Why don’t we put a comma in the year? (i.e., 2008, not 2,008)

Factual Questions
21

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
Cite? I’ve never seen a style guide that says this.

The Chicago Manual of Style says to use commas “In most figures of one thousand or more.” It also says to use commas in “year numbers of five or more digits.”
[/QUOTE]

Omitting the comma in four-digit numbers is generally the style for scientific matter. Style guides that use it include AMA, CSE (Council of Science Editors), and ACS (American Chemical Society). Words into Type also suggests it as an option.

I often have projects that are following Chicago but omit the four-digit comma because of either author or publisher preference.

22

[QUOTE=Schnitte]
The numerical character of years is also very evident if you write them in Roman numerals. where you have to do some math (adding to and subtracting from the nearest round number).

This is nitpicky, but I’d like to point out that ordinary numbers are not adjectives either, grammatically speaking. In a sentence like, “I saw four cars driving down the street,” the word “four” is not an adjective modifying the noun “cars,” the way (for example) “big” would be if I were talking about big cars. Number names are a category of words on their own.
[/QUOTE]

Right, it’s typically used as a noun, but as its origins are adjectival in nature I was guessing at possible influences on custom.

23

[QUOTE=Schnitte]
As elegant as this answer is, it only postpones the need for a definite answer by approximately 8000 (or 8,000?) years. Shouldn’t we on the SDMB be accustomed to long term thinking? :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

Hmmm . . . the y10k problem. I wonder if anyone’s reserved the domain name yet?

Yup.

24

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Hmmm . . . the y10k problem. I wonder if anyone’s reserved the domain name yet?

[/QUOTE]

Wiki also has an article on the issue.

25

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
Perhaps, but this doesn’t seem correct:

Why don’t we put a comma in the year (for example, 2008, not 2,008)?
Rather, I meant:

Why don’t we put a comma in the year (that is, 2008, not 2,008)?
Oh, and –1 for missing the placement of the question mark. :stuck_out_tongue:
[/QUOTE]

But it’s “that is” meaning an exact definition, not an example of what you’re talking about. “2008, not 2,008” is only one of many examples you could have used, not the single definition of what you are talking about.

Point, or rather, negative point, taken on the question mark!

26

[QUOTE=gigi]
But it’s “that is” meaning an exact definition, not an example of what you’re talking about. “2008, not 2,008” is only one of many examples you could have used, not the single definition of what you are talking about.

Point, or rather, negative point, taken on the question mark!
[/QUOTE]

Neat. What style guide/usage manual/client restricts “that is” to a unique meaning with an exact definition? While I don’t see a specific rule (please help if there is one), Chicago uses the more standard/typical meaning of in other words. A specific example would have just been just 2008.

27

[QUOTE=friedo]
Four digit numbers usually don’t get commas in the first place. Most style guides tell you leave them out until the numbers get to five digits.
[/QUOTE]

You might be right that most style guides say this; I have no idea.

But the most commonly used style guides, such as AP and Chicago, certainly require a comma for 1,000.

28

[QUOTE=acsenray]
You might be right that most style guides say this; I have no idea.

But the most commonly used style guides, such as AP and Chicago, certainly require a comma for 1,000.
[/QUOTE]

Just for the record, here’s what ChiMan says about it (bold emphasis mine):

29

[QUOTE=Schnitte]
Wiki also has an article on the issue.
[/QUOTE]
Which says,

What would be its replacement? Any suggestions?

30

[QUOTE=Musicat]
Which says,What would be its replacement? Any suggestions?
[/QUOTE]

The Gregorian calendar deviates from the solar year by approximately one day in 3,300 years; that’s considerably less than the Julian calendar, which was replaced by the Gregorian one in 1582, but it’s still enough to cause trouble. By the year 10,000, this will have accumulated to a deviation of about 2.55 days, which I think is enough to warrant another calendar reform before Y10K. This reformcould be very similar to the 1582 reform: Stick with the existing set of months and the existing year count, skip a few days to compensate for the accumulated deviation, and change the leap year rule to get as close to the length of the solar year (365.24219 days) as possible. The Gregorian calendar has an average duration of a year of 265.2425 days; the Julian calendar had 365.25 days. I’m confident they will be able to come up with a more sophisticated leap year rule to get closer.

31

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
Neat. What style guide/usage manual/client restricts “that is” to a unique meaning with an exact definition? While I don’t see a specific rule (please help if there is one), Chicago uses the more standard/typical meaning of in other words. A specific example would have just been just 2008.
[/QUOTE]

<<“I.e.” stands simply for “that is,” which written out fully in Latin is ‘id est’. “I.e.” is used in place of “in other words,” or “it/that is.” It specifies or makes more clear.

“E.g.” means “for example” and comes from the Latin expression exempli gratia, “for the sake of an example,” with the noun exemplum in the genitive to go with gratia in the ablative . “E.g.” is used in expressions similar to “including,” when you are not intending to list everything that is being discussed.

Examples of i.e. and e.g.:

I.E. Id Est
I’m going to the place where I work best, i.e., the coffee shop. [There is only one place that I am claiming is best for my work. By using “i.e.”, I am telling you I am about to specify it.]

E.G. Exempli Gratia
At the places where I work best, e.g., Starbucks, I have none of the distractions I have at home. [There are lots of coffee shops I like, but Starbucks is the only international one, so it’s the only “example” that would work.]>>

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/abbreviations/f/ievseg.htm
Unless you are only concerned with 2008 and don’t care about the lack of a comma in 1492, 1776, 2001, etc., it’s e.g. Perhaps you were defining “the year” as 2008, but from your OP, which describes years other than 2008, I have to imagine you cared about the punctuation of all four digit years.

32

Right, your description of e.g. is fairly common – it’s a non-exhaustive list, which is why using etc. with it is redundant. But I’m hoping you can point to a standard guide that suggests such a restrictive use of i.e., especially as the two abbreviations are primarily used in informal writing.

Oh, just to let you know and to avoid appearing argumentative: I’m not trying to get into a grammarian pissing contest—I get hired more for my analytical and stylistic services, not so much for hyper-grammatical twaddle (I prefer farming that out to subs). But I do try and keep as sharp a set of skills as possible, so if there’s a citable nuance I’m missing out on, a peculiar style in play, or years of doing things wrongly, I’m honestly asking for its source.

33

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
Right, but how’d it get that way? Years are a count from some event—it’s been five years since The Big Guy was born.
[/QUOTE]

That may be true, but no one uses them that way. Years are usually the answer to a different question.

Q: How many years since BG was born?
A: 2,008.

Q: What year is it?
A: 2008.

Q: How many years since creation, according to Jews?
A: 5,769 (I think)

Q: What year is it in the Jewish Calendar
A: 5769.

“No commas are used in page numbers, addresses, and years (though years of five digits or more do include the comma.)”

I think the five digit rule is fascinating. I would speculate it is because year numbers of five digits have no chance of being confused with “What year is it?” questions, so they are treated like normal numbers.

34

[QUOTE=Schnitte]
The Gregorian calendar deviates from the solar year by approximately one day in 3,300 years; that’s considerably less than the Julian calendar, which was replaced by the Gregorian one in 1582, but it’s still enough to cause trouble. By the year 10,000, this will have accumulated to a deviation of about 2.55 days, which I think is enough to warrant another calendar reform before Y10K. This reformcould be very similar to the 1582 reform: Stick with the existing set of months and the existing year count, skip a few days to compensate for the accumulated deviation, and change the leap year rule to get as close to the length of the solar year (365.24219 days) as possible. The Gregorian calendar has an average duration of a year of 265.2425 days; the Julian calendar had 365.25 days. I’m confident they will be able to come up with a more sophisticated leap year rule to get closer.
[/QUOTE]
I’m well aware of the flaws in the Gregorian calendar. But when it gets out of sync with reality, it can be adjusted by adding or subtracting days as has been done in the past.

Even as the Earth slows rotation, leap-somethings can be inserted, as leap seconds are now, as needed.

What I thought was meant by “in the actual year 10,000 it is unlikely that…the present Gregorian calendar system will even still be in use” was perhaps an entirely different system would be invented – digital days and/or hours? The year divided in 100 parts?

?

35

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
Right, your description of e.g. is fairly common – it’s a non-exhaustive list, which is why using etc. with it is redundant. But I’m hoping you can point to a standard guide that suggests such a restrictive use of i.e., especially as the two abbreviations are primarily used in informal writing.
[/QUOTE]

I think that’s the trouble; they are formal terms and maybe shouldn’t be used in informal writing. I just subscribed to the AP Style Guide to see what they said and all they had was the punctuation of i.e. and e.g., which funnily enough they don’t follow on their own website. :smack: (I’ve asked for a refund.)

What style guide do you usually follow, and what do they say?

36

<<Abbreviations
Q. Would you please explain when to use “e.g.” and when to use “i.e.?” Thank you.

A. Certainly. Both are abbreviations for Latin phrases: id est (“that is”) and exempli gratia (“for the sake of example”). So use “i.e.” when you want to rephrase something you’ve already said, and use “e.g.” when you want to offer an example. Put a comma before and after; avoid using both in the same sentence; and try not to use either in formal prose. And (a bonus tip) if you start a list with “e.g.,” there’s no need to put “etc.” at the end.

If the applicant is currently one of our tuition-paying clients, i.e., a student, the fee may be waived.

The best ingredients for pizza are green, e.g., spinach, artichokes, and green peppers.

The best ingredients for pizza are green: spinach, olives, etc.>>

I guess this kind of casual answer (rather than a formal text in a style book) fits with the usage, and I’ll have to stand corrected. I believe that “i.e.” means “by definition”. Tuition-paying client = student and there is nothing else that means tuition-paying client. In your example, I was thinking “the year” could mean any number of years, and 2008 is not the definition of “the year” in any broad sense. But I am realizing that you were in fact defining “the year” as 2008, not the generic year.

My apologies for the tangent.

37

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
With the possible exception of this particular decade, years (and house numbers) are normally pronounced differently from “regular” numbers. For example, 1978 is nineteen seventy-eight; 1,978 is one thousand, nine hundred seventy-eight. 1900 was nineteen hundred, not one thousand nine hundred. 2259 will be “twenty-two fifty-nine.”

I don’t know how we’ll pronounce the years once they get into quintuple digits.
[/QUOTE]

…and why do merkins say one thousand,nine hundred seventy eight when it should be one thousand nine hundred and seventy eight

38

Regarding the OP, I get the distinction, I was curious about how the distinction came to be. It’s certainly plausible that it’s just always been that way, but I was wondering if there was a practical or traceable reason. Consider threads that ask about two spaces after a period and you’ll understand the type of answer I was, well, not quite looking for per se, but wondering if such an answer type exists.

As for i.e.g.,:~

Here’s the relevant section (that I could find) from ChiMan. The snippet from the introductory paragraph gives a good sense of why I love it so much — they seem to get that writing is an art, not a science. (Of course, it could be that I’m unreasonably lazy and am looking for justification ‘round every corner :slight_smile: )

Since it takes the time to say that the English equivalents are preferable in formal prose, it logically follows that the abbreviations should be nominally relegated to informal prose. I couldn’t find anything that restricts the use of “that is” or delineates a sharp distinction between the two. Searching usage guides hasn’t been fruitful, since both expressions appear so often in other sections. But the quest goes on…
ETA: oops… didn’t see your reply on preview! As for the tangent, while the anti-establishment part of me generally disdains rules, the curious and technical side of me relishes the nuances and subtleties of the constructs. This was a very pleasant diversion!

39

[QUOTE=Musicat]
I’m well aware of the flaws in the Gregorian calendar. But when it gets out of sync with reality, it can be adjusted by adding or subtracting days as has been done in the past.
[/quote]

But that wouldn’t solve the problem, it would simply eliminate the symptoms of the problems for now. In 1582, the Julian calendar had accumulated a disalignment with the solar year of 10 days, which were skipped in October 1582 to bring it back to sync. But if this had been the entire reform, without revising the leap year rule, we would have become out of sync again by 2008, by more than three days. It’s true that the Gregorian reform didn’t completely align the calendar to the solar year; it reduced the error from one day on 134 years to one day in 3,300 years (I take the numbers from Wiki).
I agree that this deviation is not a big thing to worry about; it’s entirely possible that calendar reformers to come won’t give a heck about the leap year rule, they might simply fix it by skipping another day and leave the next reform for the subsequent millennia. It was different in 1582, when it was realized that having a calendar reform every century or two would be a really annoying thing. But who knows? Maybe they think: “While we’re at it, we could also seize the opportunity to reform the leap year rule once again, to reduce the error to, say, one day in 20,000 years.”
[/quote]

Personally, I’m a fan of decimalization. there have been attempts to decimalize the calendar, most prominently during the French Revolution with its ten-day weeks, thirty-day months plus an additional five (or six) days at the end of the year to reach the full 365/366 days. But that’s my opinion. Who knows, with the clash of civilizations going on, we might end up with the Maya calendar someday.

Oh, wait…that’s the one ending in 2012, according to mythicists? Never mind, there are plenty of other systems on the market.

40

[QUOTE=Schnitte]
But that wouldn’t solve the problem, it would simply eliminate the symptoms of the problems for now. In 1582, the Julian calendar had accumulated a disalignment with the solar year of 10 days, which were skipped in October 1582 to bring it back to sync. But if this had been the entire reform, without revising the leap year rule, we would have become out of sync again by 2008, by more than three days. It’s true that the Gregorian reform didn’t completely align the calendar to the solar year; it reduced the error from one day on 134 years to one day in 3,300 years (I take the numbers from Wiki).
I agree that this deviation is not a big thing to worry about; it’s entirely possible that calendar reformers to come won’t give a heck about the leap year rule, they might simply fix it by skipping another day and leave the next reform for the subsequent millennia. It was different in 1582, when it was realized that having a calendar reform every century or two would be a really annoying thing. But who knows? Maybe they think: “While we’re at it, we could also seize the opportunity to reform the leap year rule once again, to reduce the error to, say, one day in 20,000 years.”
[/quote]

If we take “leap-seconds” every once in a while, as needed, won’t that fix the Gregorian calendar forever?