# Dates before 1100



## Monica238

Does this explanation "Before 1100, things like in the 1000s or in the 800s are far less common, and so writers will most likely choose only "in the eleventh century"/"in the 11th century" or "in the ninth century"/"in the 9th century"

mean that

"dates in the first millennium are less commonly talked about by non-historians."

As in "in the 300s" is before 1100 so a native speaker will most likely say "in the fourth century" rather than in the three hundreds". Am I right?


----------



## heypresto

I'm not sure exactly what your question is. It's simply that we tend to say 'in the fourth century' rather than 'in the three hundreds.' This is true up to the year 1000. 

After that we talk about the 1100s, 1200s, 1700s, 1900s etc as well as the 12th century, 13th century, 18th century, 20th century etc.

We are now in the two thousands, or the 21st century.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Monica238 said:


> Does this explanation "Before 1100, things like in the 1000s or in the 800s are far less common, and so writers will most likely choose only "in the eleventh century"/"in the 11th century" or "in the ninth century"/"in the 9th century"
> 
> mean that
> 
> "dates in the first millennium are less commonly talked about by non-historians."


No. Where are non-historians mentioned? With a comparative, you need to work out what is being compared, what the "than" phrase or clause is. In this case with "before 1100", it is clearly "after 1100": Before 1100, the form "in the x-hundreds" is far less common than it is after 1100. After 1100, of course, "in the x-hundreds" is a common form of expression.


----------



## Monica238

heypresto said:


> I'm not sure exactly what your question is. It's simply that we tend to say 'in the fourth century' rather than 'in the three hundreds.' This is true up to the year 1000.



Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to find out. "This is true up to the year 1000" from which number does this  pronunciation begin?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Monica238 said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to find out. "This is true up to the year 1000" from which number does this  pronunciation begin?


There is no beginning, apart from the year 1100 for when "in the X hundreds" becomes common.

Using forms like "in the eleventh century"/"in the 11th century" or "in the ninth century"/"in the 9th century" has no beginning, and no end either. They can be used any century, for as long ago as centuries are used as a period of time.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Monica, I think it was me that wrote the sentence you originally quoted.  I was not expecting this to be picked up as any kind of "rule" and so there is no precise answer to your question.  But your conclusion was braodly right.  These views of mine may help:

Non-historians in Britain seldom talk about anything before 1066; most people talk about very little before their own date of birth!
Usage is probably quite fluid, even among historians.
Since not one person in a thousand can give a precise date for any event before 1066, we're more likely to hear about centuries than precise numbers.


----------



## GregorioH

If someone is talking about a 3-digit date, it can cause confusion because we expect dates to be four digits. So instead of saying "This happened in 315" people will often say, "This happened in 315 AD" to make it clear the number is a date and not, say, a time or a street address. I also hear "This happened in the year 315" and even "This happened in the year 315 AD."


----------



## Monica238

Uncle Jack said:


> There is no beginning, apart from the year 1100 for when "in the X hundreds" becomes common.
> 
> Using forms like "in the eleventh century"/"in the 11th century" or "in the ninth century"/"in the 9th century" has no beginning, and no end either. They can be used any century, for as long ago as centuries are used as a period of time.


Yes, I understand that, but as heypresto says "It's simply that we tend to say 'in the fourth century' rather than 'in the three hundreds.' This is true up to the year 1000" 

To the year 1000 from which year? :S


----------



## heypresto

Monica238 said:


> To the year 1000 from which year?


From the beginning of the first century.


----------



## Monica238

heypresto said:


> From the beginning of the first century.


So from 100 until 1000 the pronunciation is,  for example, 100 =in the first century, 500=in the fifth century, 800 in the eighth century. But "in the five  hundreds" and "in the eight hundreds" aren't impossible. I am  not  sure how to pronounce 100 in another way other than "in the first century."


After 1000 the pronunciation is 1100s= in the eleven hundreds and also  in the twelfth century,  1200s, in the twelve hundreds and in the thirteenth century.

Am I right?


----------



## heypresto

The first century - from 1 to 99, the second century = 100 - 199, etc. 



Monica238 said:


> But "in the five hundreds" and "in the eight hundreds" aren't impossible.


They aren't impossible, just unlikely, and uncommon. 



Monica238 said:


> I am not sure how to pronounce 100 in another way other than "in the first century."


Nor am I. 'In the hundreds' sounds odd. But it really doesn't matter as we have no reason to say it.


----------



## Monica238

heypresto said:


> The first century - from 1 to 99, the second century = 100 - 199, etc.


Could you tell me if this part is correct?

So from 100 until 1000 the pronunciation is, for example, 100 =in the first century, 500=in the fifth century, 800 in the eighth century. 


After 1000 the pronunciation is 1100s= in the eleven hundreds and also in the twelfth century, 1200s, in the twelve hundreds and in the thirteenth century.


----------



## heypresto

The simplest way to think about it is that before 1100 we generally talk about centuries, and after 1100 we can talk about centuries and hundreds.


----------



## ewie

Monica238 said:


> So from 100 until 1000 the pronunciation is, for example, 100 =in the first *second *century, 500=in the fifth *sixth *century, 800 in the eighth *ninth *century.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Oh dear, ewie. So what, exactly, are the first and last years of the first century?


----------



## ewie

Uncle Jack said:


> Oh dear, ewie. So what, exactly, are the first and last years of the first century?


 I don't know what you mean.


----------



## Uncle Jack

The year 100 is in the first century, which began with the year 1 (there was no year zero).

Of course, "!n the hundreds" (if anyone ever says this) means "in the second century" and we ignore the discrepancy of a year.


----------



## ewie

Ah yes: I was talking about the 'generally followed' method rather than the 'strictly speaking' one


----------



## Monica238

Uncle Jack said:


> The year 100 is in the first century, which began with the year 1 (there was no year zero).
> 
> Of course, "!n the hundreds" (if anyone ever says this) means "in the second century" and we ignore the discrepancy of a year.
> 
> 
> ewie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes: I was talking about the 'generally followed' method rather than the 'strictly speaking' one
Click to expand...




ewie said:


> Ah yes: I was talking about the 'generally followed' method rather than the 'strictly speaking' one


There are two versions for those too?  😳


----------



## heypresto

I was avoiding this debate and trying to keep it simple and make it easy. 

That's why I said:


heypresto said:


> The first century - from 1 to 99, the second century = 100 - 199, etc.


----------



## Monica238

Uncle Jack said:


> Oh dear, ewie. So what, exactly, are the first and last years of the first century?


Regarding this part

"So from 100 until 1000 the pronunciation is, for example, 100 =in the first century, 500=in the fifth century, 800 in the eighth century"

Dates between 100 until 1000,  for example, 124, 256, 456 and so on are pronounced as "one hundred and twenty-four" two hundred and fifty-six,"  "four hundred and fifty-six." And these are the only possible pronunciations, aren't they?


----------



## heypresto

No, we would follow the same pattern as, say, 1066 = "ten sixty six", or 1815 = "eighteen fifteen", 1984 = "nineteen eighty four", we would say 124 = "one two four", 256 = "two five six", and 456 - "four five six", etc.

It's pretty rare that we can be so specific with early dates like this. That's why we use vaguer terms, like '1st/2nd etc century.'


----------



## Uncle Jack

Monica238 said:


> Dates between 100 until 1000, for example, 124, 256, 456 and so on are pronounced as "one hundred and twenty-four" two hundred and fifty-six," "four hundred and fifty-six." And these are the only possible pronunciations, aren't they?


I think both forms are used. 55 BC (the only "other" date mentioned in _1066 and all that_ by Sellar and Yeatman, so it must be important) is invariably pronounced "fifty-five BC". Similarly, 43 AD (or 43 CE), which I would have thought was more important in the history of England than 55 BC, is pronounced "forty three", almost invariably followed by the letters AD or CE, as is usual with dates in the first century BC/BCE or AD/CE. 

I cannot think of any three digit year that is often referred to. When I encounter one, such as the year of King Edward the Martyr's death, I might say either "nine seven eight" or "nine hundred and seventy-eight". But he certainly died "in the tenth century".


----------



## Monica238

heypresto said:


> No, we would follow the same pattern as, say, 1066 = "ten sixty six", or 1815 = "eighteen fifteen", 1984 = "nineteen eighty four", we would say 124 = "one two four", 256 = "two five six", and 456 - "four five six", etc.
> 
> It's pretty rare that we can be so specific with early dates like this. That's why we use vaguer terms, like '1st/2nd etc century.'


Do you mean saying one hundred and twenty-four, two hundred and fifty-six, four hundred and fifty-six isn't wrong, but it's less common than  124 = "one two four", 256 = "two five six", and 456 - "four five six", etc?


----------



## natkretep

heypresto said:


> we would say 124 = "one two four", 256 = "two five six", and 456 - "four five six", etc.


You read them out as individual digits? I'd still say 'one twenty-four' and 'two fifty-six' etc. ('The first Council of Nicaea took place in AD three twenty-five.') Perhaps I'm the strange one.


----------



## heypresto

natkretep said:


> You read them out as individual digits?


Yes, to read dates as 'one twenty-four' and 'two fifty-six' etc, sounds American to me. 



natkretep said:


> Perhaps I'm the strange one.


 Or perhaps I am?


----------



## Monica238

heypresto said:


> Yes, to read dates as 'one twenty-four' and 'two fifty-six' etc, sounds American to me.
> 
> 
> Or perhaps I am?


Are these two versions ewie was referring to?


----------



## kentix

1-100 > First century
101-200 > Second century
201-300 > Third century
...
701-800 > Eighth century
...

The year 79 is in the 1st century.
The year 179 is in the 2nd century.
The year 652 is in the 7th century.


----------



## kentix

natkretep said:


> You read them out as individual digits? I'd still say 'one twenty-four' and 'two fifty-six' etc.


Your way is standard in the U.S., natkretep. I've never heard people say individual numbers.


----------



## kentix

heypresto said:


> But it really doesn't matter as we have no reason to say it.


This goes back to your earlier question, Monica. It might have been in another thread.


Monica238 said:


> "dates in the first millennium are less commonly talked about by non-historians."


Most people in their everyday lives have no reason at all to discuss dates that long ago. So they don't have a usual way of saying them. It's mostly historians who commonly discuss dates that long ago. And the standard in academia is to say the 7th century, not the 600s.


----------



## Monica238

ewie said:


> Ah yes: I was talking about the 'generally followed' method rather than the 'strictly speaking' one


As in   654 pronounced as either  six five four but also as  six hundred and fifty-four?


----------



## kentix

In the U.S. it would be six fifty-four.


----------



## heypresto

Monica238 said:


> As in 654 pronounced as either six five four but also as six hundred and fifty-four?


No. As in whether we take the year 100 to be the last year of the first century or the first year of the second century. I _think_.

We generally take the 'hundred' years (100, 400, 1500, 2000 etc) to be the first year of the century, and so 100 is the first year of the second century, and 2000 is the first year of the twenty-first century. 

In my posts above, I kept away from this question in order to keep it simple, and not add another layer of difficulty to confuse you.


----------



## JulianStuart

natkretep said:


> You read them out as individual digits? I'd still say 'one twenty-four' and 'two fifty-six' etc. ('The first Council of Nicaea took place in AD three twenty-five.') Perhaps I'm the strange one.


I do too, just like numbers for things besides years.

The century thing has changed.  The end of the nineteenth century was celebrated at the end of 1900, while the end of the twentieth century was _celebrated_ when 2000 rolled up on the calendar, i.e., at the end of Dec 31 1999, although "strictly speaking" it should have happened at the _end_ of 2000.  I think this distinction is what ewie was referring to.  (And then there was a possible reason to focus on the 1999-2000 transition, it was known as Y2K  )


----------



## Monica238

heypresto said:


> No. As in whether we take the year 100 to be the last year of the first century or the first year of the second century. I _think_.
> 
> We generally take the 'hundred' years (100, 400, 1500, 2000 etc) to be the first year of the century, and so 100 is the first year of the second century, and 2000 is the first year of the twenty-first century.
> 
> In my posts above, I kept away from this question in order to keep it simple, and not add another layer of difficulty to confuse you.



But Uncle Jack said both pronunciations are possible, or do I misunderstand?  😣 I have a three digit number too. 654 pronounced as either six five four but also as six hundred and fifty-four?

"I cannot think of any three digit year that is often referred to. When I encounter one, such as the year of King Edward the Martyr's death, I might say either "nine seven eight" or "nine hundred and seventy-eight". But he certainly died "in the tenth century".


----------



## JulianStuart

Monica238 said:


> But Uncle Jack said both pronunciations are possible, or do I misunderstand?  😣 I have a three digit number too. 654 pronounced as either six five four but also as six hundred and fifty-four?


And six fifty four.


----------



## heypresto

On reflection I find myself agreeing with Uncle jack and the others. I would indeed say 'six fifty-four' and 'nine seven-eight.'

I'm sorry to have confused you.  And the others.  And myself.


----------



## Monica238

JulianStuart said:


> And six fifty four.


So I don't misunderstand, do I?


----------



## Monica238

heypresto said:


> On reflection I find myself agreeing with Uncle jack and the others. I would indeed say 'six fifty-four' and 'nine seven-eight.'
> 
> I'm sorry to have confused you.  And the others.  And myself.


This discussion has been super helpful! Thanks, everyone!!!!


----------



## Uncle Jack

I don't think I'd use the "six fifty-four" pronunciation.
The other two both sound fine to me: "six five four" and "six hundred and fifty-four".


----------



## Monica238

Monica238 said:


> Could you tell me if this part is correct?
> 
> So from 100 until 1000 the pronunciation is, for example, 100 =in the first century, 500=in the fifth century, 800 in the eighth century.
> 
> 
> After 1000 the pronunciation is 1100s= in the eleven hundreds and also in the twelfth century, 1200s, in the twelve hundreds and in the thirteenth century.



Isn't there a mistake in my post? 1100 is "eleventh century" not "twelfth"  and 1200 is the twelfth century not "thirteenth".


----------



## kentix

No, they differ by one.

Years:
(*0*0)1 to 100 are the *1*st century.
*1*01 to 200 are the *2*nd century.
*2*01 to 300 are the *3*rd century.

So the number of the year (not counting 100, 200, 300...) is one less than the number of the century.

789 is in the eighth/8th century. (It's in the eighth set of 100 years, which goes from 701 to 800)

Of course, we don't put zeros at the beginning of years before 100.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Monica238 said:


> Isn't there a mistake in my post? 1100 is "eleventh century" not "twelfth"  and 1200 is the twelfth century not "thirteenth".


Really, we tend not to be so precise. Strictly speaking 1100 is in the eleventh century and the eleven hundreds, but I don't think it would be unusual in ordinary English to include it in the twelfth century, along with all the other years in the eleven hundreds. Historians are probably more precise, though.


----------



## heypresto

Uncle Jack said:


> I don't think it would be unusual in ordinary English to include it in the twelfth century, along with all the other years in the eleven hundreds.


 

See my post #33 above.


----------



## Adam Warren

To me, taking the "800" reference as an example, the "800s" refers to the years in the first decade of the ninth century. Referring to the century as a whole requires one to use "the ninth century". The text quoted is ambiguous, since separate centuries are referred-to, suggesting that the succeeding centuries are referred-to, not just the early years of each century. The usage in the text is imprecise.


----------

