Adding one sure is such complicated math.
One thing that hit me was that we are now in “The Twenties.” For all my life, that has always meant the 1920’s but now I sometimes have to specify which century I mean when talking about the Twenties.
This—and I’ve complained about it before.
Oh great—then every time I ran across a reference to the century, I’d have to think about whether it was made before or after your big societal change. One more complication!
The tomato (the plant) is a nightshade. Its fruit, also called tomato, is a vegetable (culinary). Clear as day.
And I would probably say “19-oughts” for the decade from 1900-1909, “1900’s” for 1900-1999, & “Twentieth Century” for 1901-2000. Not that precision to the year matters much there; I notice that young people refer to pop culture from the 1970’s as being from the 1980’s.
FWIW, I say “the twenty-aughts.”
I personally wish people would let go of the past century and call dates in the 21st century by the last two digits, as we used to do with the 20th. So stop saying “two-thousand-twenty-three” and start saying “twenty-three.” I do wonder when that transition occurred with the previous century – probably the 20’s, but of course that’s a (quite unimportant) topic for historical research.
I’ve been calling the 20th century the 1900s for a while. It’s funny. It reminds of thinking about the 1800s when I was child and how distant such a time seemed. And then living almost half a century waiting for the turn of the century which turned out to be hardly worth the wait. And now with almost a quarter of this century gone thinking about the 1900s as some old historic times amuses me more.
Sure, we’d have to endure a bit of confusion at first, but think of the children…and the children’s children. We’d be bequeathing a more sensible system for them.
Besides, we made the switch from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar with nary a care in the world. That didn’t affect me at all.
While we’re at it, let’s launch decimal time. Sure to be a big hit.
The decibet never caught on.
It’s all about context, as language stuff usually is.
In casual usage, like here at the Dope, there’s almost never a reason to differentiate between the 1900s and the 20th century. The best reason to do so is consistency: if you or the poster your’re replying to used one form then stick with it.
But the two terms aren’t identical. In formal usages, that could make a difference, especially when the data being used refers specifically to one or the other. The difference, albeit small, could throw off conclusions and more importantly confuse readers who are expecting a different definition. So yes, a very large number of people care very much about the distinction.
I personally think we’re sufficiently far away from the 1900s that we can call them that and cause no confusion. Remember, someone born in the 21st century, i.e. in 2001, can be a college graduate at the normal pace. All teenagers were born in the 21st century. For a growing important fraction of the population, the 1900s were before they were born and therefore nothing but mist.
I’ve moved this from Factual Question to In My Humble Opinion.
Thank you.
People born in the 21st Century in the 2000s are adults in their 20s and teenagers and people born in the 2010s are pre-teens and children. I was born in 2004 so I’m going to be an adult next year when I turn 20.
And even people born as late as 1995 have no real memories of the 1900-1999 era. Their awareness began in about 2000. Those folks are 28 coming up on 29 right now. Not kids. Not at all.
Like most of us geezers, IME “1900s” historically referred to a single decade and that’s still my interpretation absent different context.
I also agree it’s about (or past) time for “1900s” to begin being assumed to refer to the century instead. Right now I think that’s still a pretty minority usage, but I don’t have any research to back that up. At least for this older guy it’ll sound weird & doubletake-y for a while, but I’m looking forward to getting over that hump.
You probably are not wrong. It’s interesting (in an abstract sort of way) to be living in a time of the linguistic shift and to be aware of it. I don’t object to it, but it’ll take getting used to. Like, we shifted from “nineteen ninety nine” to “two thousand and one” and now it’s been back to “twenty twenty three” for the way I’ve heard years used for a while. Obviously, I can understand how “twenty three” for 2003 wouldn’t be used, but we didn’t use “twenty oh three” as we did “nineteen oh three”, either.
So I’m mildly interested in the shift, and when we’ll go from “the nineties” to “the nineteen nineties” for the past. I mean, I know “the gay nineties” was used in the 1920s in a similar way to our use of “the roaring twenties.” I do wonder if our contemporary access to old media (particularly post WW II) make it harder to let go and make the past feel more present than it once did or if “THE fifties” will be just as easily swept into “the nineteen fifties” as the 1850s were. Of course, this is an English-languages specific discussion to me (don’t know how other languages treat this) and, to a lesser degree for me, a rather American one. Though I admittedly presume it the same for any country that treats the decades we do (an artificial separation where we associate the “cultural decade” with a narrow aspect of a few years within it as it occurred in our own country or a region thereof). When do you stop thinking of that idea when you hear “the twenties” - you know?
I don’t call the 20th century “the nineteen hundreds” but I think it’s entirely correct and appropriate. I’m actually curious as to how long before 1992 seems as long ago to 21-year olds as ten years before , my birth did to me at that age. It’s actually gotten to, in some ways, feel less far away not only as I’ve gotten older, but also as I’ve watched older media (books just don’t make it feel as recent to me as television or movies). And, for a huge chunk of people (again, depending on where you live), the 19th century is just a sort of blur. Sure, remember what years wars happened (get taught that in school), but the difference in social mores and/or music and/or fashion in 1810 and 1830 is lost on most - just not cultural history most bother to learn. How long will it take for decades of the 20th century ever blend together like that (again, I’m being pretty America-centric, but it’s where I live)? I know we’ve had discussions on how much decade/year distinctiveness of fashion and music exist post 1990s on this board before (and too, how much is stereotype of the extremes of fashion, etc. that we treat as the norms of history), but whether the decade-stereotypes will be forgotten when they transition to the “nineteen sixties” instead of “the sixties” will be an interesting thing to see.
IRYO, Various people refer the 1900-1999 era the ‘‘1900s’’, people refer 1901-2000 the ‘‘20th century’’.
Get with it you geezers! This is the 21st century. The ‘1900s’ is what the previous century is going to be called in the future. Your nostalgia for those primitive times confers no special privilege, you’re old and those were the old days.
Only on the Straight Dope would someone come back from a 10 year absence just to post a nitpick. 
Yes. Too soon.
About the time everyone writing on this message board is dead, the terminology will change, so none of us need to worry about the usage.