We’ve been trying to figure this out in our office for months.
A 150th anniversary is a Sesquicentennial. 200th is Bicentennial.
What the heck do you call a 250th anniversary?
http://www.sls.lib.il.us/reference/por/features/97/annivers.html discusses this ad nauseam.
Holy monkees! Look at those things!
Well, thanks a lot, mok.
Umm…that page is neat and all, except that every single entry on it is wrong. They are all shifted off by one row. So be careful using the information on it.
Eh? How so? Better double check!
I note that their proposed word for a 6 year anniversary uses the Greek word for 6 rather than Latin like all the others. What do they have against sex???
I’ve alwyas fancied sesquibicentennial…would that be technially correct usage?
When I looked at it, it seemed to line up OK. It says that the 200th anniversary is the “Bicentennial”, so that checks out–as does all the rest, according to my rudimentary Latin.
[Spock]Fascinating[/Spock] In IE 6.0, the table appears to have an error in it that makes it misalign. So it may appear correct in some browsers, incorrect in others. Just be careful reading it then.
Ah. I see where we got mixed up. No prob. Looks good and that’s still a big help for us.
Yay!
What’s curious is that the “table” isn’t completely a <TABLE>. What they did was have a <TABLE> with a single row of three <TD> elements, each of which is the column of text, lined up by means of explicit <BR>'s. Which seems like a clumsy and error-prone way of doing it to me. For one thing, it’s going to break if displayed on a small enough browser window that any of the text wraps within its column - which I just caused to happen by shrinking my browser window, and may be what you observed. I wonder why they did it that way.