Charles Ellson wrote: > On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:44:29 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: > >> On 18/08/2013 20:30, Richard Smith wrote: >>> On 18/08/13 20:24, Graeme Wall wrote: >>> >>>> 1900s plural is the decade, just as 1920s plural is the decade. >>> >>> You may use that convention, but a lot of people do use 1900s to mean >>> the century, so the ambiguity is still there. >> >> >> I have never heard of 1900s to refer to the whole century. It is usually >> called the twentieth century or 20th C. 1900s refers to the first decade >> of the 20th century. >> > .. and the last year of the 19th. > .. and, of course, it's only the first 9 years of the 20th. I take it that, like me, you were irritated about all the fuss at the start of 2000. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:50:12 +0100, Ian Goddard <goddai01@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >Charles Ellson wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 00:44:29 +0100, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> wrote: >> >>> On 18/08/2013 20:30, Richard Smith wrote: >>>> On 18/08/13 20:24, Graeme Wall wrote: >>>> >>>>> 1900s plural is the decade, just as 1920s plural is the decade. >>>> >>>> You may use that convention, but a lot of people do use 1900s to mean >>>> the century, so the ambiguity is still there. >>> >>> >>> I have never heard of 1900s to refer to the whole century. It is usually >>> called the twentieth century or 20th C. 1900s refers to the first decade >>> of the 20th century. >>> >> .. and the last year of the 19th. >> >.. and, of course, it's only the first 9 years of the 20th. I take it >that, like me, you were irritated about all the fuss at the start of 2000. > More a case of no longer being surprised at the number of people willing to believe a blatant untruth broadcast by officialdom.