How to Read Years in English
By thomas on Oct 11, 2007 in English
Today one of my students asked how to pronounce 1906. Was it “nineteen six” or “nineteen oh six”? He recognized the pattern that in English we tend to read four-digit years as a pair of 2-digit numbers. “Nineteen six” didn’t sit right with him though. This is probably because when he learned to tell time in English, he learned that 2:03 is “two oh three”, not “two three”. So he asked about the years.
Of course, I answered that the latter was correct. You need to add the “o” sound when the tens’ digit is a zero. He followed up, “So 804 is eight oh four, right?”
“Well, you can say that, but ‘eight hundred and four’ is also correct.”
“Can you say ‘nineteen hundred and six’?”
As the conversation went on, I began to realize that the way we read years is a little complicated. Being a native speaker of English, it comes natural to me so I’ve never thought about it. But for foreign learners it can be confusing and ambiguous. After my conversation with him I thought about it a little to see if I could find a pattern, and here is what I came up with:
Algorithm for Reading Years
- If there there are no thousands’ or hundreds’ digits, read the number as-is. Examples:
- 54 - “fifty-four”
- 99 - “ninety-nine”
- 0 - “zero”
- 8 - “eight”
- If there is a thousands’ digit but the hundreds’ digit is zero, you can read the number as “n thousand and x”. If the last two digits are zero, you leave off the “and x” part. Examples:
- 1054 - “one thousand and fifty-four”
- 2007 - “two thousand and seven”
- 1000 - “one thousand”
- 2000 - “two thousand”
- If the hundreds’ digit is non-zero, you can read the number as “n hundred and x”. If the last two digits are zero, you leave off the “and x” part. Examples:
- 433 - “four hundred and thirty-three”
- 1492 - “fourteen hundred and ninety-two” (who sailed the ocean blue?)
- 1200 - “twelve hundred”
- 600 - “six hundred”
- The above rule produces some formal and old-fashioned names. Where it exists, it is acceptable to omit “hundred and”. If you do, and the tens’ digit is zero, you must read that zero as “oh”. Examples:
- 432 - “four thirty-two”
- 1492 - “fourteen ninety-two”
- 1908 - “nineteen oh eight”
- 1106 - “eleven oh six”
- Finally, though uncommon it is possible to read the years in rule #2 using the systems for rules #3 and #4. Examples:
- 1054 - “ten hundred and fifty-four” (if this sounds wrong to you, imagine you are watching a documentary on the history channel and the stiff narrator begins: “In the year ten hundred and fifty-four, Pope Leo IX died.”)
- 1054 - “ten fifty-four”
- 3026 - “thirty twenty-six”
- 2007 - “twenty oh seven” (if this sounds wrong to you, imagine you live in 1972 and you are reading a science fiction story that starts: “In the year twenty oh seven, the world was overrun by blood-thirsty robots.”)
By writing it out I don’t think I made it any less-complicated, but for what it’s worth there it is.
Does this algorithm work for you? I think I covered all the bases, but let me know in the comments if I missed something.
Like this post? Give me the Thumbs Up!
Hello there!
I just wanted to say ‘hello’ to you and congratulate you for your site. I am very happy to see such sites in an increasing number as the time goes by! I will be adding you to my blog list. See you! Osman
Osman | Oct 14, 2007 | Reply
[[…One of them is called Babelhut.com and it seems to have very good posts although it is quite new one. I love the title of the site as well as cute RSS Subscriber icon! You can reach their last post via here..]]
One of them is called... | Oct 14, 2007 | Reply
Thank you Osman! I’ve been a subscriber to your site for a short time. Actually, a few days afer I subscribed you posted a message saying you were leaving! Glad to see that you are back posting again. Thanks for the encouragement and the link. :) I’ll add you to our blogroll as well.
thomas | Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
I love it! An algorithm for years in English!!! My brain works this way, too, though I rarely have the energy to do what it takes to put what I think into words. Here, you do the work and I get the enjoyment! What a treat.
eclexia | Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
eclexia: Thanks for the comment! It was an interesting problem to work through. I would have never thought about it if it weren’t for my student’s question. :) I’m glad you enjoyed it too!
thomas | Oct 16, 2007 | Reply
Such a great post. You are correct - it comes so naturally to native speakers. I have studies several languages and found them all infinitely more logical than English. You think that is why even Americans have some grammar issues?
Very well thought out post, I am curious how long it took you to complete.
Jessica
jessica | Nov 5, 2007 | Reply
Just so you know, it is correct to use “and” in numbers only when appended a fractional component. For example:
3.14 “three and fourteen hundredths”
2177 3/4 “two thousand, one hundred seventy-seven and three fourths”
and so on.
Also of interest is how years were abbreviated in the early 20th century, specifically, 1906 would be “ot six.” This is an abbreviation I still hear occasionally, but very, very rarely.
Dessyreqt | Nov 21, 2007 | Reply
@Jessica: I don’t know if I’d say English is illogical. It does have its idiosyncrasies though. :) I think a lot of the variation in how we say years is just due to time. The article didn’t actually take that long to write once I worked out the logic on paper, but it was a fun mental exercise!
@Dessyreqt: I’ve heard the 2000s referred to as “the ots” before, but I don’t think it caught on. I wonder how people will refer to this decade 5 years from now.
thomas | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply
Don’t forget (more common in maths, and with long numbers) just listing the digits - oh oh seven for example. Also this is how we say phone numbers, whereas I believe the French split the digits into pairs and read them with their “tens” name.
@Dessyreqt - what do you mean by “only”? I agree that 2177 3/4 sounds better as “two thousand one hundred seventy-seven and three quarters” but without the fraction, “two thousand and seventy-seven” is perfectly fine, with or without the ‘and’. As for “aught six”, I like it and it should be reclaimed for the 21st century! It;s a rare word nowadays but I’ve heard it used for ammunition - “thirty aught six” for 30.06mm. I wonder if it’s specifically an abbreviation of “point naught”?
John | Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
In British English, twenty-oh-seven for 2007 is common usage; like nineteen-oh-two for 1902, etc.. 1054 is ten-fifty-four, 1003 is ten-oh-three. They’re quicker to say.
The main exceptions are the hundreds; 1900 is nineteen-hundred, 2000 is two thousand, although I’ve heard twenty-hundred. Another exception is 2001, I suspect because the film established the phrase two-thousand-and-one. I suspect even that’ll become twenty-oh-one soon.
Dylan Harris | Jan 17, 2008 | Reply
I was always taught that for numbers such as ‘2007′ one should say two-thousand seven, NOT two thousand and seven. Ands are to be reserved for decimal places like 2007.25 two thousand seven and twenty-five hundreths, or two thousand seven and one quarter.
Jane | Jan 18, 2008 | Reply
I was also going to add a comment about the “and.” The correct way to say “1906″ would be “one thousand, nine hundred six” not “one thousand nine hundred and six.”
Good article though.
Tara | Jan 18, 2008 | Reply
You are wrong about the use of and without a fractional part. You may not consider it wrong but that doesn’t make it correct. It is a colloquialism which descriptive linguists will likely defend as appropriate, and prescriptive linguists would abhor, but for the most part it sounds uneducated.
quebert | Jan 18, 2008 | Reply
Find an elementary English book dealing with writing out numbers. All of them I can recall reading clearly state that the and goes only between whole numbers and fractions to distinguish which is which. I think that when reading dates however it can be stuck in there if you want.
But then in this day of relativistic thinking I guess you can get away with whatever you like and just call anyone that criticizes you narrow minded. :)
Great article by the way.
joel | Jan 18, 2008 | Reply
very informative article. thanks for sharing the informations. enjoyed reading. good luck:)
The SciTech Journal | Jan 18, 2008 | Reply
Wow, lots of comments. I checked StumbleUpon and 40+ people gave it the thumbs up! Thanks a lot!
@John: I sometimes read out phone numbers by their tens. But single digits is far more common.
@DylanHarris: Thanks for the heads up on the British English. Now that I know some people in the world say it that way, I may just adopt it myself.
@Jane and Tara: Thanks for the heads up. I’m not afraid to admit I made a mistake. This article is the result of a small bit of free time at work, not heavy research. I think when I wrote it I felt the “and” was ok based on the little rhyme I learned in grade school: “In fourteen hundred and ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue.”
@quebert: For clarification, this algorithm is colloquialism-friendly. For a more prescriptive algorithm, please remove the word “and” where appropriate.
@joel: The consensus seems to say that I’m wrong about the “and”, but I can live with that. I’m not going to lose sleep over it :).
@The SciTech Journal: Thanks for the comment. I’m happy you enjoyed reading it.
thomas | Jan 19, 2008 | Reply
Is it possible to say ‘twenty three hundred’ for 2300?
ulaş | Mar 30, 2008 | Reply
@ulaş: Absolutely. In fact, I think that’s how I would say it.
Peter | Apr 7, 2008 | Reply
When we read 2004, which is more common, ” two
thousand and four” or ” twenty oh four”?
lucylucy | May 7, 2008 | Reply
@lucylucy: I can’t speak for everyone, but I usually omit the “and” and say “two thousand four”.
thomas | May 7, 2008 | Reply
Thank You very much for such an informative article about reading years in English. I am not a native speaker of English and I am teaching English and students sometimes ask really tricky questions, so I do like Your article, because I hope it will help me during my classes! Thank You!!!
Iryna | May 29, 2008 | Reply
Is it possible say ‘ eight o nine’ for 809?
dave | Aug 27, 2008 | Reply