Troublemaker.
I’m looking for an ordinal number, not a nickname.
Kaylasdad, just 'cause Clothahump wears women’s dresses and a jockstrap, it doesn’t mean the guy has a “transitive set”.
Get your mind out of the gutter.
I think you won the thread quite early on.
Yeah, but if you repeat the same word three times in a row in any song, it becomes a pop punk song by definition - even if the word isn’t na (na na). So Prince figured pissing off the pedants was better than pissing off his fans by making the line “two zero zero zero”.
Especially since pedants listen to ABBA anyway.
I’m leaning toward The Decade That Must Not Be Named.
Insisting that the decades begin on 1 is painfully stupid, even if you’re technically right. Of course, you aren’t though, since the decade is the 00’s, rather than the 201st decade. Calling 2000 part of “The 90’s” because there was no year zero is just nonsensical.
It might not be too good an idea to get worked up over the grammar or accuracy of a song with the following lyrics:
So, after a baby has lived 12 months, it’s 0 years old because the first year it lived was their year 0, right? That’s the logic of the people who think time keeping starts with 0 are saying.
And when the baby is 9, it’s really 10 years old right?
So, the first decade ever was the years 0-9? and the following decade was 10-20?
And I’m not talking about any arbitrary decade (like 1789-1798) but first decade, second decade, and so on.
So, the people who insist on starting groups of years with zero do this throughout their lifestyle and call their 12-month-old children, 0 years old, right? Because the first year is always zero, right?
And when your odometer says 9 miles, you’ve really gone 10 miles because you count 0 miles as 1 mile, right?
The moment a Baby is born it is 0. It doesn’t become 1 until exactly 12 months have passed since it was born. So one minute before that moment the baby is eleven months and 20something days old. And not yet 1.
The Master’s first and final words on the subject should always be recalled when this silly argument resurges:
(It might also bring a sense of proportion to those inclined to get carried away to recall that the assignment of these years did not even occur until around 527 of the (now) current era and includes a well attested error of around six years.)
Which is why I insist that the 21st century didn’t begin until 2007.
How about The Decade That Refused To Be Named? It seemed to shrug off all attempts to pin a common name on it.
I tire of explaining this over and over again to morons and would-be pedants.
A decade is any period of ten years. A century is any period of 100. A millennium is any period of a thousand.
The decade that just ended is the period of ten years beginning with Jan 1, 2000, which followed the decade called “the nineties.”
It is true that there were not exactly 2000 years since the (putative) date of Jan 1, 0001 as of January 1, 2000. In no way does that render inaccurate the statement that Jan 1, 2000 is the start of a new millennium–heck; today is the start of a milennium that starts today–or the end of the previous milennium (the one beginning Jan 1, 1000).
If you want to bunch up your pedant shorts about the number of years in the first decade/century/millenium, you must be willing to address two things. The first is the general inaccuracy of the calendar through the years, rendering stupid any effort to pretend any exactness at all, and the second is that there are a variety of ways to define “a year” and none of them count exactly 2000 years through Dec 31, 2000. In the end a “millennium” is what we label it and it’s perfectly acceptable to call the first two millennia as ending Dec 31, 1999.
Refusing to do so hooks up your cart of knowledge to the donkey of ignorance since no definition is anything other than arbitrary, none meet strict criteria for a definition of a year, and ignorant boobs were in charge of developing and refining the calendar by which you swear (in fairness to them, a good bit of astronomy and accurate time-keeping was yet to be invented, but that’s no reason to cling to their ignorance).
Bullshit. No it isn’t.
You’re officially demoted. Go ask the admins to change your handle to Assistant Pedant.
The most common usage is to refer to the decade that just started as the 2010s – i.e., the years 2010-2019.
People don’t usually talk about the xth decade of the yth century, but if they did, we would be in the first decade of the 21st century – i.e., the years 2001-2010. You could also refer to that decade as the 201st decade AD. The first decade AD was 1 AD to 10 AD, and you can keep counting from then, but I’ve never heard anyone serously use that terminology.
Says who?
I rather think a decade begins and ends when the largest number of users of the concept think it starts and ends.
It is, after all, merely an abstraction of convenience. It is not a thing in and of itself.
And I second this comment.
As well as this one.
(by CP) :
I tire of explaining this over and over again to morons and would-be pedants.
Ah…I see you have chosen “moron” for your personal category.
Heh. I see I have to explain why I disagree.
There is no actual Year One, but there can be a conceptual Year One. The first two millennia MUST, by definition, consist of two thousand years, conceptually. In order for them to end at Dec. 31, 1999, there must be a conceptual Year Zero. A conceptual Year Zero is an absurdity. It cannot exist, even as a concept.
Ergo, by the definition of millennium (one thousand years, not nine hundred ninety-nine years), two millennia ends with the end of the two thousandth year, labeled Year 2000.
Yes, it’s arbitrary. But once you have a consensus where you are, the concepts are rigid and defined.
I was perfectly content to stay out of this nonsense until you went and fucked with Prince.
Two separate phrases! First: “two thousand” followed by the EQUIVALENT of saying “two thousand,” which happens to be “zero zero” (the apostrophe in front of that is assumed, as it would have been awkward for him to sing).
I’ve got a decade in my pocket, and baby, it’s ready to roar. Grr.
Join the morons as a permanent, earned member. Your cart of knowledge remains attached to the donkey of ignorance.
Let’s assume you want to defend an exact definition, rather than letting the polloi soften “millennium” into “about” a thousand years. Now your problem is the definition of a “year.” A little research and reading, which you obviously have not done, will assure yourself that by any exact definition of a “year” there were not exactly one thousand of them in what you want to consider the first millennium. So you are right back with the polloi, accepting that a millennium is “about” a thousand years.
Unfortunately, even if there were exactly two thousand rigorously-defined astronomical years in the period in which you and other amateur pedants have decided are the first two millennia (and remember: there are not), the masses would still have you outfoxed. The nature of English is that common usage is as reasonable an appeal as is prescriptivist usage, and in fact almost always precedes it. In that sense it’s a perfectly reasonable argument to say the masses drive prescriptivist usage. And I was there: I’m pretty sure the masses decided the first two millennia were over Dec 31, 2000.
If you’d like to do some more research about the definition of a “year” or show that the calendar was perfectly designed and implemented from year 1 to support your contention, by all means, report back on your findings. Otherwise you’ll need to accept that it’s an entirely arbitrary definition, not revolving simply around an argument over a putative year 0.