At what point will the term “turn of the century” refer to this century instead of last? To me the expression corresponds to the era when my dad, born in 1903, came around.

But we’ve been into the 21st century for 11 years, and technically, the few years past ought to be the real turn of the century.

In addition, for years I’ve heard people say things like, “Back in oh-2, when I was a kid …” It’s usually an exaggeration, one I used in class a number of times.

Jessie Farrington, a reader of this column, posed an interesting issue as she wrote, “I have said many times that ‘I retired from the Vet School in oh-1’ and that ‘my dog Jebediah died in oh-4 and Nelson (another pet) died in oh-5.’

“I will be saying that ‘both Spot and Suzannah died in oh-9,’ but I can’t imagine saying ‘I hope I don’t have any further losses in ten.’ I think I would be more likely to say ‘two thousand ten,’ but only time will tell.”

To me, “turn of the century” must imply a couple of low numbers preceded by “19.” And “oh-2” can’t refer to the very recent past — the past that neighbors “the year 2K.” It remains an enigma: Why can’t 2002, for example, refer to the turn of this century?

When I got a telephone in oh-9 — well actually, it was in ’71 — I had the number listed and without hesitation, I gave out my number on course syllabi, explaining to my students that “If you know you’re going to be absent from class, please call.” And giving out the number orally, I’d usually say, “It’s your age (39) and my age (72).” For years, regardless of the obvious inaccuracy, students remembered the combination, and it was simpler back then, when we had the 425 prefix and precious few 454s. And that was years before cell phones arrived, with their individual, difficult-to-remember prefixes.

The “your age and my age” mnemonic worked for years, and a number of non-students seemed flattered to be regarded as only 39. But unflattering to me was the response by some that, “I can’t believe you’re 72.” At the time, I must have been 32, and it smarted to hear some wise guy say, “I would guess you’re around 50.”

As for the “oh-2” idea, the euphony seems to exist only for this small group of numbers. Is it the “oh” that makes it sound all right? Saying, “I was born in 19” just doesn’t cut it.

And as far as the telephone mnemonic, my age recently caught up with the last two digits of my phone number. To keep it easy to remember, will I need to request a new number, one digit higher, each time I blow out another candle?

• • •

Many times I’ve made the observation that continues to puzzle me: When we detect widespread usage of terms like “conflate,” “myriad,” “convoluted” and “is comprised of,” are these part of a phenomenon in which terms go viral, as if some rock star or politician suddenly began using and thus popularizing these words?

Or, have they been around forever, since “oh-2” and are just becoming noticed? A number of readers, including Jessie Farrington, have mentioned that quite suddenly they’ve heard seemingly new words used repeatedly, and sometimes misused.

An expression discussed by a Rob Kyff, an online columnist who calls himself “The Word Guy,” deals with people’s failure to attach a verb to “as far as.”

Let me explain:

People will say, “As far as my health, I visit my doctor regularly,” or “As far as math, I can’t even balance my checkbook.” Now as accustomed as I am to the apparent linguistic laziness in such constructions, my ears continue to expect a verb, such as “is concerned” or “goes.”

It’s rare, especially with teen-speak, to hear the full expression, “As far as math is concerned (or goes), I struggle with simple addition.” The connecting phrase too often fails to complete the “as far as” sequence.

I wonder whether the “as far as” issue stems from the times when people would say something like, “As for me, I don’t plan to vote.” That sentence doesn’t require a verb complement. Could that be one of the reasons “as far as” fails to get the closure it deserves?

As for me, as far as I’m concerned, this language cop doesn’t know the answer and would welcome readers’ input.

1 thought on “That was back in oh-two

  1. I’ve been using “turn of the century” in the book I am writing for 2000, but at the rate I don’t think it’s going to mislead anyone who sees it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *