The year 2_14 2_15 etc

Radio_Fan_67

Has anyone else noticed that more and more people are copying Michael Noonan by say the year as 2 14, 2 15 etc ?

Annasopra

Yep - very irritating

mad muffin

Every time some one says it like that, I slap a babies arse… very hard. :mad:

5starpool

No, I seem to know more normal people who call it 2014, 2015, etc.

cnoc

Radio_Fan_67 wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed that more and more people are copying Michael Noonan by say the year as 2 14, 2 15 etc ?

It is very irritating. 1800 years behind time! It should be pronounced twenty fourteen.

Wilberto

cnoc wrote: »

It is very irritating. 1800 years behind time! It should be pronounced twenty fourteen.

But it's not "twenty fourteen" either. It's two thousand and fourteen. As in two thousand and fourteen years after the death of Christ.

catallus

You mean the birth of Christ, heathen!

cnoc

Wilberto wrote: »

But it's not "twenty fourteen" either. It's two thousand and fourteen. As in two thousand and fourteen years after the death of Christ.

There is a difference between expressing a year date and stating the time elapsed since an event.

MarkR

Fecking splitters.

Quazzie

It's twenty fourteen the same way it was nineteen ninety four. It wasn't one thousand nine hundred and ninety four.

JaseBelleVie

Well, did we not say "nineteen ninety nine" when referring to the year 1999? or "nineteen eighty seven" for 1987?

I will admit, "twenty oh four"/"twenty nought four" would have sounded weird for 2004.

But to my ear, "twenty fourteen" sounds fine. As does "two thousand and fourteen", for 2014.

2-14/"two fourteen" sounds sh*t, to be honest.

Wilberto

cnoc wrote: »

There is a difference between expressing a year date and stating the time elapsed since an event.

Says who?


Besides, every time you say "2014", the A.D. is implied, which means that you are "stating the time elapsed since an event", and hence it should be pronounced as "two thousand and fourteen."

looking_around

has 2k14 anything to do with it?

like people who would say two kay fourteen. and they never said twenty or two thousand.
dropping the k?

dxhound2005

Wilberto wrote: »

Says who?


Besides, every time you say "2014", the A.D. is implied, which means that you are "stating the time elapsed since an event", and hence it should be pronounced as "two thousand and fourteen."

The other precedent was set a thousand years ago in 1066. Which is universally spoken as Ten sixtysix. I never heard anyone saying One thousand and sixtysix.

mad muffin

What about the year of our Lord 666 :eek:

bop1977

Not as bad as the American two thousand fourteen, instead of two thousand AND fourteen. That Yankee crap does my head in.

Iwasfrozen

Wilberto wrote: »

But it's not "twenty fourteen" either. It's two thousand and fourteen. As in two thousand and fourteen years after the death of Christ.

It's twenty fourteen. I doubt in nineteen ninety nine you were calling it one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine.

The tradition of calling it "two thousand and..." only started after the year 2000 when the other system didn't make sense any more.

MistyCheese

JaseHeath wrote: »

2-14/"two fourteen" sounds sh*t, to be honest.

2-14 sounds like quarter past two.

MadsL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic

Quazzie

MadsL wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgmfFcyt7r0

Kermit.de.frog

MistyCheese wrote: »

2-14 sounds like quarter past two.

*2-15*

Alice1

I can (just about) accept the "two thousand and fourteen" gang - but hearing Michael Noonan saying "two fourteen" makes me grind my teeth and scream loudly.

It's twenty fourteen - just like 1914 or 1814..