Language desk
< March 6	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 7

Century

Is it correct to say "the century between 1780 and 1880" or should "the hundred years between 1780 and 1880" be used instead? Our article on century is perhaps ambiguous in this regard. Ericoides (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a rule as such, but I would always avoid it, especially in written, formal English. The second version is quite adequate, "the hundred years". IBE (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying "over the century between..." According to the OED the mere meaning 100 years is the earlier one:

4. A period of 100 years; originally expressed in full a ‘century of years’.

5. Each of the successive periods of 100 years, reckoning from a received chronological epoch, esp. from the assumed date of the birth of Christ: thus the hundred years from that date to the year a.d. 100 were the first century of the Christian Era; those from 1801 to 1900 inclusive were the nineteenth century.

μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is correct and more elegant to say "the century between 1780 and 1880". However, your choice of wording depends somewhat on your audience. I have edited textbooks, and below the U.S. high school level (about age 14), editorial style rules tend to avoid the word century because it is a somewhat difficult concept that might be an obstacle to understanding, not crucial for understanding the content, and therefore best reworded. If you are writing something aimed at children, you might avoid the word. For an assumed adult audience such as Wikipedia's, though, century is fine. Marco polo (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, using fewer words is preferable. Without seeing the rest of the sentence, I don't know if that's the case here, but personally I would just say 'between 1780 and 1880'. You will lose none of the sense, and no-body can misinterpret your meaning - as could be the case with either of your suggestions. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would normally agree with Marco Polo (and Medeis too), and I would suggest you do the same. However, there is something I find funny here - "century" seems to be chosen out of convenience. In other words, you pick a date, l780, that is significant, then you just convince yourself that 1880 is another significant milestone, because it is a hundred years after 1780. Personally I find such choices too arbitrary, so it looks wrong to designate it as a "century". As a reader, I would do a double-take if I read it, so when writing, I would avoid it. But I have no professional skills here, I must admit. I am curious to know what people think of my reasoning, and whether it makes sense. IBE (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cucumber Mike's advice may be the best (better than my own earlier advice). The main reason to use century, as IBE implies, is if the 100-year period is a historically significant period. Otherwise, I agree with IBE that word implies a significance that may not exist. If 1780 and 1880 were really significant beginning and end dates for your topic, you could underline that significance by using the word century. If the dates are chosen arbitrarily, then I would not use that word. Incidentally, in historical writing, the word century may be used to refer to periods not exactly 100 years long, such as long nineteenth century. Marco polo (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to resist mentioning that a hundred years may not be a hundred years either, as in the Hundred Years War. IBE (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you did resist mentioning that a centurion commanded only sixty to eighty men. Ericoides (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"-ba" in Swedish

Yesterday I heard on Facebook from a Swedish friend of mine that nowadays in Sweden, youths use "-ba" as a suffix meaning "said". For example, apparently for example, instead of this:

Han frågade henne, hur mår du? Och hon svarade, jag mår bra.

youths now say this:

Hanba hur mår du? Och honba jag mår bra.

I have never seen or heard such a thing in Swedish. But in my native Finnish, it's fairly well known that youths use olla silleen että ("be so that"), just as English-speaking youths use "be like". But does this "-ba" thing really exist in Swedish? And have I understood the grammar right? JIP | Talk 20:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it seems to be used like you said (except it's a separate word, not a suffix). For example, this is from SV-Wiktionary: "Jag satt och kollade på TV och telefonen ba "riiing" och jag ba "hallå?" och han ba "tjena, läget?"." (Rough translation: "I was sitting watching TV and the telephone was like 'riiing' and I was like 'Hello?' and he was like 'Hi, alright?'".) I must admit, I have never come across this myself in speech, but I haven't spoken to many Swedish tonåringar. Not sure what the origins are - Wiktionary doesn't elaborate. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing occurs in Norwegian nowadays. Young people often omit the verb ("sa"="said") if it is obvious from the context, and followed by "bare" (=Swedish "bara" = just; only). In fast speach, "bare" could be pronounced "ba" in Norwegian too, example: "Jæskabapådo" = "Jeg skal bare på do" = "I just have to go to the loo". --NorwegianBlue^talk 11:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swede here. The use of ba is not new. I'm 31, and I probably used it when I was a teenager. I recall it being used by an annoying teen character in a NileCity 105,6 sketch, which apparently is as old as 1995. (Girl in supermarket telling a story about meeting Peter Jöback.) It's a short form of bara (eng: just), and the grammar sort of works if you replace the "was like" with "was just like" in Cucumber Mike's example. The word just is in most cases a signifier for casualness, less deliberation/consideration, or surprise, which means it can't actually be used for every event without sounding strange. In my experience, the event needs to be fast, not expected or have unexpected content for ba to sound completely right. I'm sure kids today wouldn't agree. (When I think about it, I believe I pronounce bara as ba quite often in casual speak. Not as discussed here, but when actually saying just in cromulent senteces.) /81.170.148.21 (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Swede here. I've seen ba described as a special discourse particle that means "now I'm going to mimic someone". The "han ba, hon ba" (he just like, she just like) is more of "he just like (shrugs), she just like (scowls)". Språktidningen writes that young people use ba when they're going to quote someone and also to indicate that something was surprising, like 81.170.148.21 wrote. 05:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)