Hi,
I think there is a translation error in the first section of pronouncing the year as a full number. It reads:
1615 (mille six cent quinze)
1615 (sixteen *hundred* fifteen)
But the english should read (one thousand, six hundred, fifteen)
I don't know if the owners of content read these comments, but the whole first section is incorrect. The "one thousand" is missing from all the examples.
I only noticed, because I was taking notes, by hand in my notebook.
Bonjour Michelle !
Thanks very much for pointing this out to us. We agree with your suggestion and the lesson has now been amended :)
Merci encore et bonne journée !
I disagree.. we are talking about how to say a year. for 1615 you literally say SIXTEEN FIFTEEN. no one says THE YEAR ONE THOUSAND BLAH BLAH BLAH. this is not math we're talking about.
Just as Janet said, in colloquial English for dates before 2000 we tend to speak in hundreds, not thousands. It is not wrong to verbalize the thousands, but it is a bit strange. You might do it sometimes for dramatic emphasis in special circumstances. For example you are writing about a far distant event. 2000 was two thousand. With 2001+ dates either hundreds or thousands sound correct. I imagine 2100 will be twenty-one hundred, then 2101 = twenty-one oh one, 2102 = twenty-one oh two, and so on till we get to twenty-one ten, twenty-one eleven, etc. ... :-)
Just as Janet said, in colloquial English for dates before 2000 we tend to speak in hundreds, not thousands. It is not wrong to verbalize the thousands, but it is a bit strange. You might do it sometimes for dramatic emphasis in special circumstances. For example you are writing about a far distant event. 2000 was two thousand. With 2001+ dates either hundreds or thousands sound correct. I imagine 2100 will be twenty-one hundred, then 2101 = twenty-one oh one, 2102 = twenty-one oh two, and so on till we get to twenty-one ten, twenty-one eleven, etc. ... :-)
Don't have an account yet? Join today
Test your French to the CEFR standard
Find your French level