My Polish friend who teaches English asked me and I did some research. Jury is still out. Who decides this stuff? I think I'll defer to the almighty BBC who probably had a team working on it.
"I was a little confused about this too with the arrival of 2000 where we say two thousand so I looked for it on Google search. Some nice people even have it as part of operational standards so I guess this must be right see but they are not clear on what to do with 2045 http://www.geocities.com/jusjih/numbers.html#ddr
1000- one thousand
1074 - ten seventy-four
456- four hundred and fifty-six
2045-two thousand and forty-fife or twenty forty-five
see debate below (me thinks the latter)
1766-seventeen sixty-six
For 2005 we have this answer from a discussion on the web:
"two thousand five - most often
two thousand and five - fairly often
twenty o-five - seldom, but it is heard
I'm sure when we get into the "teens," we'll hear the "twenty" pattern more often, as in: 2012 twenty twelve, or 2014 twenty fourteen."
The BBC are correcting us already - "I was listening to the news on BBC Radio 4 this week and I heard the news-reader pronounce the year as twenty oh four rather than two thousand and four. The newsreader repeated this a minute later, so it was clearly a deliberate policy rather than a mistake."
I guess BBC must be right as they know best but common usage is two thousand and four so what would you teach? I reckon when we hit twenty ten it will all be the same. So twenty forty five I'd say."
No comments:
Post a Comment