The trouble is that some people are saying that she is the last American born in the 19th cenury.
WRONG
The last day of the 19th cenury (the century before the one we just completed 16 years ago) was December 31, 1900. That is right. The year 1900 and all the years from 1801 to 1899 togther form the 19th century. The last year of the 20th cenutury was NOT 1999. It was the year 2000. The first year of the present century was 2001,and the last year of the present century will be 2100.
So why was everybody yelling “Happy New Century” on Jan. 1, 2000? Becuase people are ignorant, they enjoy being ignorant, and we as a society are getting stupider and stupider.
Actually pretty much everyone knew that little factoid in '99 despite wannabe know it alls bleating on and on about it. And even if they didn’t, how is that anywhere close to being evidence of society being stupid? Intelligence isn’t measured by knowledge of insignificant trivia.
Although 1900 was in the 19th century, it was NOT in “the 1800s”, compliant with the title of this thread… It was in the 1900s, which began on January 1, 1900, anded on December 31, 1999…
Valteron’s cite says that the the current oldest American was born in the 20th century, so his own cite says the the last American born in the 1800s was also the last American born in the 19th century.
He is stating that it is incorrect to say she was the last American born in the 19th century. That would only be true, (and still pedantic), if there was a living American born in 1900, which there isn’t.
Have scientists uncovered evidence to prove this is true, since the last time people got all ridiculously pedantic over this issue? Or is century nomenclature still an entirely human custom, subject to normal rules of human custom, i.e., virtually no rules whatsoever?
Because if it’s the latter–and it really is the latter–then there’s no correct or incorrect answer to the question. We can just as easily define a century by the number of complete hundreds in the century’s value, with the proviso that the fist century was an exception to the normal rule of having 100 years in a century, due to its weirdness.
That definition has several advantages:
It makes determining the century of years ending in 00 easier;
It more closely maps to how people use those terms;
It also maps how we discuss decades (i.e., the '80s include the year 1980, not the year 1990)
It only requires a single weirdness that almost never matters (99 years in the first century), as compared to multiple weirdnesses that frequently come up (which century the year 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, etc. fall in).
But by all means, if insisting on a fake mathematical rigor to human custom makes you happy, go ahead!
While you’re at it, you might as well harmonize the century name with its number, making the 1900s the nineteenth century, the 2000s the twentieth century, etc. Make things simpler all the way around.
All we need to do is to place the arbitrary beginning of the Christian Era at January 1 in the year 0, instead of the year 1. Then there would be no argument, every century would contain 100 years, and all years in a century would contain the same first digits.
That would also solve the problem of the sum of dates. Juy 10 in the year 1-AD would be two years after July 10 in the year 1-BC, which is the sum of 1+1. Instead of one year difference when the sum of years is two.
It can be easier. Year 0 would be a year with less days than most years have, 0 days specifically. It wouldn’t be the only short year, just the shortest. Nothing else is affected, there are no valid dates in the Year 0 to be concerned with. The math doesn’t work across all years anyway without adjusting for non-existent days so the current adjustments wouldn’t have to change.
My personal calendar includes a year 0, 0 CE to be precise, with a full 366 days. The previous year was 1 BCE (aka year -1) and the following years is 1 CE. Anyone who calls me wrong just doesn’t understand my personal calendar. Tough.
What a load of pedantry masquerading as fact. As if there could be a factual answer to what is essentially a naming convention.
I reread my OP and I was astounded how incredibly I got my facts messed up. My sincerest apology. Just goes to show I shouldn’t try to write before my second coffee in the morning.
What I was really trying to say was something like this: It is correct to say that this woman, born in 1899, was the last American born in the 1800s. But if another American was born in 1900, you could not say this lady was the last American born in the 19th century, because 1900 is the last year of the 19th century.
Exactly. Some people act like a century is scientific fact. A century is just a social custom. So if the popular consensus is that a new century began on January 1, 1900 then it did and the pedantic minority has to accept it.
Arguing that a century really begins on 1901 or 2001 is like arguing that a week is really six days long and people only think it’s seven days long.