Okay.
Which decade of the 21st century have we been going through? The zeroth? Zerost? Zerond? Zerord? Or the first?
While I find calling the years 2000-2009 “the Oughts” to be awkward, and the next decade “the Tens/Teens” moreso, I hope that in 2030 we don’t see a bunch of people saying that it’s still “the Twenties.”
Saying that it is still the third decade of the Twenty-first Century will be acceptable, and correct.
Who gives a shit?
Apparently, people who start the decade, century, millennium with a year zero only have 9 fingers since when you count your fingers, obviously you count the first one as zero. Is it really that hard of a concept that when you count a group of things you start with 1?
right, so here I am counting the years of the decade on my fingers.
Jan 1st 2000 to Dec 31st 23:59 is ONE
Jan 1st 2001 to Dec 31st 23:59 is TWO
I therefore reckon that when you run out of fingers, that is the end of the decade. Time to start a new one yes?
Decades are just periods of ten years. They don’t start any specific year. Here’s Webster’s definition. They can do a new decade piece whenever they want. Many people in this thread need to read the definition of decade.
The other people in this thread are wrong.
Damn son. Even I felt that one.
I’m Michael Ellis, and I approve of this message.
2000-2009 is a decade.
2001-2010 is also a decade.
1995-2004 was a decade.
I don’t know why people have such a bug up their ass about this. Any ten years is a “decade.” Every year is the first and last year of a decade; in fact, a decade begins and ends every DAY, since there’s nothing that says you have to start a decade on January 1.
The reason we tend to assign history to the decades that start with a year that ends in 0 and end in a year that ends with 9 is blindingly obvious; it’s just easy to refer to “the Fifties” or “the 1880s” as a descriptor. It’s not any worse a way to define “decade” than any other, and for the sake of brevity, it’s probably better.
The Naughties.
Mile 1. But the total number of miles traveled is 0.
Wrong.
Mathematical convention ascribes any decimal quantity equal to or greater than 0.5 to the next upper integer when moving from the real number system to the integer system.
Good idea!
It’s the end, the end of the 70’s.
It’s the end, the end of the century.
Is it too late to send a nasty letter to the Ramones?
Correct. Even though there is no Year 0, it doesn’t matter. Calendars are social constructs, and 2010 is thus the first year of the new decade.
Yes but that’s pedantic. If you’ve travelled 0.8 miles you haven’t yet travelled one mile.
Centuries are counted ordinally (“first, second, third”) from a stipulated starting point. Decades aren’t counting from anything. They’re cardinally numbered, but not counted ordinally. In common vernacular, our designation of decades is purely descriptive, not mathematical. We designate decades by what holds the “ten” spot in the year. “The 70’s” isn’t counting from anything, and has no real mathematical meaning. it’s just a description of years that end in “seventy-something.”
Seriously, is 1990 part of the 90’s or the 80’s? It’s not that complicated. The 00’s are over and were into the 10’s.
I disagree with the OP, for the same reason panache45 stated. But in case someone decides one day that eenerms is right, then I can claim some indie cred by having been born in the 80s!
I hate when Prince sings, “Two thousand zero zero, party over, oops! out of time. So tonight I’m going to party like it’s 1999.”
“Two thousand zero zero” is the year 200,000, not the year 2000.
That is all.
A good grammarian can’t get no satisfaction from rock and roll.