yes, it is a bit arbitrary, and also not really based on any mathematical principle that I can tell - but that does NOT make it ungrammatical!


This is probably a relict from old times. In Old English 28 was pronounced "eahta and twentig" (like in German where you still today say "achtundzwanzig"); the "and" was not optional. And 528 was "fif hund eahta and twentig" (again like in Modern German). My guess is that when the twenty and the eight were swapped, the "and" stayed with twenty but is optional now.


----------



## quinoa

The rules reminded by Brian are the ones taught in French schools.


----------



## Sese21

Thank you for your messages and the debate but I was asking for the year two thousand... 2001, 2002 etc. I know that of course we won't say 'five hundred and twenty-eight'...
Thank you so much for your different views on that point.


----------



## brian

Sese21 said:


> I know that of course we won't say 'five hundred and twenty-eight'



But yes we would. Well, some of us.


----------



## 1mike12

Sese21 said:


> Thank you for your messages and the debate but I was asking for the year two thousand... 2001, 2002 etc. I know that of course we won't say 'five hundred and twenty-eight'...
> Thank you so much for your different views on that point.


 
Except I sometimes do say five hundred and twenty eight. When you see a long debate like this, it usually means either way is acceptable and people know what you're talkinga bout and wont look at you funny.


----------



## geostan

brian said:


> But yes we would. Well, some of us.



Me too!


----------

