# Saying years - how to speak, pronounce, year numbers ... years and decades past, present and future; the 2000s (noughties?), 2010, 2012 ...



## juliapoz

Hello to everybody!
I have a problem saying the years in English. I learnt at school that they are said like this: 
1919: nineteen nineteen
But how can I say? 
1900?
1805?
2010
and in the future?: 3107, 3100?
Thanks a lot to everybody.
Best regards,
Julia


----------



## janey

Hi Julia

I would say them like this:

1900 - nineteen hundred
1805 - eighteen hundred and five or eighteen o five.
2010 - two thousand and ten

The future? well if I am still around in 3107 I will simply say thirty one 0 seven, and 3100 - three thousand one hundred!

Hope this helps

regards

Janey


----------



## Aupick

1900: Nineteen hundred
1805: Eighteen oh five
2010: I'm not sure people have settled into a pattern yet. Logically it should be "Twenty ten", but I think a lot of people might prefer "Two thousand (and) ten" (the "and" tends not to be said in American English). For the current year people tend to say "Two thousad (and) six" rather than "Twenty oh six". We'll have to wait and see how habits evolve.
3107: Thirty one oh seven
3100: Thirty one hundred? Three thousand one hundred?
For the last two, we might add "_the year_ thirty one oh seven" to make it clear that we're talking about a year.


----------



## Gordonedi

Aupick said:
			
		

> 2010: I'm not sure people have settled into a pattern yet. Logically it should be "Twenty ten", but I think a lot of people might prefer "Two thousand (and) ten" (the "and" tends not to be said in American English). For the current year people tend to say "Two thousand (and) six" rather than "Twenty oh six". We'll have to wait and see how habits evolve.



In the UK financial industry (or as some would say, "profession"), we're slowly getting there for the years 2010 onwards, giving the century then the odd years.  So "two thousand and nine" will be followed by "twenty ten".

Perhaps in the future we'll refer back to "twenty oh six".


----------



## juliapoz

Thank you very much to all of you who have replied. Now it's clear to me. You've been of great help.
Thanks a lot


----------



## panjandrum

Since around the time when London became successful in the bid for the Twenty Twelve Olympics, I have noticed BBC reports often refer to years as twenty-oh-six for example.  It's coming.


----------



## Bartold

How do you read the year 2006? 
"Two thousand six"
"Twenty oh six"

What will be with 2010? 2020?
"Two thousand ten"
"Twenty twenty"


----------



## *Cowgirl*

I always say two thousand and six or oh six, two thousand ten and two thousand twenty, but not for any particular reason.


----------



## panjandrum

Please read the whole thread on this topic, to which I have attached the most recent question.


----------



## Bartold

Thanks for redirecting me


----------



## verocel

Hi everyone!

How do you say the year 2050:  two thousand fifty or twenty fifty? Thank you!


----------



## mateitop

I say twenty fifty. I don't think there is an established trend, at the turn of the century everyone was saying "Y2K" because nobody could decide whether to say "the year two thousand" or "twenty zero zero" etc. At the moment in UK we say "_two thousand and six_" though.


----------



## timpeac

I'd say twenty fifty too. I suppose this is consistent with how I would say "1950" "nineteen fifty".


----------



## verocel

Thanks, Timpeac and Maitetop!


----------



## Brioche

verocel said:
			
		

> Hi everyone!
> 
> How do you say the year 2050: two thousand fifty or twenty fifty? Thank you!


 
I think I use
_twenty fifty_
more than
_two thousand and fifty_  (BE puts in the _and_),
but I'm happy with both.


----------



## Isotta

Recently it has become trendy among some American youth to use "k" as in "2k6" ("Spring Break 2k6!!"). I think it meant to be efficient and moreover a sort of tongue-in-cheek reference to the 2k computer problem six years ago.


----------



## maxiogee

I'm a "twenty-x" person for anything beyond the first decade. Twenty-ten, twenty-fifty. Prior to that I'm a "two-thousand-and-x" guy.




			
				Isotta said:
			
		

> I think it meant to be efficient and moreover a sort of tongue-in-cheek reference to the 2k computer problem six years ago.


What problem? All I remember is doom-sayers who were proved wrong.  (You may remember us folks, the Apple-Mac bores who said it wouldn't matter to us even if it did materialise?)


----------



## panjandrum

maxiogee said:
			
		

> [...]What problem? All I remember is doom-sayers who were proved wrong.  (You may remember us folks, the Apple-Mac bores who said it wouldn't matter to us even if it did materialise?)


Sorry to digress, but this raises a very sore issue.
Many of us put in many, many long hours checking code, changing code, testing code, so that many of you would still get paid and have access to services that depended on IT. We know what would have happened if we hadn't done it. You only know that nothing bad happened, because we did it right.
There are times I wish we hadn't.


----------



## clockworkapple

Could anyone tell me how to read aloud these years?

1066 (ten sixty six?)
1100 (eleven hundred?)
1000 (a thousand / one thousand?)
1808 (I don't have a clue)

Thanks in advance.


----------



## panjandrum

clockworkapple said:
			
		

> Could anyone tell me how to read aloud these years?
> 
> 1066 (ten sixty six?)
> 1100 (eleven hundred?)
> 1000 (a thousand / _*one thousand*_?)
> 1808 (I don't have a clue) _*eighteen oh eight*_
> 
> Thanks in advance.


I have added your post to a previous thread on this topic.


----------



## Joelline

I've noticed that more and more medieval history and literature texts seem to avoid 1000 (one thousand)!  Instead they call it the millenium or the first millenium.  Of course, that may be because they are making points about the millenarian movements, prophecies, myths.


----------



## Brioche

Joelline said:
			
		

> I've noticed that more and more medieval history and literature texts seem to avoid 1000 (one thousand)! Instead they call it the millennium or the first millennium. Of course, that may be because they are making points about the millenarian movements, prophecies, myths.


 
Isn't English spelling dopey?  Double M in mille*nn*ium, but only one in Mille*n*arian.


----------



## Joelline

Thanks Brioche,

And aren't some English spellers dopey?    I finally get the double -l straightened out and now it's the n's!


----------



## whisher

Hi.
Sorry to disturb you
but I'm not sure about 
reading 2004 in english.
I can say: twenty and four
or two thousand and four
or both.
Bye and take care.


----------



## swyves

"Two thousand and four"


----------



## Kelly B

For dates I usually say two thousand four - I don't say "and" in the name of a year, but I think it's acceptable to say it.

Once in a while I say twenty - oh - four.


----------



## swyves

I should have mentioned -- what I suggested was the British English version, which is currently _almost_ universal in the UK.


----------



## ScienceDay

whisher said:


> Hi.
> Sorry to disturb you
> but I'm not sure about
> reading 2004 in english.
> I can say: twenty and four
> or two thousand and four
> or both.
> Bye and take care.



2004 is pronounced "two thousand (and) four".


----------



## ScienceDay

swyves said:


> I should have mentioned -- what I suggested was the British English version, which is currently _almost_ universal in the UK.



It's the most common way of saying it in America too.


----------



## ScienceDay

1904 = Nineteen oh four
1911 = Nineteen eleven
1986 = Nineteen eight-six
1999 = Nineteen ninety-nine
2000 = Two thousand
2006 = Two thousand and six
2007 = Two thousand and seven
2008 = Two thousand and eight
2009 = Two thousand and nine
2010 = Twenty ten
2020 = Twenty twenty
2030 = Twenty thirty
2040 = Twenty forty
2050 = Twenty fifty
2060 = Twenty sixty
2070 = Twenty seventy
2080 = Twenty eighty
2090 = Twenty ninety
2100 = Twenty-one hundred
2101 = Twenty-one oh one

​


----------



## swyves

I'd add:
1 = one AD
1001 = ten oh one
1011 = ten eleven
1066 = ten sixty six

at least where I come from...


----------



## maxiogee

ScienceDay said:


> 1904 = Nineteen oh four
> 1911 = Nineteen eleven
> 1986 = Nineteen eight-six
> 1999 = Nineteen ninety-nine
> 2000 = Two thousand
> 2006 = Two thousand and six
> 2007 = Two thousand and seven
> 2008 = Two thousand and eight
> 2009 = Two thousand and nine
> 2010 = Twenty ten .............I beg to differ — two thousand and ten
> 2020 = Twenty twenty ..........I beg to differ — two thousand and twenty
> 2030 = Twenty thirty ..........I beg to differ — two thousand and thirty
> 2040 = Twenty forty ...........I beg to differ — two thousand and forty
> 2050 = Twenty fifty ...........I beg to differ — two thousand and fifty
> 2060 = Twenty sixty ...........I beg to differ — two thousand and sixty
> 2070 = Twenty seventy .........I beg to differ — two thousand and seventy
> 2080 = Twenty eighty ..........I beg to differ — two thousand and eighty
> 2090 = Twenty ninety ..........I beg to differ — two thousand and ninety
> 2100 = Twenty-one hundred .....I beg to differ — two thousand one hundred
> 2101 = Twenty-one oh one ......probably


----------



## ScienceDay

100 = One hundred
125 = One twenty-five
500 = Five hundred
666 = Six sixty-six
900 = Nine hundred
1000 = One thousand
1010 = Ten ten​


----------



## whisher

As usual lots of ready replies 
in this forum 
Thanks so much buddies.
See you soon.
Bye.


----------



## foxfirebrand

maxiogee said:
			
		

> 2060 = Twenty sixty ...........I beg to differ — two thousand and sixty



So the Norman Conquest was in one thaousand and sixty-six?  And Rachmaninoff wrote the Eighteen Hundred and Twelve Overture?

Like many who've posted, I'd leave out the "ands."  I've also made the change to "twenty-four blackbirds."

1904  =  nineteen four  (originally "aught four")
2006  =  two thousand six  (twenty six sounds like 26)
2026  =  twenty twenty-six
11077 =  lebenteen hundert sebendy-sebben  (be there or be square)
.


----------



## swyves

ScienceDay said:


> 100 = One hundred
> 
> 125 = One twenty-five
> 500 = Five hundred
> 666 = Six sixty-six
> 900 = Nine hundred
> 1000 = One thousand
> 1010 = Ten ten​


 
From my (UK) perspective, I'd say "the year 1000" or "1000 AD" for all dates up to and including 1000, unless the context was already obvious. I also might well say 
125 = one two five

"King Alfred was born in 849", "eight four nine"

But I'd think of that as a personal choice and "eight forty nine" would sound just as good.


----------



## panjandrum

Ah buggrit, I can see I'll have to do it again.

Hello all of you.

This question has been asked before, before, before, before, before .......

In BE, especially since the Olympics campaign for London Twenty Twelve, the 21st century years from now on are very often referred to as twenty oh six, twenty oh seven .... twenty twelve, twenty twenty ... and so on.

I'lll go find the threads that discuss this and glue this one onto the end.
It may take me a while ... so please assume you are listening to a dreadful electronic version of Greensleeves in the meantime.


----------



## Fopper

panjandrum said:


> Ah buggrit, I can see I'll have to do it again.
> 
> Hello all of you.
> 
> This question has been asked before, before, before, before, before .......
> 
> In BE, especially since the Olympics campaign for London Twenty Twelve, the 21st century years from now on are very often referred to as twenty oh six, twenty oh seven .... twenty twelve, twenty twenty ... and so on.
> 
> I'lll go find the threads that discuss this and glue this one onto the end.
> It may take me a while ... so please assume you are listening to a dreadful electronic version of Greensleeves in the meantime.



I speak BE and I would never say this year as "twenty oh six". I call it "two thousand and six".


----------



## .   1

panjandrum said:


> It may take me a while ... so please assume you are listening to a dreadful electronic version of Greensleeves in the meantime.


It is fascinating to postulate how we will speak in the future but I must comment that I had no idea that AD2000 would be spoken as "The year two thousand" until AD2000 was upon us.

When we make it to 2020 we will know how to say it.

Panj has chosen my favourite on-hold music.  I do not like to listen to heavymetal or strong classical music if I am trying to think and Greensleeves is perfect to not intrude into my consciousness.

.,,
You may take your time content in the knowledge that I am happily listening to my own thoughts.


----------



## .   1

Fopper said:


> I speak BE and I would never say this year as "twenty oh six". I call it "two thousand and six".


Buggerit I agree.

.,,


----------



## foxfirebrand

I'm detecting a BE tendency to use "and" where many AE speakers would omit it.  We found this same thing to be the case in a thread about how to write numerals on checks.  Uhhh...that would be cheques to you frenchofilles across the pond.
.


----------



## Victoria32

verocel said:


> Hi everyone!
> 
> How do you say the year 2050:  two thousand fifty or twenty fifty? Thank you!


On an analogy with 1950, I would say "twenty fifty", it is much easier!


clockworkapple said:


> Could anyone tell me how to read aloud these years?
> 
> 1066 (ten sixty six?)
> 1100 (eleven hundred?)
> 1000 (a thousand / one thousand?)
> 1808 (I don't have a clue)
> 
> Thanks in advance.


I would say for the last one "eighteen-oh-eight" and so in my opinion this year _should be "twenty-oh-six"... _


----------



## swyves

I remember seeing an analysis of probably speech patterns based on "inherent logic" (which was rather ill-defined), patterns from non-year numbers (people call the number 1800 "eighteen hundred" but everyone calls 2000 "two thousand") and the number of syllables necessary to say the name (in the American style, I think)

two thousand = 3
twenty hundred = 4

two thousand six = 4
twenty oh six = 4

two thousand ten = 4
twenty ten = 3

two thousand eleven = 7
twenty eleven = 6

The general conclusion was that 2010 will probably be the year everyone changes over, and if not it's very likely to happen before the end of 2012. That also feels natural to me.

The remaining question, that I haven't seen a good answer to, is what decade are we in? It's not the 2000's as that could be the century or the milennium. The noughties? Maybe we'll just put up with the ambiguity until it disappears through common usage. After all, we have the terms "twenty-first century" and I suppose "third milennium" to cover the other options.


----------



## ScienceDay

In the year twenty five-twenty-five

3535 = thirty-five thirty-five

4545 = forty-five forty-five

5555 = fifty-five fifty-five

6565 = sixty-five sixty-five

7510 = seventy-five ten

8510 = eighty-five ten

9595 = ninety-five ninety-five

Now it's been ten thousand years.​


----------



## Kevman

My dad says "two oh oh six," and it drives me up the wall! 

I have no idea if it's a Midwest thing or if it's just him.


----------



## mc84

Hello everyone!

I heard it on the grapevine  that native speakers 
read 2005 as "twenty oh five", 
in the same manner as they say e.g. 1740 or 1121,

and *not *as "two thousand (and) five", which some websites indicate.

Could you verify this for me? Are both possible? And how come people ever started using the second nomenclature? Inconsistency, from my point of view.

Thank you.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Hi 

I've never heard anyone use the first expression, but it has to be said that the only time I hear the year spoken is on the intro for the Daily Show  

I'm sure a native speaker can tell you more


----------



## Giordano Bruno

BE is "Two thousand and five".  AE may be different and may drop the "and".


----------



## RedleyGreene

IT seems it me that in the 80's and 90's before the year 2000, that most people assumed that we would refer to the years in the way you described, but soon before, or after the new millenium, the media began referring to the years by saying ie-"2 thousand and 5". I also seem to remember that in middle school, around '91 or '92, we were discussing the next millenium, and somebody asked how they would phrase it, "2 thousand 5/ or twenty-o-five". IF you watch the movie "Back to the Future 2", I belive they refer to 2015 as "twenty-fifteen", this movie was of course made in 1989, so if you read or hear somebody say "twenty o five", they're probably still thinking in the 1990's when people still didn't know how we were gonna say the years in the next millenium.


----------



## panjandrum

See the earlier posts on this composite thread.

In BE I suggest that two thousand and X still dominates, but careful listeners will hear an occasional twenty oh X.
And the Olympics will be in twenty twelve.


----------



## chesty

foxfirebrand said:


> Uhhh...that would be cheques to you frenchofilles across the pond.
> .




Credit where credit's due!


----------



## Victoria32

panjandrum said:


> See the earlier posts on this composite thread.
> 
> In BE I suggest that two thousand and X still dominates, but careful listeners will hear an occasional twenty oh X.
> And the Olympics will be in twenty twelve.


I say 'two thousand and six' but 'twenty-oh-X' is much more logical, and even if I am on my own in this, I shall use it from now on...

VL


----------



## Edher

Hello,

      I'm just curious about what this decade is called. Obvisouly, the 80's are the eighties, the 90's are the nineties but what about this decade. I have seen in articles they write 00's but how on earth would you pronounce that? the zeros?

Thanks,
Edher


----------



## teddison5

My best guess would be the hundreds.


----------



## mgarizona

I've used and heard "the aughts" ... which I like a lot.

When I heard it used on _The Daily Show_ recently I figured it had taken hold.


----------



## teddison5

Yes, it can be referred to in that way. Just note that "aught" is also an archaic term meaning "anything." If you see this word in classic literature, it is not referring to a year.


----------



## FelicityConditions

The one I've heard the most is "the noughties." Pun obviously intended!


----------



## Edher

Alright, great, I would've never guessed, the aughts. I guess, the zeros would just sound too pesimistic, nothing better than an obscure synonym to take of that. Now I'm wondering how we can say that in Spanish.

Thanks again
Edher


----------



## mytwolangs

Would it be OK for this decade to just call it "The Millenium"? 

So someday when they want to say "It happened around 00 - 09 they might say "during the millenium..." 
Or maybe - "During 2K6" [2006]
We are fast approaching the teens...?


----------



## The Singularity

Well, this is actually as you would imagine a very difficult question to answer. In reality there is actually no answer to this question since the whole thing around the "70's" and the "80's" is slang, however, what one can use instead is "The 21st Century", a selection which is formal and at the same time used commonly. 

Hope that helps solve your dilemma


----------



## Hockey13

mytwolangs said:


> Would it be OK for this decade to just call it "The Millenium"?
> 
> So someday when they want to say "It happened around 00 - 09 they might say "during the millenium..."
> Or maybe - "During 2K6" [2006]
> We are fast approaching the teens...?


 
A millenium is a period of 1,000 years, not ten years.

For the OP...there is no agreed-upon term for this decade. The only consistent one I've heard in news broadcasts and regular discourse is "the 2000s." *Aught* or *ought* (pronounced Ot in typical AE, but Awt where I come from) generally precedes the last number of the year:

Aught six = '06 = 2006

I must warn you, though. This phrase originally comes from the 1900s! It is not a new phrase, nor is it widely considered standard to be used for the 2000s unless it's in a comical context (such as _The Daily Show_). If you read in historical writing the term _Aught/Ought six_, they generally mean 1906. Aught/ought is simply another (albeit old-fashioned) way of saying zero. So saying "the aughts" is essentially like saying "the zeros" but it just sounds funny since it's so old-fashioned. I would not reccomend using this term unless you are extremely confident in when to use it. If you must speak of the decade, say "the 2000s" (without an apostrophe!!!).


----------



## The Singularity

He never said that it *was* ten years 

"The New Millenium" would be a better pick, however.


----------



## Aud Duck

I've heard the early 1900s referred to as "the turn of the century," so you could call it "turn of the millenium." The obvious problem with that is that it also includes the late 1890s/1990s.



The Singularity said:


> In reality there is actually no answer to this question since the whole thing around the "70's" and the "80's" is slang


 
I'm not sure that it can quite be called slang. People seem to have been referring to decades that way for quite a while. For example, my grandparents met (during the early '40s) in a club called "The Gay '90s." So, it's been around for at least 60 years.


----------



## Hockey13

The Singularity said:


> He never said that it *was* ten years
> 
> "The New Millenium" would be a better pick, however.


 
Yes he did:



> Would it be OK for this *decade* to just call it "The Millenium"?


----------



## Hockey13

Aud Duck said:


> I've heard the early 1900s referred to as "the turn of the century," so you could call it "turn of the millenium." The obvious problem with that is that it also includes the late 1890s/1990s.


 
The term "turn of the century" is almost always used to refer to the time period before or after the year 1900, or simply at that exact moment in time:

Around the turn of the century...

At the turn of the century (in 1900)...


----------



## The Singularity

read it over


----------



## Hockey13

The Singularity said:


> read it over


 
I have read it over and here's exactly what it says:



> Would it be OK for this decade to just call it "The Millenium"?
> 
> So someday when they want to say "It happened around 00 - 09 they might say "during the millenium..."


In his specific example he uses the period of 2000-2009 and calls it "the millenium."


----------



## mgarizona

Aught is a perfectly acceptable modern English word, used daily by any number of people. (Especially ones who own shotguns!)

To suggest there's a difference between saying 'the aughts' and saying 'the nineties' because



> Aught six = '06 = 2006


 
makes no sense to me. Aught performs the same function there that the word 'ninety' does in

Ninety-six = '96 = 1996

so shouldn't it follow that 'aughts' performs the same function as 'nineties'?

And the fact that 'aughts' can refer to the 1900s only cements its usage. The fact that the 1890s were referred to as the nineties didn't stop anyone from using the same word to mean the 1990s.

I have to imagine that circumstances that might lead to confusion as to which century you're discussing will be few and far between.


----------



## Hockey13

mgarizona said:


> Aught is a perfectly acceptable modern English word, used daily by any number of people. (Especially ones who own shotguns!)
> 
> To suggest there's a difference between saying 'the aughts' and saying 'the nineties' because
> 
> 
> 
> makes no sense to me. Aught performs the same function there that the word 'ninety' does in
> 
> Ninety-six = '96 = 1996
> 
> so shouldn't it follow that 'aughts' performs the same function as 'nineties'?
> 
> And the fact that 'aughts' can refer to the 1900s only cements its usage. The fact that the 1890s were referred to as the nineties didn't stop anyone from using the same word to mean the 1990s.
> 
> I have to imagine that circumstances that might lead to confusion as to which century you're discussing will be few and far between.


 
Sorry, when did I suggest it cannot be used to describe a decade? In popular culture, the phrase is most often associated with the 1900s. I have never met anyone who refers to the 2000s as "the aughts" without "is that what we should call them?" attached onto it. Nor have I heard "aught six" referred to anything other than 1906 _outside a comical context_. You might know people who use this, but I have never met anyone who uses it seriously anywhere I've gone in the United States. By what I might call a 99-1 ratio, I would expect somone to say "oh-six" instead of "aught-six" these days. The phrase is a relic of the early 20th century and calling this decade "the aughts" is somewhat akin to calling a car an "auto contraption." I would never reccomend a non-native to use it because comedy is tough to convey in language that you haven't been exposed to for many years.


----------



## Tizona

My English friend has only ever heard it described as the noughties. Although I'm sure there are several options that could be used.


----------



## elroy

I agree with Hockey on this one.  To claim that "the aughts" is completely natural just because "the nineties" is despite its previous use to refer to the 1890's is a non sequitur.  Perhaps "the nineties" caught on because the word "ninety" has continued to be used, whereas "aught" has pretty much died out in modern English (shotguns notwithstanding).

What I don't agree with Hockey on is his emphatic insistence on the lack of an apostrophe.   Logical or not, using an apostrophe is acceptable and it looks better to me with one.


----------



## Hockey13

elroy said:


> What I don't agree with Hockey on is his emphatic insistence on the lack of an apostrophe.  Logical or not, using an apostrophe is acceptable and it looks better to me with one.


 
That, of course, is a debate that has already taken place. We all had our preferences and after many years of warfare, exactly who the victors were was unclear. I lost a leg.


----------



## Conrado Herrera

Edher said:


> Hello,
> 
> I'm just curious about what this decade is called. Obvisouly, the 80's are the eighties, the 90's are the nineties but what about this decade. I have seen in articles they write 00's but how on earth would you pronounce that? the zeros?
> 
> Thanks,
> Edher


 
Etymology: alteration (resulting from false division of _a naught_) of *naught
1* *: ZERO, CIPHER*
*2* _archaic_ *: NONENTITY, NOTHING*


----------



## merakli

Hello.

Do you say TWO THOUSAND and SEVEN or just
TWO THOUSAND SEVEN when you say the date?

Thanks

Sébastien


----------



## majlo

It's _two thousand *and *seven_, though I believe the version without _and _is also used.


----------



## mgarizona

I don't believe I've EVER heard the 'and' used. Perhaps it's AE not to use it, I'm not sure.


----------



## languageGuy

In the most proper form, do NOT say the 'and.' Many people do say it, however. When speaking numbers, the word 'and' in American English (not sure about British) is reserved for the decimal point.


----------



## Alxmrphi

*"I don't believe I've EVER heard the 'and' used. Perhaps it's AE not to use it, I'm not sure."*

- It's used everywhere, it's just we don't say "AND", it's more like *'n 
*
Two thousand*'n* seven


----------



## mgarizona

Alex_Murphy said:


> *"I don't believe I've EVER heard the 'and' used. Perhaps it's AE not to use it, I'm not sure."*
> 
> - It's used everywhere, it's just we don't say "AND", it's more like *'n *
> 
> Two thousand*'n* seven


 
I don't hear (or speak) even the most vestigal of *n*s in 2007. Two-thousand seven, plain and simple.

The only place I hear the full date spoken with any regularity is at the beginning of The Daily Show, four nights a week. No _and_, no _n_, no nothin'!


----------



## Alxmrphi

Well I hear the "n" on the Daily Show intro.


----------



## winklepicker

Danc said:


> I think this is a difference between American and British English.


 
Yes, it is. Two thousand seven is primarily AE. Most BE speakers (including the Irish  ) would say the AND.


----------



## Randisi.

By the way, do you suppose in the future, when we've all become quite blasé about saying 'two thousand', we will just refer to the year as '07?


----------



## --Monty---

In British English:

27: Twenty Seven
207: Two Hundred and Seven
227: Two Hundrand and Twenty-Seven
2007: Two Thousand and Seven.
2227: Two Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty-Seven
20007: Twenty Thousand and 7
22227: Twenty Two Thousand, Two Hundred and Twenty-Seven.

Haha can't believe I just spent 5 mins writing that out!!


----------



## panjandrum

Could we please keep this thread to the discussion of how we say years in English.


----------



## screwPC

During the 20th century, we always pronounced the years with what I'll call a "two-part" pronunciation method, for example 1921 is "nineteen twenty one" and 1905 is "nineteen oh five".

Today, though, we use the pronunciation of "two thousand (and) ____" for years 2000-present. This year is "two thousand seven", next year "two thousand eight" and so on. After 2009, though, I think there will be a change in pronunciation. It will switch (more like revert) to the two-part pronunciation method, i.e. 20-10 "twenty ten". 

So what does everyone here predict will happen pronunciation-wise in the next few decades? If we still pronounce 2010 as "two thousand ten" then when will we switch to "twenty", if ever? 2013 and 2020 have been suggested as alternate years for the switch by other people.

So, I believe we'll switch in 2010 (I am switching at least), and I'd like some input from all of you intelligent linguists. Thanks!


----------



## Hockey13

I am 8,000,000,000,015% sure that what will happen is exactly what you described (and anyone that thinks that sentence makes no sense needs to take some serious elementary math!  ). I hate saying "two thousand [and] nine." It's so annoying. It single-handedly makes me despise the age in which I am growing up.


----------



## ADCS

I say twenty-oh-seven often, it just rolls better, and it's getting prepared for the next 90 years


----------



## lablady

Recently there was a lengthy discussion about the pronunciation of years here. If I remember correctly, there was a variety of opinions with one of the most common being to say "two thousand and ___" until about 2010 and switch to "twenty ______" with 2011. I didn't reread the thread so my memory may be faulty.  

Personally, I'm not sure when I'll make the switch to "twenty - _____". I'll probably wait until everyone else switches; then I'll just go along with the crowd.


----------



## ScienceDay

We might start saying "twenty ten" when 2010 comes, but that leads to a problem with the years 2021 through 2029 as "twenty twenty-one" etc. seems repetitive and difficult to say in fast speech.


----------



## se16teddy

The debate continues here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1735921.stm


----------



## mplsray

I was wondering about the pronunciation recently when I saw _00's_ used in a local paper within the text of an article. If it appears in such a place, in the flow of the text and not in a table of numbers or something like that, it would seem to me that it needs a pronunciation, so that someone reading the article aloud would not have to stumble over that part. But I have no clear idea how the author thought _00's_ should be pronounced.

I wasn't able to find that particular use when I googled just now, but I did find (not on the newspaper's Web site, but in Google's cached version of one of the pages of that site) a reference to a "Great 80s-00's cover band." Note the mix of apostrophe styles.


----------



## paulio

Aught is not BE. In the UK we'd call them the noughties (but with an element of humour), or probably just say "the last decade" (although I realise this means currently from 1997), or maybe "since the millenium" (which, although correctly means a period of a thousand years, is more commonly used to mean the year 2000).


----------



## lizzeymac

A friend of mine refers to this decade as the "Zeds*" and this year as Zed 7, so as to prevent confusion with aught 6 (1906).  He is a history major & talks across centuries in the course of his studies.  He was educated in a British school (in Hong Kong) so it doesn't seems excessively precious to me.

* as in the BE for "0" (zero in AE),


----------



## bibliolept

My vote is definitely behind "twenty ten" for 2010. As the century progresses, well find it more comfortable, I predict.

To be fair, panjandrum, if something wrong had happened with the Y2K bug, it's programmers (which I did for several years) that would get the lion's share of the blame. Y2K compliance-checking (which I also participated in) was simply paying for our past sins (yes, I know that there were reasons why using a two-digit year format was used).


----------



## maferaluz

Hi there!

How can I say 2010? two thousand and ten?, twenty-ten,? two "o" one o"?

Which of these is the most correct?.

Thanks in advance and Happy 2010!


----------



## MichaelW

"Twenty-ten".  "Two thousand and ten" might be used rarely, but I can't think anyone would say "two-oh-one-oh".

The same applies to most other dates, the last two digits are normally spoken as a two-digit number...

1715 - "seventeen fifteen"
1066 - "ten sixty-six"
856 - "eight fifty-six"
43 - "forty-three"
3 - "three"

unless the second set of digits is nine or less...

1709 - "seventeen oh nine"
1009 - "ten oh nine"
103 - "one oh three"

I think one would only use "thousand" at millenia or dates close to them...

2000 - "two thousand"
2001 - "two thousand and one" or (less commonly) "twenty oh one"
2009 - "two thousand and nine" or "twenty oh nine"
1000 - "one thousand"
1006 - "one thousand and six"  or "ten oh six"


----------



## cuchuflete

Greetings maferaluz,

The notion that one way of saying the year is "most correct" is incorrect.  There are regional style differences.  This has been discussed many times both in this forum and others.

Among the most frequently heard are-

—Twenty ten  (Common in both AE and BE)
—two thousand ten (AE)
—two thousand and ten (BE)


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

_Two thousand and ten _is my personal preference. 
_Twenty-ten_ is the most common version heard on TV channels (Irish, American and British) here though.


----------



## Cagey

You can find the other threads on this subject by putting 2010 in the search box at the top of the page.


----------



## SwissPete

Well, don’t worry, good people. Somebody has taken it upon himself to give you the definite answer: 





> "NAGG has decided to step in and decree that (2010) should officially be pronounced 'twenty ten,' and all subsequent years should be pronounced as 'twenty eleven,' 'twenty twelve,' etc.," proclaims the association's news release.


 
You can read the entire article *here*. 

So nice to have this pesky problem solved...


----------



## panjandrum

Right at the very top of this forum, there is a sticky thread.
READ this before you post: English Only Guidelines— forum rules, FAQs, and some very useful links, too ... _*including how to say 2010.*_ 

<< Edit: Updated link: Resources, links and frequently discussed topics (FAQ). >>


----------



## panjandrum

Speaking of the names of decades, as we were...

I heard someone on the radio just now refer to the second decade of the twentieth century as the "nineteen teens".  It was part of a sentence referring to developments in audio recording technology in "the nineteen teens and nineteen twenties". 
There are quite a number of Google examples of "nineteen teens", but none in either the BNC or COCA.

BNC - British National Corpus
COCA - Corpus of Contemporary American English
COHA - Corpus of Historical American English


----------



## mgarizona

There's this from Ezra Pound's _Guide to Kulchur_, 1938:

"If I am introducing anybody to _Kulchur_, let 'em take the two phases, the nineteen teens, Gaudier, Wyndham L and I as we were in _Blast_, and the next phase, the 1920's." etc


----------



## George French

SwissPete said:


> Well, don’t worry, good people. Somebody has taken it upon himself to give you the definite answer:
> 
> You can read the entire article *here*.
> 
> So nice to have this pesky problem solved...


 
Is it solved? Just because someone proclaims something does not make the proclamation valid.

See http://www.mistergrammar.com/. As far as I can see it is only an opinion..... That's my opinion.  It is two thousand and ten..... 

GF..

It was twenty ten or two thousand and ten until I read the article. 
You may have realised that would stear me in the opposite direction....

I still say "I am x years old....."

PC is the compute in front of me.


----------



## SwissPete

George French said:


> Is it solved?


The  following the statement says it all.


----------



## timpeac

panjandrum said:


> Speaking of the names of decades, as we were...
> 
> I heard someone on the radio just now refer to the second decade of the twentieth century as the "nineteen teens".  It was part of a sentence referring to developments in audio recording technology in "the nineteen teens and nineteen twenties".
> There are quite a number of Google examples of "nineteen teens", but none in either the BNC or COCA.
> 
> BNC - British National Corpus
> COCA - Corpus of Contemporary American English
> COHA - Corpus of Historical American English



Are you sure he wasn't referring to the latter years of the second decade? That's what I would assume on hearing "the nineteen teens" (which I haven't before).


----------



## panjandrum

timpeac said:


> Are you sure he wasn't referring to the latter years of the second decade? That's what I would assume on hearing "the nineteen teens" (which I haven't before).


He may have been, and your assumption makes sense to me too.  So the nineteen teens should be 1913 onwards, but not 1912, 1911,... ?


----------



## timpeac

Yes, or perhaps a little more vague than strictly 1913 onwards, perhaps 14.

That said - looking through a few google hits, there seem to be several talking of the "nineteen teens and nineteen twenties" (where the poster seems to be a native speaker) where I find it difficult to see why they would start at 1913 so perhaps they do mean "nineteen tens", or perhaps since this is a written source it is a typo for "tens". I did find one source that seemed to be doing it deliberately since they were talking about the first world war occurring in the "nineteen teens".

Two other random thoughts - 

The speaker wasn't a New Zealander by any chance?? I imagine that accent would make "ten" sound like "teen" to British or Irish ears.
Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue precipitated by the vowel of the preceding "teen" of "nineteen" affecting the following "ten". That could explain the written form too I suppose.


----------



## Ceremoniar

I have always heard of the second decade of the last century referred to as the 1910s (nineteen tens). Perhaps that is what the radio announcer was saying.


----------



## banat

This is a question about the way of reading dates.
I thought dates after 2000 were read: two thousand and ...
For example the Maya prediction is referred to "two thousand and twelve"!
But during the Olympic Games they always pronounced "twenty twelve".
So, is the difference in usage an American vs. British pronunciation, or is the usage changing now?
Are both ways still acceptable?


----------



## MarcB

To me both ways are common and acceptable.


----------



## Keith Bradford

The Olympics are perhaps a special case, since the logo and the brand name were "London twenty-twelve", and of course 99.7% of the population were totally infatuated by the glitz.

As with most things, the longer phrase is the more formal.  We still have the option "nineteen-twelve" or "nineteen hundred and twelve", and I imagine the choice for 2012 will long remain open.  The government doesn't lay down rules on this stuff, you know!


----------



## natkretep

Mod note: I've merged banat's thread (post 112 onwards) with a mega thread on how to say years. Please read the earlier comments! 

Nat


----------



## banat

Thanks to you all!


----------



## timpeac

banat said:


> This is a question about the way of reading dates.
> I thought dates after 2000 were read: two thousand and ...
> For example the Maya prediction is referred to "two thousand and twelve"!
> But during the Olympic Games they always pronounced "twenty twelve".
> So, is the difference in usage an American vs. British pronunciation, or is the usage changing now?
> Are both ways still acceptable?



Both are heard. I'd say that "two thousand and twelve" was still the standard, but "twenty twelve" is shorter, "snappier". Saying "London twenty twelve" fits in better as you're cutting down "the Olympic games held in London" to just "London" and so it makes sense to use the snappier date form.

I think, in contrast, you'd be much more likely to say "he died in two thousand and ten" rather than "he died in twenty ten" (although not impossible - sounds a bit flippant).


----------



## JulianStuart

Seventeen twelve 
Eighteen twelve
Nineteen twelve
___?___ twelve!
Logical, captain.


----------



## timpeac

JulianStuart said:


> Seventeen twelve
> Eighteen twelve
> Nineteen twelve
> ___?___ twelve!
> Logical, captain.


Oh I agree - no problem (for some reason) until you get to 20xx!

Actually, thinking further - there is. William the conqueror invaded in "ten sixty-six" but you wouldn't, I think, say "ten twelve" for 1012? And saying "twenty eight" for 2008 would sound like "twenty-eight" and I haven't heard "twenty oh eight".


----------



## natkretep

timpeac said:


> I haven't heard "twenty oh eight".



But Tim, look at posts 89 and 98 for example.



ADCS said:


> I say twenty-oh-seven often, it just rolls better, and it's getting prepared for the next 90 years






MichaelW said:


> I think one would only use "thousand" at millenia or dates close to them...
> 
> 
> 2000 - "two thousand"
> 2001 - "two thousand and one" or (less commonly) "twenty oh one"
> 2009 - "two thousand and nine" or "twenty oh nine"
> 1000 - "one thousand"
> 1006 - "one thousand and six" or "ten oh six"


I would happily say _twenty oh eight_. And _ten twelve_ doesn't sound that awful to me.


----------



## timpeac

natkretep said:


> I would happily say _twenty oh eight_. And _ten twelve_ doesn't sound that awful to me.


On reflection - happy to retire an objection to _twenty oh eight _- but _ten twelve_ still sounds very odd.


----------



## stormwreath

timpeac said:


> but _ten twelve_ still sounds very odd.


Because unless you're a mediaeval historian, you'll very rarely need to refer to that date, so it's bound to sound odd. "Ten twelve" to me means twelve minutes past ten o'clock in the morning. To clarify that I was talking about a date, I'd have to say something like, "Máel Mórda mac Murchada started his rebellion in Ireland in *the year* ten twelve" - but I wouldn't say, "one thousand and twelve".


----------



## troxy

Hi everybody,
I'm writing to know what is the best english way to read years and why.

The easiest way to do it is to read them two by two (19+95 nineteen+ninety-five).
But I can not remember how to read years like:

1509: _fifteen oh _(pr: ow?) _nine_ or _fifteen hundred and nine_? And why "hundred" if it's one thousand+509 years? And why if I say _one thousand and ten_ (1010)?
2008: twothousand and eight
1800: eighteen hundred
1706: _seventeen oh nine_ or _seventeen hundred and six_

When to read two by two? When to say hundred and when to say thousand?
When to read _oh_ and when to read _and_?

Thank you in advance!! It's very important to me!


----------



## ewie

Welcome to the forum, Troxy*

1509*: fifteen-oh-nine ['oh' pronounced like the letter *o*] *OR* fifteen-hundred-and-nine (UK/US) / fifteen-hundred-nine (US only).  Fifteen-oh-nine is the commonest way of saying it.  1509 = 1500 + 9.  This applies to all years that contain a zero in third position: 1201, 1706, etc.

*1529*: fifteen-twenty-nine.  This applies to all years that _don't_ contain a zero in third position: 873, 1091, 1977, etc.

*1004*: one-thousand-and-four (UK/US) / one-thousand-four (US only) *OR* ten-oh-four.  These are all equally common.
*2008*: two-thousand-and-eight (UK/US) / two-thousand-eight (US only) *OR* twenty-oh-eight.  These are all equally common.

*1800*: eighteen-hundred.
*2000*: two-thousand.
*1000*: one-thousand.


----------



## troxy

Thank you very much for your answer!
Now it's clear.

1808= eighteen-oh-eight ore (less common) eighteen-hundred-and-eight
1022= ten-twenty-two or one-thousand-and-twenty-two?


----------



## George French

In the year *ten sixty six *my bit of the world got invaded by some Normans. This turned 2 big Islands to the north of France upside down forever.

Unfortunately I will not see the celebrations to commemorate the thousand year anniversary in *twenty sixty six*.. 

GF..


----------



## PaulQ

May I just add here that "the noughties", as the name for the decade, as far as I am concerned, was artificial and trite as soon as it was coined and I have never heard anyone use it ... ever. "Irritating" does not properly describe this mindless abomination of a word.

2000-2009 will be known as all similar periods before have been known: "the first decade of the 21st century." and 2010-2019 will be known as "the second decade."; thereafter it the decades will be known as "the twenties", "thirties", etc.

2013, for me, is twenty-thirteen. The real test will be in, say, 50 years time. I feel sure that they will be repeating the formula that works from 100AD to the present:

148 - one forty-eight
873 - eight seventy-three
1066 - as George says above
1819 - eighteen-nineteen
2001 - twenty-oh-one.


----------



## RM1(SS)

PaulQ said:


> May I just add here that "the noughties", as the name for the decade, as far as I am concerned, was artificial and trite as soon as it was coined and I have never heard anyone use it ... ever. "Irritating" does not properly describe this mindless abomination of a word.
> 
> 2000-2009 will be known as all similar periods before have been known: "the first decade of the 21st century." and 2010-2019 will be known as "the second decade."; thereafter it the decades will be known as "the twenties", "thirties", etc.
> 
> 2013, for me, is twenty-thirteen. The real test will be in, say, 50 years time. I feel sure that they will be repeating the formula that works from 100AD to the present:
> 
> 148 - one forty-eight
> 873 - eight seventy-three
> 1066 - as George says above
> 1819 - eighteen-nineteen
> 2001 - twenty-oh-one.



Actually 2001-2010 was the first decade, and 2011-2020 is the second, but other than that I agree with the above.


----------



## Philippides

Hello,
It is quite common to name the decades. The sixties or the eighties usually refer to 1950-60 / 1980-90
What about 2000-2010?

For a change that took place approximately between 2008 -2010, I would like to say that it happened at the end of ...


----------



## cyberpedant

I've heard (and enjoyed) "noughties" which is a play on "naughty"—meaning "wicked." However, using it in anything but an informal situation might itself be considered "naughty."
[Nought means zero.]


----------



## natkretep

​Mod note: Philipides's thread (from post 129) has been merged with an earlier thread. Have a look at posts 127 and 128 on names of decades.


----------



## Pitt

I'd like to know if the pronunciation (BE) is correct:

_What is the date today?
Today is Monday, 25 February 2013 =
Today is Monday *the* twenty*-fifth of *February *two thousand and thirteen*._


----------



## ewie

Pitt said:


> _
> Today is Monday *the* twenty*-fifth of *February *two thousand and thirteen*._


----------



## Pitt

Thanks a lot!


----------



## mikichan

MichaelW said:


> 856 - "eight fifty-six"



Does any native speaker say "hundred" when reading three-digit numbers for years except for years such as 900?


----------



## Loob

mikichan said:


> Does any native speaker say "hundred" when reading three-digit numbers for years except for years such as 900?


Can you give us an example of what you're thinking of, mikichan?


----------



## mikichan

Thank you, I was thinking 856 but I've found the answer on another thread. Thanks again! 
---(Added later) Then again, I came up with a question so I wrote that on the other thread....


----------



## tomtompl

Hi. How we should correctly pronounce date in  "It's 1983"? Should it be " It's nineteen eight three" or "It's nineteen eighty three" or something else?  
Thanks


----------



## JordyBro

"it's nineteen eighty three"


----------



## JustKate

Hi, tomtompl. This topic has come up before, as you might imagine, so I've added your question to one of the earlier threads on this topic. If you're still unsure after looking this thread over, you're welcome to add any additional questions here.

JustKate
English Only moderator


----------



## tomtompl

JustKate said:


> Hi, tomtompl. This topic has come up before, as you might imagine, so I've added your question to one of the earlier threads on this topic. If you're still unsure after looking this thread over, you're welcome to add any additional questions here.
> 
> JustKate
> English Only moderator



Thanks! Unfortunately some threads are not so easy to find  Luckily we have you


----------



## narcisolinguistico

is it correct to say 2005 : two thousand oh nine?
I know it is often pronounced 2 thousand and 9.

<<Threads merged>>


----------



## sdgraham

No it is not. You're in error by four years.


----------



## Andygc

No, but it's "two thousand and five", not ".... nine".


----------



## Glenfarclas

He typed a 5 where he meant to put a 9, but apart from that, no, we don't say "two thousand *oh* [anything]."


----------



## natkretep

I suppose you could say 'twenty oh five' or 'twenty oh nine' as the case may be.


----------



## narcisolinguistico

oh sorry! I meant 2005. Thank you for the answers, so it's possible to say 'twenty oh five' or 'twenty oh nine' .


----------



## panjandrum

narcisolinguistico said:


> oh sorry! I meant 2005. Thank you for the answers, so it's possible to say 'twenty oh five' or 'twenty oh nine' .


Possible, but I suggest it is unusual.
I hear this, but it always surprises me. The 'twenty <something>' usage seems odd for the years before 'twenty ten'.


----------



## Wilmar Fraylan

Hello everyone!
I wonder how you, English-speakers, spell these decade periods as 2000s, 1900s, 2010s, etc. and 00s, 10s respectively. I know everything following from 20s but 00s and 10s are mysteries for me.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## natkretep

Moderator note: Wilmar's thread (from post 149) has been merged with an earlier thread. Please scroll up for earlier comments.


----------



## RM1(SS)

narcisolinguistico said:


> oh sorry! I meant 2005. Thank you for the answers, so it's possible to say 'twenty oh five' or 'twenty oh nine' .





panjandrum said:


> Possible, but I suggest it is unusual.
> I hear this, but it always surprises me. The 'twenty <something>' usage seems odd for the years before 'twenty ten'.


"Twenty oh nine" doesn't sound any odder to me than "nineteen oh nine" does.


----------



## JJJenifer

Hi, now I know "1900" should be read like "nineteen hundred"..
But is it really so wrong to read it like "one thousand nine hundred"?


----------



## Andygc

JJJenifer said:


> But is it really so wrong to read it like "one thousand nine hundred"?


Yes. You might come across a statement in the form "in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred", but that is both archaic and formal; it is not part of normal modern English.


----------



## JJJenifer

Thank you, Andygc,
I've got it.


----------



## seekenglish

<Post moved to an older thread. Moderator>

Hi, everyone！
How to read and write the number of the year '2008'?
1. two thousand and eight
2. twenty O eight
3. twenty oh eight
Thanks very much!


----------



## Andygc

From the second thread in the forum

*Date format* - how to write and read dates in different parts of the world.

*Dates, naming the decades* - And especially, what do we call the 2000s: the noughties?


----------



## sb70012

Hi guys,
I read this thread and made a list. I'm posting it here for the future learners. I hope this may help them.

1900 (nineteen hundred) (nineteen oh-oh)
1805 (eighteen oh five) (one thousand eight hundred and five)
2010 (two thousand and ten) (twenty ten)
2020 (twenty-twenty) (two thousand and twenty) (two oh twenty)
3107 (thirty one oh seven) (three thousand one hundred and seven)
3100 (thirty-one hundred) (three thousand one hundred) (thirty one oh-oh)
2006 (two thousand and six) (twenty-oh-six) (two thousand oh six)
1009 (one thousand and nine) (ten oh nine)
2050 (twenty-fifty) (two thousand and fifty)
1066 (ten sixty-six) (one thousand and sixty six) (ten six six)
1000 (one thousand) (a thousand)
1911 (nineteen eleven) (nineteen one one)
1999 (nineteen ninety-nine) (one thousand and ninety nine)
2000 (two thousand) (twenty oh-oh)
2100 (twenty-one hundred) (two thousand and one hundred)
1001 (ten oh one) (one thousand and one)
1004 (one thousand and four) (ten oh four)
1011 (ten eleven) (one thousand and eleven)
666 (six sixty-six) (six hundred and sixty six) (six six six)
500 (five hundred) (five oh-oh)
100 (one hundred) (one oh-oh)
125 (one twenty-five) (one hundred and twenty-five) (one two five)
2026 (twenty twenty-six)
207 (two hundred and seven) (two oh seven)
227 (two hundred and twenty seven) (two two seven)
20007 (twenty thousand and seven)
22227 (twenty-two thousand) (two hundred and twenty-seven)

*I edited some typos after Keith's useful guidance in post #156.*


----------



## Keith Bradford

Well tried, sb!  Only one of the 1066s is wrong.  This is probably the most famous date in English history and it's always "ten sixty-six".  And the last in the list is mis-typed, too many brackets I think.

Your others are right, so far as we know.  But I wouldn't like to guess how they will pronounce dates in 3107 or 20007!


----------



## sb70012

Thank you, Keith. I edited. Now it's OK.

*I edited some typos after Keith's useful guidance in post #156.*


----------



## Sasha Ivanov

<Added to this thread. Nat>

1503. Is it "fifteen oh three"?
Is there alternative ways? Maybe "fifteen three"?
Maybe "fifteen zero three"?
"fifteen hundred and three"? Thank you.


----------



## lingobingo

Fifteen-o-three   
Fifteen hundred and three 

The others are wrong in British English.


----------



## Sasha Ivanov

Thank you.  Is "fifteen and three" all right?


----------



## owlman5

Sasha Ivanov said:


> Is "fifteen and three" all right?


No.


----------

