The holidays are over, the school year has begun, and we have entered a new decade. Before we get too far into this new year, though, perhaps we ought to decide how it should be pronounced.
There are two options for the reading of 2010:
First, we could continue with the pattern we have been using for the previous years of the 2000s, and say, “two thousand ten” or “two thousand and ten.” (The latter of the two is the more formal, British style.) This feels quite natural following “two thousand [and] nine.” There is also an elegant sound to “two thousand [and] ten” which is decidedly lacking in the alternative.
This brings me to our second option: “twenty ten.” Reading the year in this manner requires one less syllable, which makes it faster and easier to pronounce. It also follows the style of years prior to 2000—for example, 1974 was “nineteen seventy-four;” not “one thousand nine hundred [and] seventy four.” Furthermore, when we reach 2100, the shortened form will become more condensed—consider the possible pronunciations of 2154.
So which usage is correct? There is much debate about this on the internet, and people on both sides make valid points. The National Association of Good Grammar (ironically abbreviated as NAGG) declares that “twenty ten” is correct. Others argue that “two thousand ten” is entirely acceptable. What it comes down to is what feels right for you; it's a matter of personal preference. Some people say “twenty ten” sounds like a cliché science fiction movie, while others think “two thousand ten” is unnecessarily cumbersome.
Because languages are formed by the people who use them, and there are large groups of people in both camps, I personally feel that either style is acceptable. Languages are always changing, and when a significant segment of English speakers choose to use one pronunciation, spelling, or grammatical construction rather than another, a language will often adapt to accommodate the new style.
Consider these two sentences:
- May I borrow a pencil?
- Can I borrow a pencil?
Joking aside, however, can feels more natural than may to a large group of native speakers, and as such is generally considered acceptable in all but the most formal situations. It is taught in a number of reputable conversation textbooks because it is used by a large segment of native speakers. Language is constantly changing in a number of ways. Sometimes it’s better to go with the current than fight against it.
An example of how spelling evolves through the years can be found in the name of one of my favorite foods, the doughnut. Wait a minute, did I spell that right? Isn’t there a shop called Mister Donut? Are they spelling it wrong?
Actually, both spellings are correct. According to Wikipedia, the first known reference to these tasty fried bits of deliciousness used the spelling doughnut and actually referred to the round pieces cut from the middle of modern day ring doughnuts (or donuts). We now call these doughnut (or donut) holes. Because they were pieces of dough shaped like a nut, the word was spelled dough-nut or doughnut. This term later came to describe not only the ring which these “holes” came from, but also a wide variety of shapes, including jam-filled, maple bar, and apple fritter. Concurrently, numerous American shops and newspapers began to use the shortened form donut and dictionaries started to list both spellings as acceptable. Today some writers prefer the older, more traditional form, and others enjoy the brevity and simplicity of the newer spelling.
Like the pronunciation of 2010, this is a situation where language allows you a choice rather than prescribing one expression as correct. Perhaps you should consider the choice brought to you by this new decade over a cup of coffee and a donut—or a doughnut, if you prefer.
However you decide to say it, I wish you a joyful and bright year ahead.
After writing this, I had a serious Voodoo Doughnut craving. Tangfastic, McMinnville Cream, and Diablos Rex, oh my!
