jump to navigation

The return of calendar chaos December 11, 2009

Posted by paulstella in Uncategorized.
trackback

That Charles Osgood. “What a rebel,” I used to think. Unlike the veteran CBS newsman, most of  us entered this decade by learning to say “2-thousand” in reference to the year. “2-thousand one, 2-thousand two”—it just sounds right.

But not to Charles Osgood. The host of Sunday Morning always references the date before delivering the news headlines. And throughout this decade, he has continued to announce the year as being twenty-something—“twenty-oh-one, twenty-oh-two.” Why does he have to be different? Can’t he just be like the rest of us?

Now comes along 2010. I assumed we were on a role with the whole “2-thousand” thing. It seems to be working for folks, so no need to change it, right? Then why is it happening?! I’m sure you’ve heard it. All the car commercials talk about the new twenty-10 models. A lot of the newscasters are discussing the twenty-10 election.

I’m not trying to be difficult here. I’m just looking for a little consistency. Is it going to be 2-thousand? Or is it going to be 20? Just let me know what you all decide, and I’ll go along with it.

Damn you, Charles Osgood!

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Guy Incognito - December 11, 2009

Grouping the 4-digit year by 2-digit chunks (“twenty, ten”) is, at the very least, consistent with the form of previous centuries (“nineteen, eighty-seven”…”eighteen, eighty-eight”, etc.).

There is no excuse for throwing the letter O in there, though, as in “twenty-oh-one”. Bring back the “aughts”!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: