Whoops, we have to put '19' back in the year!

Whoops, we have to put '19' back in the year!
Source: Reusableart.com

Whether I thought of the letters as Christmas cards or year-end ones, depending on who would get them, I tried to follow my usual habit of writing “Happy (year number)” instead of just “Happy New Year.”  I like that for myself when I’m looking at old cards — if someone’s wishing me a happy 1987, it must be 1986 in the letter.

But it was harder to do that this year. Just when I’ve started writing years and landing on “20” first, as described here, suddenly I found myself having to put the 19 back in.

The best laugh here is how long we’ve all been doing this. It’s not just the 18 years you might think, 2001-18, but 2000 didn’t have a “19” in it, either.

That makes it 19 years without a 19 in the year. But it’s back!

Margaret Serious has a page on Facebook. 

Stick with me next year — subscribe! Type your e-mail address in the box and click the “create subscription” button. My list is completely spam-free, and you can opt out at any time.

Filed under: Expressions


Leave a comment
  • What a delightful post! I wonder how many folks will forget to put the new date on their checks? Here's to better times in 2019.

  • In reply to Weather Girl:

    Thank you very much. I hope my use of the new year's number in letters will help fend off voided checks. Yes indeed, here's to better times in 2019.

  • In a sense, this is similar to some "magician" saying something like that if one adds one's birth year to one's age, you always get one number, which is the current year. Well, duh.

    The twist is that I would be writing 2018 on checks for another couple of months, except these days I don't write many checks. Direct debit happens when it happens.

  • Thanks, Jack, but I wasn't trying to do one of the numbers tricks. My arithmetic's not that great.
    I'm just laughing at myself for finally, really getting out of the habit of using 19 at the start of the year, and here it comes on the other half. Oh well!

  • In reply to Margaret H. Laing:

    After coming from your subsequent post, AW would have insisted on a rhyming structure in the first paragraph. :-)

  • In reply to jack:

    Well, he might -- if he did come back here after the subsequent post. (Points for using the word "subsequent," though.)

Leave a comment