Comments on: First annual vs. second annual

By: Heidi

Heidi — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 01:10:07 +0000

Ryan on June 17, 2009 said it best and correctly... at least as far as I know. I was hoping for solid proof from this discussion to show a friend. It doesn't look like I found it though. As I understand, the first event is the event's birth (when we are born we are 0, not one). So call the event inaugural or Party, etc. The next time you host the event, is the 1st annual (now you are 1 like your first birthday). Anyone out there an English teacher??

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:35:58 +0000

OK, this first Annual thing is bothering me. A group I am part of is starting up a festival that will be held every year. I planned to call it "first annual" but then my wife said that is wrong and it should be "inaugural". The logic of you can't have a first until you have had a second is just idiotic. Does this mean that every numbered list should have "inaugural" in place of "1"? First annual tells people that it will be held every year, and it is the first in the series. Inaugural tells me it is the first event , and that is it. If I schedule a annual physical with a new doctor, is it my inaugural physical or first annual visit? Which one is more descriptive? I am going to take my inaugural leak of the day, because I am just not sure if there will be a second......

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: dreamincode

dreamincode — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:44:19 +0000

I liked Jim Van's idea... Let's do the zeroth (0th) event. If we could either start counting the way we code, or start coding the way we count, it would make life a little easier. No more converting between the two...computer count zero is place one. On a serious note related to this, I don't think either side on this arguement is going to relinquish their view and claim defeat. By the way, kidding on the 0th! Also kidding about changing coding to start at 1! *Shudders at thought of changing all his 'i=0's to 'i=1's*

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Nigel

Nigel — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 10:43:28 +0000

Remember, even if you have every intention of hosting an event annually, you should never refer to the first such event as the "First Annual." Especially if you're sending a press release to a newspaper. I've been, and have known, editors who trashed away PR that used the term "First Annual." It strikes me that any editor who refuses to report perfectly good, unambiguous information just because of some (highly disputable) linguistic error in the way it was communicated, is behaving both incompetently and unethically. The editor may have to follow the AP Style Book, but that does not mean the whole world has to. There is no reason why anyone communicating with a newspaper should even be expected to know that such a book exists. The editor's job is to edit, which in this case includes changing the wording from "first annual" to "inaugural." Any editor who ignores a communication because he is too lazy to and arrogant to do his job deserves to be fired right away!

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:12:49 +0000

Inaugural is how you describe the first event, then the next year is the First Annual event because it's the first anniversary of doing whatever you're doing. It is confusing, though. Consider dropping "annual" or just use the year.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Listen

Listen — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:27:23 +0000

Proof once again that you can't fix stupid. Thank you, Ron White, for that gem of insight!

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:54:20 +0000

I prefer the term "Inaugural", and is what I have always used if I am organizing something. I understand that in an instant-sense, 1st annual is technically correct if an event is planned to be repeated, I just find it a bit presumptive. And let's say that it never happens again, you wouldn't look back and say 'X was held annually for 1 year in 2003", but you would say "X was held annually for 4 years from 2000-2003" So I realize it is a personal preference, but it does annoy me a bit when I see "1st Annual", and I would always suggest using "Inaugural". It is the "annual" term that bothers me, I don't have a problem calling something "1st". It's just that regardless of plans, who really knows how frequently (or infrequently) something will be held until the 2nd? (could wind up being semi-annual, could be bi-annual, etc.)

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Toby

Toby — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:08:00 +0000

I think it's all Lorna's fault.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: EP

EP — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:47:13 +0000

I think that inaugral is the correct term for the first event, as it implies that it will recur again but does not absolutely mean that it will. Then the 2nd time the event occurs should be referred to as the 2nd annual event, because the word 'first' is misleading, whether you like it or not - if I was to read an invitation to a 1st annual event, whilst I know it should have been called the inaugral I would not think that it was in fact the second time the event was occurring.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:57:54 +0000

I look at this topic like I look at the turn of the century, even though it is 2008, we are now in the 21st century. Therefore, the fist time an event is held it is the inaugural, or the first time, the second time an event is held it is the 1st annual. Why does it matter if mentally it was thought to be a recurring event or not at the inception of that event? Not planning to have an event recur, is exactly how a lot of great events became recurring. Math is important in speaking English. In regards to singular and plural, for example, how many times do you hear somebody say, "there's three." This means, "there is three", which is incorrect. "There are three" is correct. So, it does matter from a historical point of view. If we never agree on 1st annual vs. 2nd annual, then we never really know how many years any important historical event has occurred. Just remember, it is all in the math. Additionally, I think it is absurd that people shy away from speaking correctly, "because it just sounds a bit odd." Because I know the "Lie/Lay" rule, I use it. People who are ignorant of that rule tell me, "that just doesn't sound right", and they tell me that I shouldn't speak that way. Why? Because it makes them feel uncomfortable? I should just throw the rules of English away because other people are not willing to learn them? I think not!

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)