Nope, it's "Sixteen hundred" or "the seventeenth century". I can't imagine anyone teaching them "One Thousand Six Hundred" unless they were reading something archaic (eg "In the year of our Lord One Thousand, Six Hundred and Twelve", that kind of thing)
unless they were reading something archaic (eg "In the year of our Lord One Thousand, Six Hundred and Twelve"
I thought of that, and it makes me wonder if that's what their teachers might have been going on? Sometimes foreign language teachers don't have much experience with the L2 themselves, so what they teach is very "bookish" and may not have a good relationship with real modern contexts.
Definitely sixteen hundred; if it was something like 1642 it'd be sixteen forty-two.
Now if you're talking sub 1000 AD years like 578 AD for example, then you might say either five seventy-eight, five seven eight AD or five hundred and seventy eight - I've heard all three being used and not in 'bookish' circles either.
Thank you! It will help me to be able to give them an answer from an authentic source about what's spoken in British English today. :)
then you might say either five seventy-eight, five seven eight AD or five hundred and seventy eight - I've heard all three being used and not in 'bookish' circles either.
This might even be similar to the question of what we're going to do with the 2000s when we get past "9" - I could have sworn we'd say "twenty-ten," and that's what I'll be saying, darnit, but most of the broadcasters I've heard have been saying "two thousand ten." Which just seems a waste of syllables.
The English dialect spoken and taught in (for example) India can sometimes retain the English spoken hundreds of years ago. That's not technically 'wrong', just a different dialect.
Then there are places like Japan, where they've just invented their own version of English that they teach each other, for reasons that are unclear to me.
That's not technically 'wrong', just a different dialect.
I agree, and World Englishes are a hot topic among language teachers so it's something I considered. Actually, as I understand it, quite a few of the differences between American English and British English are older forms and usages that Americans retained from the time the two split, and they changed later in Britain. But none of the students in my class right now have any long-spoken, traditional version of English in their countries. I think it's more likely your second example, where they're just teaching each other ... something, and reinforcing it with more non-native (English) teaching. Even that might be legitimate within Japan/Korea/wherever, if it develops long enough, but I'm charged with helping my students survive in an American academic environment, so I'll at least make that part clear to them when I can. :)
Comments 8
It's them not you!
Reply
unless they were reading something archaic (eg "In the year of our Lord One Thousand, Six Hundred and Twelve"
I thought of that, and it makes me wonder if that's what their teachers might have been going on? Sometimes foreign language teachers don't have much experience with the L2 themselves, so what they teach is very "bookish" and may not have a good relationship with real modern contexts.
Reply
What's L2? Second language? I like the abbreviation!
Reply
Reply
Now if you're talking sub 1000 AD years like 578 AD for example, then you might say either five seventy-eight, five seven eight AD or five hundred and seventy eight - I've heard all three being used and not in 'bookish' circles either.
Reply
then you might say either five seventy-eight, five seven eight AD or five hundred and seventy eight - I've heard all three being used and not in 'bookish' circles either.
This might even be similar to the question of what we're going to do with the 2000s when we get past "9" - I could have sworn we'd say "twenty-ten," and that's what I'll be saying, darnit, but most of the broadcasters I've heard have been saying "two thousand ten." Which just seems a waste of syllables.
Reply
Then there are places like Japan, where they've just invented their own version of English that they teach each other, for reasons that are unclear to me.
Reply
I agree, and World Englishes are a hot topic among language teachers so it's something I considered. Actually, as I understand it, quite a few of the differences between American English and British English are older forms and usages that Americans retained from the time the two split, and they changed later in Britain. But none of the students in my class right now have any long-spoken, traditional version of English in their countries. I think it's more likely your second example, where they're just teaching each other ... something, and reinforcing it with more non-native (English) teaching. Even that might be legitimate within Japan/Korea/wherever, if it develops long enough, but I'm charged with helping my students survive in an American academic environment, so I'll at least make that part clear to them when I can. :)
Reply
Leave a comment