Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations derfloh on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Name the first two 10-year periods starting in year 2000 1
- Thread starter ESquared
- Start date
Chance1234
IS-IT--Management
i can't stand both those expresions, bring on the rolling twenties!
Chance,
Filmmaker,gentleman and its great being the boss! ,
Chance,
Filmmaker,gentleman and its great being the boss! ,
Chance1234
IS-IT--Management
think in the second decade they were a bit more worried about getting blasted to bits on the western front
Chance,
Filmmaker,gentleman and its great being the boss! ,
Chance,
Filmmaker,gentleman and its great being the boss! ,
In the first decade, they were more worried about being blown to bits on the Spanish-American front.Chance1234 said:
'See, history repeats. Almost exactly 100 years ago, the USS Maine was sunk by a suspicious explosion while refueling in Cuba (USS Cole, anyone?). Then to avenge the Maine, the US invaded the Philippines in order to bring democracy to it - the same gesture is extended to Iraq today.
Filipinos thought the US was disingenious and mounted "liberation" attacks against it (just like those "terrorists" in Iraq today). The occupation/liberation of the Philippines lasted 14 years, just in time for the first World War.
Not a dull moment when centuries change.
Dimandja
- Thread starter
- #8
Turn of the Century...
Technically, the year 2000 isn't part of this century, which is an interesting thing. The 10th decade of 1900 isn't the 90s... the 10th decade is 1991 - 2000.
This term conjures up just one year, or one specific time for me, not a whole decade. (12:00:00.00 am, January 1, 2001.)
Technically, the year 2000 isn't part of this century, which is an interesting thing. The 10th decade of 1900 isn't the 90s... the 10th decade is 1991 - 2000.
This term conjures up just one year, or one specific time for me, not a whole decade. (12:00:00.00 am, January 1, 2001.)
Stella740pl
Programmer
What about "the first decade" and "the second decade" ?
- Moderator
- #10
You know, I wrote a newspaper article about exactly this.
Well, not QUITE exactly this... it was about the Y2K bug.
But I started it off with "We had the 80's, then the 90's... now I vote we call it the 'oughts'".
.... then I went on to say that we 'ought' to have thought of 4 digit years, that the president 'ought' to have kept it in his pants, etc. etc.
My vote is still for the 'oughts'.
Just my $0.02
"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg
Well, not QUITE exactly this... it was about the Y2K bug.
But I started it off with "We had the 80's, then the 90's... now I vote we call it the 'oughts'".
.... then I went on to say that we 'ought' to have thought of 4 digit years, that the president 'ought' to have kept it in his pants, etc. etc.
My vote is still for the 'oughts'.
Just my $0.02
"In order to start solving a problem, one must first identify its owner." --Me
--Greg
- Thread starter
- #11
-
1
- #12
These are the Twenty-Hundreds
By analogy with the nineteen-hundreds etc. Which were followed by the nineteen-tens, though the term isn't often used.
Checking Google confirms that the term is already in circulation, though some people dislike it.
------------------
A view from the UK
By analogy with the nineteen-hundreds etc. Which were followed by the nineteen-tens, though the term isn't often used.
Checking Google confirms that the term is already in circulation, though some people dislike it.
------------------
A view from the UK
ngkatsaras
IS-IT--Management
We have enough homonymns in our language, why do you have to go adding additional definitions for ought or aught?
No matter what it would sound like there's something the generation is failing to do.. like "they ought to be doing something better with their time than thinking about what to call these years!"
Just leave "ought" alone and all of it's homonyms! Can't we be a little more creative than that and come up with something nobody has ever heard of before? On the other hand, why do you need a new label for it? Why not just call it '04 or 2004? Adding another label just confuses people, keep it simple! Is it so difficult to say "two thousand four" or "oh four", no. And who's coming up with these labels for generations? roaring, rolling, gen-x, etc.. Personally I don't like being labeled and categorized! I've always had my own unique style and associated with a wide range of age groups both much older and younger.
No matter what it would sound like there's something the generation is failing to do.. like "they ought to be doing something better with their time than thinking about what to call these years!"
Just leave "ought" alone and all of it's homonyms! Can't we be a little more creative than that and come up with something nobody has ever heard of before? On the other hand, why do you need a new label for it? Why not just call it '04 or 2004? Adding another label just confuses people, keep it simple! Is it so difficult to say "two thousand four" or "oh four", no. And who's coming up with these labels for generations? roaring, rolling, gen-x, etc.. Personally I don't like being labeled and categorized! I've always had my own unique style and associated with a wide range of age groups both much older and younger.
AnotherHiggins
Technical User
ngkatsaras,
The topic here is what will this decade be called in years to come. Do you object to the term "80's music"? Even if you don't like that categorization, you surely can't object to the sentence, "In the 90's, 'Grunge' music became popular”. That's all we're talking about here - the term for this (and the next) decade.
BTW, "Roaring 20's" is used to describe the decade, not a generation of people. "Gen-x" on the other hand, is used to describe people of a certain age group, as is "Baby-Boomers." See the difference?
The topic here is what will this decade be called in years to come. Do you object to the term "80's music"? Even if you don't like that categorization, you surely can't object to the sentence, "In the 90's, 'Grunge' music became popular”. That's all we're talking about here - the term for this (and the next) decade.
BTW, "Roaring 20's" is used to describe the decade, not a generation of people. "Gen-x" on the other hand, is used to describe people of a certain age group, as is "Baby-Boomers." See the difference?
ngkatsaras
IS-IT--Management
I don't object to the term "80's music", I'm all for that. From what I read, the idea was to give a label to the 2000's, specifically 2000-2010? or is it 2001 to 2009? And call that period the "oughts" or "aughts".. so then we would have people in 2035 saying "I really wish they would play more aughts music. Now that would be lame! I just don't want that to happen. I'd prefer "naughties music" for sure!
AnotherHiggins
Technical User
Agreed! I'm personally in favor of 'Naughties' as well!
- Thread starter
- #18
ngkatsaras,
Do you know the meaning of aught? It means, both anything and zero or nothing. It is the latter meaning to which I was referring. Perhaps it is a shortening of naught.
Now, some facts:
• The gun caliber .3006 is called "thirty-aught-six."
• Historically, the years 1900-1909 were referred to as 'aught-one' through 'aught nine.' I am personally familiar with this usage as I remember phrases such as "back in aught-eight..."
Now consider that a group of ten years is named by the tens digit: the nineties are called so because of the 90 in 1990. However, we don't really have a collective name such as twenties or [/i]fifties[/i] for the ten numbers starting with 00 as in 2000.
Given all this information, it is a logical extension to call the years 2000 to 2009 the Aughts, and requires no "additional definitions."
Ought and all of "it is [sic] homonyms," which are actually synonyms, make perfect sense to use as a name.
-------------------------------------
A sacrifice is harder when no one knows you've made it.
Do you know the meaning of aught? It means, both anything and zero or nothing. It is the latter meaning to which I was referring. Perhaps it is a shortening of naught.
Now, some facts:
• The gun caliber .3006 is called "thirty-aught-six."
• Historically, the years 1900-1909 were referred to as 'aught-one' through 'aught nine.' I am personally familiar with this usage as I remember phrases such as "back in aught-eight..."
Now consider that a group of ten years is named by the tens digit: the nineties are called so because of the 90 in 1990. However, we don't really have a collective name such as twenties or [/i]fifties[/i] for the ten numbers starting with 00 as in 2000.
Given all this information, it is a logical extension to call the years 2000 to 2009 the Aughts, and requires no "additional definitions."
Ought and all of "it is [sic] homonyms," which are actually synonyms, make perfect sense to use as a name.
-------------------------------------
A sacrifice is harder when no one knows you've made it.
- Thread starter
- #19
ngkatsaras
IS-IT--Management
Honestly, I just don't like how it sounds.. it's just my opinion.. and I didn't sleep much last night, sorry if I came off a little rude. Your explanation is truly logical. There's just some words that sound kind of funny and I really just don't like them, I'm not sure why really.
I wonder if there is any forum for "good sounding" or "bad sounding" words and a ranking where we can all vote for our favorite or least favorite words.. purely from a phonetic standpoint, ignoring the definition(s) entirely. Perhaps that can be a new thread? But I'm thinking more along the lines of a hot or not website where you can flip through pages of words..
Vote for this word!!
synergy
[tt]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
^
[/tt]
spastic
[tt]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
^
[/tt]
I'm really at a loss for words.. maybe I'm just a word nerd. Is it just me or do some words "sound" cooler than others? Unfortunately for me today, I'm not feeling particularly creative. It seems to me that on some days, depending on my level of sleep deprivation, the number of words I have available in my immediate vocabulary fluctuates.
I know my grammar is not very good. It never really has been, but I think I get by well enough.
I wonder if there is any forum for "good sounding" or "bad sounding" words and a ranking where we can all vote for our favorite or least favorite words.. purely from a phonetic standpoint, ignoring the definition(s) entirely. Perhaps that can be a new thread? But I'm thinking more along the lines of a hot or not website where you can flip through pages of words..
Vote for this word!!
synergy
[tt]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
^
[/tt]
spastic
[tt]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
^
[/tt]
I'm really at a loss for words.. maybe I'm just a word nerd. Is it just me or do some words "sound" cooler than others? Unfortunately for me today, I'm not feeling particularly creative. It seems to me that on some days, depending on my level of sleep deprivation, the number of words I have available in my immediate vocabulary fluctuates.
I know my grammar is not very good. It never really has been, but I think I get by well enough.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question