And how old would it be at the end of it’s first year (ie. the beginning of it’s second year)? [I do appreciate anybody that addresses the math questions that I’ve been asking all thread long.]
That’s actually what this discussion is about. Are you sure you’re in the right thread?
According to Wikipedia, he’s the guy that devised this calendar. Again, are you sure you’re in the right thread?
According to Wikipedia, he’s the guy that the calendar that we’re discussing was named after. Are you sure you’re in the right thread?
Yes, in a child’s first year, it is zero years old. Then it turns 1, at the beginning of it’s second year. In it’s 10th year, it is 9 years old. Then it has a birthday, turns 10 years old, and enters it’s second decade and 11th year. *
This is how people (who understand how math works) number years. The creators of the Gregorian calendar made a mistake. That is a fact that I don’t dispute.
The question is whether we perpetuate this mistake for the sake of giving the first century a full 100 years; or whether we say “they fucked up. But I don’t have to continue the mistakes of my forefathers. So fuck the first century. [besides, it’s not like anybody back then will be upset that they got slighted]”
I personally choose the latter. I don’t fault anybody for choosing the former.
When I was young, I had trouble understanding why the 1900’s were called the 20th century. Then someone pointed out that the first century would be 1 AD to 99 (or 100 AD), and, therefore, the second century would be the 100’s. It’s confusing, at first, I understand.
Babies are actually a great analogy, because our years were crafted after a baby. A baby named Jesus. And the numbering of our years comes not from his age, but which year of life it was. anno domini = ‘year of the lord’ ~= child’s year (the ‘i’ at the end of ‘domini’ being exactly equivalent to apostrophy-s). That’s why we start from one not zero. Could’ve went the other way, I guess… if they knew what a zero was.
Sorry, rucksinator, that i’m wailling on you so much. I’m still supposedly on your side
And I was really hoping that we wouldn’t have to get into the futility of basing a calendar on the life of someone whose existance is debatable. (Or, at the very least, whose date of birth varies by a decade or more, depending on which gosple you ascribe to.)
But even if we assume that Jesus was born in 1 AD, every year, his xth birthday would come in the year x+1. Wouldn’t it make more sense for him to turn 30 in the year 30 AD?
I think it’d make more sense if we counted from when god boned mary, and we could then use cardinal, instead of ordinal, numbers. as in: 1 PB, 1 year post-boning, or 0 PB, 0 years post-boning.
The Gregorian calendar was indeed named after Pope Gregory XIII, who was pope in the late 16th century. However, the Gregorian calendar was based on the Julian calendar, which was named after Julius Caesar, who brought it in 45 B.C. (which Caesar would have known as DCCIX A.U.C.-- 709 A.U.C.).
Neither calendar has anything to do with the choice of 754 A.U.C. as the year 1 A.D. in our numbering – they are both about the number of days in each month, and only differ in the number of days in February in years like 1800, 1900 and 2100.
Actually, he knew it as “The year of the consulate of C. Iulius Caesar without a colleague”. The A.U.C. dating existed in his time, but was about as common in day-to-day use as is, today, the “nth year of the independence of these United States”.
The calendar starts at Year 1. The first year. Just like the first penny. What happened before that is not part of this calendar system. Pol Pot eat your heart out.
Maths doesn’t come into it. You don’t add and subtract years across the AD/BC line because they are two different systems. To my mind, having a Year 0 would have just been wacky and wrong.
The first year is Year 1
The second year is Year 2.
The tenth year, and thus the last year of the first decade, is Year 10.
The hundredth year, and thus the last year of the first century, is Year 100.
The thousandth year, and thus the last year of the first millennium, is Year 1000.
The two-thousandth year, and thus the last year of the second millennium, is Year 2000.
Why do some people find this so hard to grasp? Is the pull of round numbers really that strong? Why is it so offensive to people’s sensibilities to start each group with a “first” year?
2001 is the two-thousand-and-FIRST year. The clue is in the name!
(Or, at the very least, whose date of birth varies by a decade or more, depending on which gosple you ascribe to.)