Author Topic: In the New Yorker...  (Read 422125 times)

Offline Penthesilea

  • Town Administration
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,433
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #210 on: January 12, 2011, 10:03:46 am »
I sense some confusion.  

While it's true that in English, we refer to 1900-1999 as the "nineteen hundreds", we also refer to it as the "twentieth century".  

So, something occurring in the 1770s can be said to be in the "seventeen hundreds" (informally), but it is the "eighteenth century" (ordinally).  

You're right, I confused it indeed.
I understand the difference between talking about the nineteen hundreds (same as the seventies) and the twentieth century. Thanks for pointing it out.  :) I had the above wrong. And my memory may be wrong about Brits counting as I stated above. They may have ineed talked aobut the "seventeen hundreds" and not the "seventeenth century" when talkling about 1701 - 1800.

But what I can bet on is that I learned at school that in English you have to count the centuries differently, as I stated above.
Of course, just because I learned it at school doesn't mean it has to be correct. After all, I also learned that there is no plural of chicken: one chicken - two chicken. ::) And I'm not the only one. My online dictionary discussion forum is full of Germans stating there is no plural to the word chicken, and native speakers arguing differently. :laugh:


But maybe, maybe, this could be a BE/AE difference?


Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,567
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #211 on: January 12, 2011, 10:11:11 am »
I sense some confusion.  

While it's true that in English, we refer to 1900-1999 as the "nineteen hundreds", we also refer to it as the "twentieth century".  

So, something occurring in the 1770s can be said to be in the "seventeen hundreds" (informally), but it is the "eighteenth century" (ordinally). 

Agreed.

As we reckon time, the First Century of our era consisted of the years A.D. 1 through A.D. 100. Consequently, the Second Century was the years A.D. 101 through A.D. 200, and so forth and so on, so that the years 1701--1800 were the Eighteenth Century. Folks may remember this caused a lot of confusion a decade (!) ago over when the Twenty-first Century began, A.D. 2000 or A.D. 2001; it began January 1, 2001.

So I'm afraid Toobin wasn't being "informal"; he was just being wrong in his century--though I would add that my experience is that his error is not uncommon.

Having said all this, I will also add that despite all the reading I've done in Renaissance history, when somebody gets fancy and speaks or writes of the Italian Quattrocento (sp?), I'm still not sure if he or she is speaking of the Fourteenth Century (that is, the 1300s), or the 1400s (that is, the Fifteenth Century).  :-\
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,911
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #212 on: January 12, 2011, 10:55:48 am »
Yes, technically we should have partied like it was Dec. 31, 2000.

My online dictionary discussion forum is full of Germans stating there is no plural to the word chicken, and native speakers arguing differently. :laugh:

To me, two makes it chickens. But what about shrimp? Or fish? Or lox?


Offline southendmd

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,812
  • well, I won't
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #213 on: January 12, 2011, 11:04:44 am »

Of course, just because I learned it at school doesn't mean it has to be correct. After all, I also learned that there is no plural of chicken: one chicken - two chicken. ::) And I'm not the only one. My online dictionary discussion forum is full of Germans stating there is no plural to the word chicken, and native speakers arguing differently. :laugh:


Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.   :laugh:


Having said all this, I will also add that despite all the reading I've done in Renaissance history, when somebody gets fancy and speaks or writes of the Italian Quattrocento (sp?), I'm still not sure if he or she is speaking of the Fourteenth Century (that is, the 1300s), or the 1400s (that is, the Fifteenth Century).  :-\

My Italian is minimal, but I believe quattrocento  refers to the 1400s.  There is a cute little shop in Florence called cose del novecento which meant "things from the 1900s". 
photobucket sucks

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,567
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #214 on: January 12, 2011, 12:12:38 pm »
To me, two makes it chickens.

Yes, but what about in German? I'll have to wait till I get home tonight to check my Langenscheidt's.

Quote
But what about shrimp? Or fish? Or lox?

Well, we do have Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea.  ;D
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,567
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #215 on: January 12, 2011, 02:07:45 pm »
Bananas were introduced into the West by Alexander the Great in 327 B.C. They were first imported into the United States in 1870. If you ate a banana with your breakfast this morning, as I did, it was of a variety known as the Cavendish. Ninety-nine percent of bananas exported are Cavendishes.  :)
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Online Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,689
  • I'm marching for her!
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #216 on: January 12, 2011, 02:33:21 pm »
So, "ain't nobody here but us chickens" is a grammatical sentence? Whew, I was so worried!  :P
May 2019 be better for us all.

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,567
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #217 on: January 12, 2011, 03:27:13 pm »
So, "ain't nobody here but us chickens" is a grammatical sentence? Whew, I was so worried!  :P

Now you can sleep soundly tonight!  ;D
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Online Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,689
  • I'm marching for her!
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #218 on: January 15, 2011, 05:00:48 pm »
The Jan. 17 issue is the best I've read in a long time. David Brooks' Social Animal is entertaining and enlightening. This is the 1st thing I've read by him although I understand he is well known. Who Owns the Snow was funny, The Lamb Roast was a sweet memoir of a party-giving couple in NY that reminded me of the BBQ. Anthony Lane's critique of Another Year was scathing, and the crowning piece was The cult of the Constitution by Jill Lepore. Was it ever on target (sorry for the bad pun)!!
May 2019 be better for us all.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,911
Re: In the New Yorker...
« Reply #219 on: January 15, 2011, 05:28:38 pm »
The Jan. 17 issue is the best I've read in a long time. David Brooks' Social Animal is entertaining and enlightening. This is the 1st thing I've read by him although I understand he is well known.

He's a conservative columnist at the New York Times. I don't always like his politics (though he's very moderate), but he's an excellent analyst of class, culture, behavior, etc. I loved his book, Bobos in Paradise. This article, which I've only just started, is apparently an excerpt from his new book.