If the initial year an event is held it is called the inaugural, what is it called the next year? First annual or second annual? And why?
First annual vs. second annual
September 17th, 2006 by Jan MORGAN
40 Responses to “First annual vs. second annual”
Leave a Reply
Teaching English to Preschoolers with iPhones
We (i.e. the creators of Pain in The English) developed a series of iPhone apps to teach preschool kids how to recognize letters and words. (My wife developed the characters and I did the coding.) Our own 4-year old daughter has been enjoying them. They are now available on Apple's App Store. You can search for "bitskis" on your iPhone, or visit the official website at bitskis.com.
If you have kids and own an iPhone, please check it out. It's $2.
Second or second annual. Because inaugural means first, that's why.
A possible confusion arises because the second time the event is held, it is the first time in a year. Suppose you organize an event at your neighborhood park. You have no intention of repeating it, but it turns out to be a huge success, and many people suggested that it should be done again. You then decide to do it every year. In this scenario, the first time it is done as an annual event is the second time. The original event had no concept of "annual" (could have turned out to be "semi-annual" or "monthly"). So, the answer isn't so clear-cut.
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."
Oh no, here we go again. You should see the sparks that flew on the 1st vs. 2nd Generation post!
It's the second annual event, because the counting going on in this case is counting the series and it would be the second in the series.
If you had a Masked Ball one year, the next would be the Second Masked Ball. Both 'green' and 'annual' are adjectives.
First Annual is sometimes rejected by newspaper editors because it's predictive and doesn't describe the present state of affairs which reporters should report. You could say 'first of a planned series of annual' but until the event has occurred twice it isn't actually being held annually.
Actually though, 'first annual' is more often rejected because it just sounds a bit odd.
bah should have read "Both 'masked' and 'annual' are adjectives.
Definition:
Annual: occurring once a year.
The definition is NOT:
Annual: having been proven to occur once per year (by occurring at least twice)
Ok, so we're really getting into semantics here. If it's the first year, it didn't occur the year before, so how can it be annual? Well, it's planned for next year, so it occurs once a year.
Let's put it another way. If first annual is so wrong, then second, third, fourth, etc., annual are all equally wrong, since the previous occurrence is not IN ANY WAY a guarantee that future occurrences will happen. There's no way to tell that the fifth anual event will be followed by a sixth annual event. Is a one-time five year run made up of annual events? If a PLANNED sixth year is sufficient, then isn't a PLANNED second year?
Perhaps the notion of an "anniversary" is clouding the waters. Clearly, the first recurrence (second occurrence) is the first ANNIVERSARY.
Lastly, it should be obvious that an annual event doesn't have to happen every year for all eternity, and needn't have happened every past year since the beginning of time, otherwise, nothing could be annual. So if this is true, why can't there be a last annual? or a first annual?
If you ask me, some time in the past, some smartass pedants overthought the thing to death. An point was raised that may OR MAY NOT have any real logical merit. Isn't this fun?
Ok, let's really have some fun. I'll posit that the first event is not the first annual event because if there's only one event, nothing has occurred annually, even if future events are planned. Fast forward to next year; the event is repeated. At that time, the second event is the second annual event and, are you ready for this?, the first event becomes the first annual event immediately upon the commencement of the second annual event.
That's right. I'm claiming that it's impossible to "BE the first annual event", but that it is possible to "HAVE BEEN the first annual event"!!!
Whaddya think of that?!!!
Or let's take the other tack. Since annual events do not have to be repeated indefinitely, I'll claim that it is REQUIRED for mathematical completeness (based on the rules of logic and set theory?), that a SINGLE EVENT, that is ADMITTEDLY planned for ONE YEAR and ONE YEAR ONLY, is STILL AN ANNUAL EVENT, as long as it meets one simple criterion: it is planned to (and does) occur no more or less than once in a year.
Example:
I plant a crop of pumpkins and have a single harvest, big pumpkin picking event, open to the public (I'm no farmer, but let's say that you can only grow and harvest one crop per year). I never did it before and I know I'm not going to do it again next year (or ever).
I'm claiming that this will be my FIRST AND ONLY ANNUAL PUMPKIN PICKING FESTIVAL!!!!!!
HAH!!
Gee, I just realized, I'm a smartass pedant, too.
I checked a few dictionaries and they all say "…occurring once a year". They do not say "…will occur…" or "…have occurred…". I think this is actually quite significant. It means that "annual" describes a present, instantaneous state, not a future or past one. Now, at first glance, it might seem to be dependent on future or past events, but this is not really true. It is actually dependent on a rate of change, which is also an instantaneous, present condition. With this in mind, I believe that "first annual" is a perfectly valid label.
"First annual" is of course correct. Before that it is the "zero annual" (or you prefer, zeroth; c'mon people, let's come up with the term), you know, numbers do start with zero, followed by 1, etc.
Here's the cite from the Associated Press Stylebook, which explains why — whatever your personal opinion on this — you should refrain from using "first annual" in any submission to a news organization:
"An event cannot be described as annual until it has been held in at least two successive years. Do not use the term first annual. Instead, note that sponsors plan to hold an event annually."
If you are having a private event, call it anything you wish. If you want publicity through media, call it "inaugural" in order to be taken seriously.
Words mean things, damn it. I had a Ball last year, and I'm having another on Tuesday. It is my second Ball, and I will be damned if it isn't annual!
First Annual is bad not because of logic, but because of politeness. Sounding presumptive is uncool.
NOW, here's a curveball: is the final event of a series still annual if no more are planned?
I guess calling them "Inaugural" and "Final" is enough to make "Annual" superfluous.
so heres the thing, im at work rite now and this has become a heated debate. my feelings on this topic is first leads you to believe that theres more to come and annual leads you to believe its going to happen consistantly. so why cant it be the first event to be held consistently hence first annual
I recently received an inviation to a fundraiser that indicates it is the 2nd Annual Grapes of Giving benefit.
Initially, the fundraiser is entirely different and has nothing to do with wine. The inaugeral event was a wine tasting benefit with a wine sommelier. Thus, I do not believe they should utilize the words "2nd Annual" when clearly it is not an identical event.
I can see utilizing the words annual and benefit, but not 2nd. I have been told by editors of newspapers that this is a huge faux pas.
I suppose if you are going to continue the same effort year after year and not change the platform, then utilize the number of years the benefit is in existence. However, if you are going to change the format or discontinue this type of fundraiser, then don't utilize the number of years.
Gee, Stacie, if the format has changed so much that it is a "faux pas" to use numbers (2nd annual, etc.), then I would think it's equally wrong to even call it annual. As a matter of fact, it would even be dishonest and disingenuous to use the same name for the event. There is no acceptable amount of difference that makes it OK to say annual, but just different enough to not say 2nd annual.
Um, Gus, the AP style book, like ALL style books, is not a universal book of grammar. It is a set of rules agreed upon by a particular organization to set guidelines for THAT organization's activities and NOTHING ELSE. While quoting a particular style book might help somewhat in bolstering a particular position, it cannot be used to wholesale dismiss a viewpoint or anyone else's personal opinion, at least not without support from other more authoritative and universal sources. Style books often propose unique guidelines that are in direct opposition to grammatical norms, but suit the needs of a particular organization. That's why they're called STYLE books.
While it may be the AP's viewpoint, the statement "An event cannot be described as annual until it has been held in at least two successive years…" is just plain idiotic. Would you accept that "No car can be described as driving at 50 miles per hour unless it has been driving for at least one hour"? Anyone who suggested it and agreed to it at AP or any other news organization is a moron, and I don't mean that metaphorically. Really.
Hmmm, Gus, I may have been somewhat unfair to you. I would have to agree that if you were submitting something for publication, at least to the Associated Press, then you should avoid 1st annual. Although, your comments notwithstanding, it defies explanation and has nothing to do with being taken seriously. It's simply a matter of following an organization's guidelines if you expect to interact with that organization on their terms. When in Rome…
I've raised this question alot and i agree that there is no first annual event until the second annual event takes place as explained previously by Anonoymous too sept 19.
To elaberate, the first World War was not called the first World War, it was called the Great War until the second World War started, THEN it was called the first world war.
Or is it the first annual of best intentions that will soon be called the one and only… This happened to our very own first annual Father Son golf tournament. And yeah, I'm havin fun now
Bob, your WWI example is irrelevant. WWI wasn't called the First World War in its day, because WWII wasn't planned or anticipated at the time. In fact, WWI was called "the war to end all wars"!
also, the objections raised were really not about the word "first" but were about the word "annual".
Also, bob, I think you may have misunderstood. Anonymous too said that "first annual" is CORRECT!!!
Ok So am I to understand that the 1st annual isnt actually the first time that the event is held but we are planning to hold it next year then is that event the 2nd annual or the 1st annual because it is the 1st time to repeat the event. Oh please send me some direction
@Confused
The second instance of the event would be the 2nd annual. See Andy A's comment above.
The first one is your initial event.
OMG, this is a huge pet peeve of mine! Absolutely positively beyond a shadow of a doubt, an event may never be referred to as "first annual" except in retrospect. If it occurs again, it is the "second annual" even if no further event is planned. How many events claiming to be the "first annual" never occurred again? Most of them, probably.
Nothing occurs "every year" until it has happened at least two years in a row. Thank you, previous anonymous commenter, for the World War II example, it's perfect!
If one is seeking an impressive-sounding title, use instead "inaugural" or "premiere."
I'm not a journalist, but I think that words should communicate clearly what the writer means. To ME, when I see "First Annual," it says that the event is planned to be held every year and this is the first year that it is being held. "Second Annual" relays the same message, but it says that it is an annual affair and this is the second time that it is going to be held. I don't have to ask if the event will be held the next year, because "1st Annual" communicates the intent of the organizer/writer.
Life is already too complicated. Let's keep it simple. Everybody in the world understands the concept of "1st Annual."
If not journalist, then change it. Keep up with the world.
First annual is an oxymoron. An oxymoron is "a rhetorical device in which two seemingly contradictory words are used together for effect". The operative word is is "SEEMINGLY". Just because something is an oxymoron doesn't make it wrong. We use them all the time. They are perfectly normal parts of speech. Where's John, the linguist, when we need him? "First annual" is common usage. That alone justifies its correctness.
oops, sorry about the "…is is…"
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!
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.
I think it's all Lorna's fault.
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.)
Proof once again that you can't fix stupid. Thank you, Ron White, for that gem of insight!
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.
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!
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*
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……
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??