NOTE: I have also included "Other" should you never pronounce "2010" always preferring to write it or switch to other languages at that point. 

Good question.

I voted for the first option, but had to think a while, for I realized that I have been using two thousand and one, and so on up to two thousand and nine, whereas 2010 became two thousand ten.

Thinking back, I also say nineteen hundred and one and so on up to 1910 when it becomes nineteen ten. I have no idea whether this is correct or not, but since I've spent so much time in Canada and the US, I suspect that I picked it up as part of plain speech.

I should add that I am aware of the discrepancy between two thousand ten and nineteen ten. Since I use nineteen ten why not use twenty ten? I don't know!

I look forward to reading what others have to say.

Nanna

Native speakers only, please... I myself feel like checking Option 1, but this poll is not for us.

(An aside to Laurent, concerning that/who. I would let the English forum moderator decide whether there is enough potential for that topic to go beyond that exchange between two native speakers, which is over.)

I say "twenty ten".

Hey folks,

It's both.   

I say out loud either "two thousand ten" or "twenty ten" in English depending on the context and the audience, on a daily basis.

It just depends who I'm talking with.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.   However, there are different Rome's.

Don't intimidate audience by using a form that goes against their usage, which can result in resistance.  If you don't know, use what you would normally use, and if you hear they say it differently, then consider adapting to their usage.  It establishes bridges rather than building walls.

Jeff

<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" /> <meta content="Word.Document" name="ProgId" /> <meta content="Microsoft Word 11" name="Generator" /> <meta content="Microsoft Word 11" name="Originator" /> <style type="text/css">

Hi.

I vote twenty ten.

Except that this "mistake" is the interpreter's fault and not the executives' who are indeed "unused to working with interpreters" and therefore should not be expected to know any better, whereas the real professional interpreter should know how to ensure that he/she is not the focus of the executive's attention, how to foster the rapport between the 2 parties, and how to become virtually "invisible". Re. your quote about finding that "the situation when executives look at me, the interpreter, to be one of the most rewarding moments during consecutive interpreting assignments", this would be exactly the wrong attitude to be effective as an interpreter. Interpreting isn't for big egos: the test for success and the most rewarding outcome is precisely when you can be quasi-invisible and make people actually forget you're there, and act solely as a transparent medium of communication between them.

The Times article is very interesting, Jacek. From my personal experience, it contains nothing but excellent advice. This client's perspective might be very useful not just for prospective clients but also for consecutive interpreters (whether juniors, wannabes or even professionals who think they know their job!). Of course, I would have added a point about "Hire freelance interpreters directly - don't rely on Agencies who know nothing about interpreting and who'll send you just anybody from their portfolio who's free on that day"!  Would you mind posting the link also in the TC Interpreter forum?

dominique

PS: this is completely off-topic BTW, but then it's your thread and YOU chose to drift off topic, so I don't really feel too guilty! About your poll, I didn't vote since I am not a native English speaker, but I hear plenty of those in my conferences and meetings: financial people say "the twenty-ten outlook/forecast/Ebitda...", while others seem to prefer saying "in two thousand ten, we're planning to restructure the entire company..." or "two thousand ten looks promising for our business unit". So I would agree with Jeff: "it depends".

Happy two thousand ten.

Murad AWAD

This is not always possible to achieve, though. For example, when interpreting interrogations for the police (though I realise that’s quite a different situation from the business-based one quoted in the article), the person being interrogated will often not only look at and focus on you as an interpretator, rather than the actual interrogator, but also frequently ask/beg you directly for help, since they automatically see in you an ally: someone who speaks their language.

As for the poll, I guess I’ll be the odd one out here: I find ‘twenty-ten’ to be rather odd and unnatural sounding. I’d say ‘two thousand (and) ten’ without hesitation, but I don’t think I’d ever naturally say ‘twenty-ten’.

This could, of course, very well be partly because I’m not a native English speaker (and as such, I didn’t vote), and in my Danish native tongue, ‘twenty-ten’ is simply not an option. Despite her own theory of having adapting her way of saying years from her time spent in North America, I suspect that this is also a strong contributing factor in Nanna’s choice of format here.

[Edited by Janus Jacquet on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 02:15]