|
|
|
|||||||||||||
Smart Tip Inside! May 17,2001 Dave O
wrote:Hi Randy, This is Dave O, the author of the dictionary-by-phone extension on Tellme. I did not write the definition of "twenties" as referring to the period of time from 1920 to 1929, namely that it should instead refer to 1921 through 1930 If I'm reading you correctly, you're basing this on the fact that there was no zero year, so the first decade in the AD time era was year 1 to year 10. The second was year 11 to year 20. The third was year 21 to year 30, and that is the period you would call the "twenties", is that correct? You're right when you surmise that I am only providing an interface to a dictionary and that I do not control the dictionary's content. It is in fact Merriam Webster's online dictionary, found at M-W.Com. You should probably direct your concerns to them. However, I would have to say that I disagree with you. A decade, of course, is a period of ten years. And the first year of the AD period really was 1, so the first decade really did run from 1 to 10, then 11 to 20, then 21 to 30. But that has no bearing on the meaning of the word "twenties". A person enters his 20's when he has the birthday following his 19th, when he turns 20. When he turns 30, he has entered his 30's. The fact that a person has a zero year and the AD era did not has no impact on the meaning of the word. That is of course only my opinion. But since it is supported by all widely published dictionaries and by the vast majority of public opinion, I'd have to say it's also correct. If I've missed your point, please feel free to clarify it. Thank you for your feedback on the dictionary. Sincerely, Dave O Publisher@unitedstates.com response: Thank You Dave O, I understood that your TellMe definitions were an interface and yes I've been in teleconference with Webster who I promised not to embarrass in the coming months of the campaign which by the way has only to do with naming the decade and not other references such as the twenties years of my (your) life. It was an effort assigned pollsters and chief editors of OED and Merriam originally and I was unaware at that time. This was a monumental project which I actually found myself next in the drivers seat as the now faltering campaign of 1999 and (into March) 2000 became defined uncomfortable, 2 months even before I came aboard. I have another Academic "Zebulon" inbox with me as you and he's now on my platform with this topic of naming the decade. I would request you narrow your scope of the issue here of concerns for grammatically naming the decade and in turn I suggest that numerically therefor and lexicographically the whole address is in error as posted in dictionaries. Webster copy editor rather responded in turn as you, commenting that people use the data whether correctly or incorrectly and that in turn is what is selected for entry. It may be that these entries will bounce into the definitions more accurately soon. I do hope. Bearing on the word "twenties" again is in vernacular and can you admit since we agree on the initial objectivity of "included years" that people have been grammatically wrong in their individual interpretation of the years of their twenties or, more personally face up that, well "at least I referred to my twenties that way". You've made me think about this today again in a new light and whether you know it now this is teaming up for quite an interesting detail for readers. I have the first "decade campaign" on the net and request your comments for public note. Lastly, on second glance at your comments, I would ask you please now get aboard this campaign as I have it at TwentyZeros Dot Com, with careful editing it is moving swiftly along and I do believe you can help. Review and reply to your statement that "a person has a "year zero." Correctly (lexicographically and in a vernacular sense if not then so technically) a persons first year is his/her "year one" and is correlated at the end of the year as is a mile marker is on the highway. Is a person for that matter zero years old until end of his/her first year? Who says a person has a year zero? Where? Anywhere please! We might go on the Today Show with this one day. Your assistance is far greater of inspiration to us (USAToday Reporter/Washington Post Reporter/EIC-Merriam/EIC-OED) than the copy editor I spoke with at Merriam. Randy Frushour United states Publisher On May 17, Dave O Hi Randy, What to name the decade of 2000-2009 is indeed a puzzle, and one that once solved won't really be solved anyway until and unless the general public buys into it. "Ain't" was considered a non-word, but it ain't anymore... :-) Of course, you probably consider the question to be more of what to call 2001-2010, lumping 2000 in with the 1990's, true? . I will answer your questions. 'Does anyone refer to a person's first year of life as their "zero year"?' No, I've never heard that term actually used. But since a person is considered a one-year-old after they've lived 365 days, it stands to reason that they are a de facto "zero-year-old" until that date. This is in contrast to the AD time period, which started out essentially at 1, and when it was 365 days old, was called "2 AD". You said this 'has only to do with the naming of the decade and not other references such as the "twenties" of your life': The decades don't really have "names" per se, they are numbered and referred to by their numbers. As such, the meaning of "the twenties" isn't in question or up for debate. It is just like the number 20. It means twice 10. Four times five. There is no debate. The "twenties" span from 20 to 29, whether we are talking about people's ages, or the calendar, or check numbers in your check register. "It may be that these entries will bounce into the definitions more accurately soon": Don't misunderstand me, I do not agree that the twenties end on 30, or that the thirties end on 40. It's not a matter of popular opinion, it is a matter of fact. If a two-digit number starts with "2", it's a "twenty". If it doesn't, it's not. Thank you for your time, DaveO Good call Dave O however you should consider your statement that "I'm reminded of a scripture where Paul warned about getting involved in 'profitless debates about words' and I really don't want to be on the sending end of such a profitless debate" - which is right in manor how you've expressed Yourself. That is ok though! Truly I do not see a debate here still as yet. Correspondence is constructively normal here not the event of Paul who was a defendant of his own apostleship from the conversion. He repented later seemingly of a responsible recourse (better or worse) fromhis own guilt. Why didn't he come when the call to everyone was given from the beginning? You involved yourself somehow did you not with linguistics. If I were better at the skills of language that many have I wouldn't be so hot at pursuing these answers. Remember I had no involvement in the beginning with this anyway but having the "worlds leading millennium celebration" (on the net) I offered my input as I had without question named the decade for my own network. The rest is a simple matter of counting and an easy one at that when all one has to count up to is 10 or 20. This is only yet an online exchange but I thought you might like involvement. I take everything seriously in my later years including entertainment which is where this is headed clearly. If I'm right which isn't necessary or important You appear to have not looked all the way through my twenty zeros web site including the table of contents. Lastly today for better graph of where you object individually is "on the year of twenty years old or say, 30 years old. In only that light can I see your point. Back to the issue of "the naming as a number" the decade. Then scholastically allowing for the year say, 2000 to fitly enter the 1990s. Thanks randy frushour Back To Dave .... Of course, you probably consider the question to be more of what to call 2001-2010, lumping 2000 in with the 1990's, true? Dave! Randy again... At some point I have to comment on what seems confusing to this author of "dictionary -by-phone whom responded to an automated response which I first opted in on when using TellMe. When looking at sets of low and easy numbers throughout our personal and individual lives we lodge in our minds every collateral issue irrationally before looking at the topic singularly (seperatly) as Dave O did when making the parallel connection between and to "Decades" with the "years of ones life" as say, "My thirties" and so further side-rails the issue for dialog discussion 'of twenties" more being a homonymous meaning and reference. Nearly related yes but still out of the dogmatic question of concern, which is naming the decade with numerical characters of the alphabet so as to become an alpha-numeric term. The outcome would be an event unprecedented in history as it requires a 2 word title which has yet been assigned or for that matter, outside of this forum even referred to. Randy Frushour 6-23-01 Hi Randy, This is Dave again, I'm the author of the Tellme extensions DICTI, ENCYC, GOOGL, BATTL, and DIREX. I have received some feedback from someone that sounds very much like you so I am assuming it is you and replying to you. If I'm mistaken, feel free to ignore me or correct me. I appreciate the feedback I receive from the users of my extensions. I do this for fun, but part of the fun is providing a service that people find useful and enjoyable. You commented that your search for "god" in the encyclopedia yielded little. I pull the information from http://www.encyclopedia.com, so I am at their mercy to provide accurate and complete information. I did choose them based on the brevity of their articles and the two-tiered lookup method they employ, so I expect the articles to be short, but still complete and informative. What specifically did the articles fail to address about your search topic? When I fired that search at the encyclopedia, I got back several articles. When it starts reading the article titles to you, you then need to say "go" or hit the star key (*) to read the article. Did you read an article that you felt was inappropriately brief? Thank you for your assistance in making this extension better for everyone. Dave Monday, June 25, 2001 Dave, Whoever it was - was a smart individual, at least they're "looking for the right life" as general though in speech. It wasn't me. Thanks again for your email conference on the Twenty Zeros "first decade." It might be noted for your records additionally about my campaign that in England a Book Editor of the largest publishing company there (Christine Firth), with over 500 books copy edited to here credit all located at one website, coincided the recommendation for scholars to this global project, the name "Twenty Zeros." Neither she or I at that time knew of each others mutual selection while my copy went online though 2 weeks ahead of hers; research reveals. When and if I have to, I'll revert my campaign back in the direction of this expert and double up for the apparent lost cultural scope. I've never done anything like this before so how exactly I might attempt to lead this topic over and properly onto popular media is a professional guess if not instincts. Your outstanding objection as I interpreted our dialog was that it's insignificant to think we require a name for a decade as general. You're not alone on that if that's correct. Why, I have to ask does "Nineteen Nineties" and "Nineteen Eighties" AND any previous decade rightfully get their name? My only answer was/is actually a linguists answer given during the project of 1999 which is, "it is unprecedented and has yet to be uncovered or unveiled." Randy Frushour Dave the same day ... "Rats. That's one problem with the feedback system, people can leave ambiguous comments and then I don't know what they meant and can't contact them. Thanks for correcting me. Take care of yourself, Dave" |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
| United States Publisher |
 |
  |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00878 |
| zerOs home | Beginner Forum | Genuine Unies Viewer Zeb | Dictionary Comment | Last Half First Decade | Exposition | Multiparty |