English Plus+ News, December 2000
The three largest North American countries - the United States, Canada, and Mexico - recently all held elections. In each case some elected officials were no longer in office whether because they did not seek re-election or because they lost an attempt at re-election. Other high ranking officials will lose or have lost their positions because the elected official who appointed them is no longer in power.
We were asked a very good question by one of our customers. How do we address someone who held an office but is no longer in that office?
In the United States, it is still fine to address the Senator as Mr. John Smith, although the office title on the envelope may help direct the letter more quickly.
For a salutation in a letter, we would generally write "Dear Senator Smith" or "Dear Mr. Senator." We would use the same manner of address in person, that is, "Senator Smith" or "Mr. Senator." While there is nothing "wrong" with calling him "Mr. Smith," it is usually seen as being a mite disrespectful, unless you know personally that the official prefers that means of address.
This pattern applies to most ranking officials such as mayors, elected legislators, governors, ministers, presidents, secretaries, and titles formed from these names like lieutenant governor, vice-president, or undersecretary.
Usually out of respect, we would still refer to them the same way. While we might refer to a retired Senator Smith as former Senator Smith or ex-Senator Smith, that would not be appropriate as an address - whether a direct personal address or address on a letter. It is perfectly acceptable and appropriate to continue to address him as "Senator Smith" or write him in care of "Senator John Smith." The term Honorable is usually reserved for those still in office.
For the salutation in a letter, it would still be fine to write "Dear Senator Smith." "Dear Mr. Senator" tends to suggest that he is still in office. There is usually nothing wrong with addressing him as "Dear Mr. Smith," but it is probably better to avoid it unless you know for sure that he does not mind. This is especially true after an election loss. Calling him "Mr. Smith" rather than "Senator Smith" might be calling more attention to his loss - and gloating is never good manners.
For more on salutations and addresses to individuals of rank, including appropriate abbreviations, take a look at Grammar Slammer from English Plus+. Download a demo copy from http://englishplus.com/pub/. It will help vanquish your language anguish.
In everyday speech, however, we may refer to a different century than the calendar century. We obviously do that when we speak of anniversaries. The Unites States, celebrated two centuries of independence in 1976, for example. We also do that when we refer to calendar centuries. There is nothing wrong with referring to the 1800's, for example. Because you are labeling it by the written year number rather than the calendar century, most people would assume you mean the years from 1800 to 1899. That is still a century, but it is not quite the same as the nineteenth century.
The big celebrations a year ago commemorated the end of the 1900's if not the true end of the twentieth century. They were fun, regardless of when the next millennium really began.
Occasionally, though, we do see references to a particular decade of a particular century. Again, we start counting with one, not zero, so the first year of a particular decade in a century is slightly different. The third decade of the twentieth century begins with 1921 and ends with 1930. In everyday speech, however, we usually refer to the decades as beginning with the zero year since we identify them that way--twenties, thirties, forties, and so on.
The first decade of the 1900's was called the oughts, but the term ought or aught for zero is not as common any more. What are we calling the years 2000-2009? I hear oh (as in "Class of oh-one") as much as anything, but most people seem to just say "two thousand one" rather than "twenty oh-one." Perhaps the two thousands will refer to both the decade and the century. I do not hear twenty hundreds too often the way nineteen hundreds was used. As long as we are able to communicate clearly, the specific title is flexible. Isn't that just like so much of English vocabulary?
Just as an aside, it was December 1990 when the first computer program was released by English Plus+. So we have providing people with English answers for a decade. We hope to continue to serve people this way well into the new century - God willing, even well into the millennium!
We wish all our readers and customers the best for 2001.
May all your anguish be vanquished,
Your friends at English Plus+
Any suggestions for our web site, please send them to webmaster@englishplus.com.