The 2000s debate

Are we in twenty-fourteen, or are we in two thousand fourteen?


I know that I'm not exactly quick to get to this post. In my defense, I'm pretty sure I didn't have a blog when we hit the new millennium.

Some people insist that we should start with twenty because that's the way we handled things in the 1900s. How do you say 1900s? The consensus is it's the nineteen hundreds. Twenty hundreds just doesn't sound right. Perhaps that's why I tend to add a syllable to call this year two thousand fourteen.

Technically speaking, including "thousand" is the correct way to say the year. Separating the first two digits from the last two digits was a way to simplify things. One thousand nine hundred ninety-nine isn't nearly as easy to say as nineteen ninety-nine. That drops us from 9 syllables to just 5. The year was technically one thousand nine hundred ninety-nine.

Even though the longer version of the year is technically correct, I embraced the shortened version. It is socially acceptable (not something that I usually pay attention to), and it can save a lot of time once you look at how many times you might say the year.

For the current century, there is only a one-syllable difference. I don't mind the extra length of proper usage. The next century brings back a significant difference between these approaches. Two thousand one hundred is three syllables longer than twenty-one.

Does this argument about being technically correct mean that I will hold a grudge against anyone who calls this year twenty-fourteen? Absolutely not. I'll know what you mean, and I don't want to tell people that they have to do everything the same way that I do. Both should be viewed as acceptable.