| Viewer Zeb: "I want to promote my "Unies" for the years 2000 - 2009. Zeb" Response: Dear Zeb, You are here or "may be" later in bad shape with this to have rejected the year 2010 if naming the decade is your mission. The year 2000 numeric and incrementally belongs to the 19'90s as questionable as it may sound at first, grammatically speaking, while in our English vernacular use yet unexplored. Further as some critism for your "unies" constuctively, the "unies" as a name and numeric for the decade sounds neat and though my opinion is then yes "that's fine" but when the report as you have it in my inbox gets to the other end of the "forwarded chain" of messaging and the Chief asks then, "what Unies?" What do we answer? "The Nineteen-Unies? What Unies? Which century does your title refer to I ask and submit on the basis of this single question that your title is of itself incomplete however I am grateful for you being onto what I feel will be the next cultural debate over literal epochal terms. Two words are necessary to call by name ANY decade. The first referring in large to "the hundred of years" of referancing, by count and the second word "the decade of (as prefixed) years" such as nineties and again such as "nineteen" referring to the one hundred years of and in the 20th century and the "nineties" referring to the decade of years (19)91, 92, 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 and 00. The work is just getting underway. 21 hours before receiving your mail-message I put a couple of calls in to dictionaries. They might be embarrassed a little to note they also eroneously report the decade of the nineties (in the 2000 edition-the 2002 edition eliminated such previous references entirely) as I, you and many scholars have done. A definition of a decade is 10 years and that cannot be ignored or gotten around, as with or by some exception such as "a decade and probably the first decade" having only 9 years which then and only there and then could the rest of time and eternity be shored up properly. Forget all of that. Everyone including myself will have now to admit that they previuosly miscounted the first 10 years which subsequently led us to referring in vernacular terms inaccurately about years of decades. You may citate Google.com search "decade name" or Yahoo! Search "first decade" and see how this campaign shapes up. My report "double meanings in the English language is riddle answer to the name and title of our decade. Each of the prefix years begin with (not only one but 2 - except for year 2010) zeros. How did/do you come up with and to "Unies" (meaning ones)? The succinct or distinctive number of our "one hundred years" is Twenty (20). This is where and why now "double meanings" are considered as some may with their first look otherwise see "20 circles" in their minds eye ("OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"). I have a contest going with an AT&T operator for "whose title will ultimately win" in the running for chosen term. I wish you as I did him "good luck". He selected the "Twenty Aughts." At least he grabbed onto a 2 word title which precisely addresses the main question. I not knowing you Zeb nor you me, don't yet anyway, ask or expect you to join my campaign however you may but hope you approve of what it is here each of us are doing. Thank You tremendously, Randy Frushour  Smart Tip Inside! Zeb Again ... "OK, upon reading your email again, I feel like we are not on the same page here" I am in the understanding that 2000-2009 is ten years and the only digit that changes (is) in the first digit, likewise all the years from 2000-2009 can be counted with one digit 0-9 hense the term unies. Weathermen have used unies to describe the "weather temps." "Being in the mid-upper unies" just as they say "temps being in the low-mid nineties", nineties being the years 1990-1999, the next year is 2000 the next decade, not century. The 21st CENTURY starts at 2001, but the new DECADE starts with 2000. I look foward to your reply, being that I am not a stubborn man and if you can supply me with the right material - I am not closed minded and am actually eagerly awaiting your information... Zeb Response: Common' Zeb! "A" didget you mean, not "one" didget. The prefix is 0 (zero - 20 of them, in fact and then, even ONLY coincidental) not one (1), correct? 2000 - 2009 yes is ten years but for that matter generically or EVENLY speaking yes, constitutes a (not "one" decade) decade but so is and does 2003 - 2012. What we're searching for "is including with the easiest" name in the alphanumeric coded system and "is the exact 10 years" of concern and of question and which constitutes our present decade of NEARLY adjusts as describes THIS decade, considered of facts that Emperor Ceasar 2000 years ago screwed things entirely down and up for us and more importantly here for YOU and I Zeb (or did he?) for what I feel is not language or grammar barriors, or for that matter cultural/popular vernacular but maybe "more descriptive" of lingual hurrdling. I saw this from the beginning ("completely well" after my campaign for the Twenty Zeros had been abandoned as completed) when the original concerns of the USAToday 1999 report (I was today on the phone with USAToday AND Merriam Webster) was "what do we do with year 2000 OR "the symbolic Year Zero" both obviously for consideration of decades, the century and too millenniums blocked. You must read my entire report while I warn you to so do when you're entirely focused on the alphanumeric fraction included with a touch of alpha-numeric vernacular. I can't beleive people still (although I admit I have been into this with priorities that nothing else has kept with me) ignore the fact that there WAS NO YEAR ZERO. You're brilliant communicating this thought. Go on with a mere count to ten beginning with one not zero. Read carefully my account of succeeding and successive decades which "none" are unlike the first. You then will account the year 2000 in the decade of the N I N E T I E S, unless you like some count the numeric character "0" as your 1st entry. This would yes then include with only '01, '02, '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 & '09. Give this all a little more careful consideration as will I too and likewise. I greatly appreciate your expressed view. It is not technically inaccurate but as you say "YET I feel" too (you said) "we're not on the same page" though the discourse has richly rewarded the column and I do hope we are in the same book. Have a pleasant day, Randy Zeb again ... "Well then in your argument how do they get away with using the nineties?" I mean you said 2000 is included in the nineties (which i don't believe it is) but they (meaning the entire US) used the nineties? Zeb Response: Zeb, Good and excellent question! First, break away the word, of the "two-word phrase" or term, "nineteen" as it refers for viewers to that which is "the century" in mention. Correct? The "nineties" in the title, "nineteen- nineties" here of mention, refers most acurately to (91, 92, 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 and sadly so "2 0 0 0") the decade or "ten span" of years broadly accepted whether your preference or mine. Eighteen-Nineties is example forwarded here for some beginning precedent of where and what my point is, to "you scholars." Now "nineteen-seventies" followed by "nineteen-eighties" and again then entering as "nineteen-nineties" previously I see "shook everybody" at the knees, because "twenty zeros" didn't or doesn't sound RIGHT. I admit it so but don't right there just stop at and to now what is obvious in a "lexicographical correct sense." I stake my reputation on that, it (twenty zeros - yes - and 20 zeros, even) will be soon "seen clearly" and so subsequently used in personal vernacular and vocabularies. There is in our day and age more a sense of this correctness considering that for example, "the larger media corporation summizing a final billion dollar deal or expressly posting the epochal period of their projections or earnings, might announce badly to their client that the name of our decade presently is being hashed over by web audiences in a "sorted contest situation where is getting consensus" and so, mulled over by Internet viewers will, for all acceptably agree on and well, other than that I can only say that the exact name is "whatever YOU feel comfortable with so be smart about something." Zeb I hope this is enlightening. Where you may get some enlightenment I only get more exhausted trying to richly explain this "near dilemma." A Final Word With Zeb From Publisher: Dear Viewer Zeb, You are perfect within your "presentation of your Unies" if this only were the ACTUAL first decade, meaning the years through 9AD, being 1AD or 01 AD - 10 AD and if you had identified with us the decimal place of concerns for our "issue and topic as a decade titlement" and not some "collateral matter of years," but it isn't and you didn't! Even anyway so that is where you begin your argument against me for THAT FIRST decade 1AD - 10AD or 0001AD - 0010AD and of my Word and term "Zeros." All along and from the beginning of this episode I found polling viewers first on the web by USAToday, I realistically considered that it isn't the name of a number that we're looking for until assigned so by scholars or officials for the time. While in the dictionary "one" is the best definition for uni and "unies" is not necessarily the best representation for "ones", and though is a rather descript definition however, Iam reconsidering and YOU HAVE my vote. I here and now concur that the UNIES is a better "choice for" the decade of 1st Century (BC,AD and/or before Genesis depending on final public polling) and specifically "1st post millennium AD" not ours here. There are too many zeros and worse there are exactly 20 which cubically fit the genetic "Twenty Zeros term" I suggest is all way too obvious to us here and today. Argument for unies, if you let go of my (20) "zeros name" as place in history for this decade, is as obvious a name as any for the first decade in the first century in the first post millennium. Public opinion is requested on "the ers's idiom" and our millennium epoch unraveling now for dictionary lexicography. United States General Publisher, Randy Frushour |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
| United States Publisher |
 |
  |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00378 |
| zerOs home | Beginner Forum | Genuine Unies Viewer Zeb | Dictionary Comment | Wikipedia Misnomer | Last Half First Decade | Exposition | Multiparty |