# Pedant, but not on Sundays **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [February 17, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedant-but-not-on-sundays/486263 "2009-02-17T14:31:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedant-but-not-on-sundays/486263/41 "2009-02-23T23:23:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > AD 1, of course. And AD 301 was the first year of the fourth century. Which doesn’t change the fact that AD 300 was the first year of the three hundreds. What was the first year of the first decade? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedant-but-not-on-sundays/486263/42 "2009-02-24T01:01:20Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > What was the first year of the first decade? Is there a point to this? The first year of the “first” decade (Anno Domini) was 1 A.D. The decade lasted from 1 A.D. to 10 A.D. Nevertheless, the year 10 A.D. was the first year of the decade known as the “tens” (or whatever made-up term you want to use, since back then, they didn’t yet know to try and fix the date of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth for calendar purposes, silly them :rolleyes:). The twenty-first century of human history Anno Domini began on 1/1/2001. The fact that numerous people consider the “Twenty-first Century” to have begun on 1/1/2000 doesn’t change this fact. But it is not unheard of for people to misname things, and insist on using the misnaming. Nor is it particularly surprising that many people conflate the Twenty-first Century with “the Two-thousands”. Intelligent people know better; people who don’t want to portray their ignorance for all and sundry to see use the correct nomenclature. Of course, that has the downside of making them look like stuffy pedantic asses. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedant-but-not-on-sundays/486263/43 "2009-02-24T01:14:05Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Is there a point to this? It being a question, the point was to obtain an answer. Sorry if that was unclear. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedant-but-not-on-sundays/486263/44 "2009-02-24T01:27:41Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Chronology is a human invention. > > Weeks have seven days. Days have twenty four hours. Why? Because people think so. > > March has 31 days. April has 30 days. Why? Because people think so. > > The year 2008 was 366 days long. The year 2009 will be 365 days long. Why? Because people think so. > > And the 21st century started on January 1, 2000 and will end on December 31, 2099. Why? Because people think so. Give the man a cigar. And it’s sensible for people to think so. the 00 years are when the big number roll over. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedant-but-not-on-sundays/486263/45 "2009-02-24T10:33:04Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > It being a question, the point was to obtain an answer. Sorry if that was unclear. Oh, please. :rolleyes: Your continued series of questions about what the first year of a particular type of year collection had some underlying point to it. That’s what I was attempting to gain an explanation of. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedant-but-not-on-sundays/486263/46 "2009-02-24T12:53:35Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Oh, please. :rolleyes: > > Your continued series of questions about what the first year of a particular type of year collection had some underlying point to it. That’s what I was attempting to gain an explanation of. If you wish to have a dialogue with me you need to dial the rolleyes back to zero. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedant-but-not-on-sundays/486263/47 "2009-02-24T17:10:23Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > If you wish to have a dialogue with me you need to dial the rolleyes back to zero. I’ll rolleyes at whom I want, thank you very much. And I’m not looking forward to dialogue, I’m simply making a point. Much more effectively than I think you were with your series of questions. 😉 So sorry, I like winking, too. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedant-but-not-on-sundays/486263/48 "2009-02-24T17:11:52Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > 1/1/1951 was the start of a century. > > So was 3/30/1834. > > The question is WHAT century. > > The first day of the 21st Century was 1/1/2001. > > The first day of the 2000s was 1/1/2000. > > Neither was a Sunday. > [@Nametag](#): > > THANK YOU! It’s so annoying when pseudo-pedants try to extend the “first year of the 21st century” argument to all named centuries, and to all decades. The '90s didn’t start in 1991; 1990 is a '90 – in fact, it’s THE '90! Similarly, AD 300 was the first year of the 300s. Agreed. There is something relevant in Kennedy’s 1961 address, and how, bold as it was, it contained a multiple hedge. From the http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/Urgent+National+Needs+Page+4.htm"]May 25, 1961 speech, page four, check out the beginning of the fifth paragraph, section IX (Space). It might have seemed at the time that the first moment of 1970 would be too optimistic a choice for a “deadline” stated in public. But it could have meant by the end of 1970, using the very questionable extension of century-starting to decade starting. If fact, as has been pointed out, the “decade” could have literally started with May 25th, that year. (Yes, it’s a small difference.) We can go even farther with the exact date-beginning decade, though, and state that the goal, including the ambitious time-frame, would not have been a “failure” as long as a man had returned safely from the moon by February 21, 19 **77** , since the Apollo Program could have been conceived to have started that date in 1967. (Of course, there was much planning and testing before [Apollo I](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1), but I think people tend to fix on actual spmissions.) - “Jack” ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedant-but-not-on-sundays/486263/49 "2009-02-24T20:22:39Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > What was the first year of the first decade? What’s it matter? The 90s are the years 90-99. The 10th decade, for those being precise/accurate/whatever are the years 91-100. You’re conflating two difference concepts here, if you’re getting at what I think you’re getting at. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedant-but-not-on-sundays/486263/50 "2009-02-25T16:46:37Z")
[QUOTE=True Blue Jack] From the May 25, 1961 speech, page four, check out the beginning of the fifth paragraph, section IX (Space). [/quote] Your link is broken. [http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/Urgent+National+Needs+Page+4.htm](http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/Urgent+National+Needs+Page+4.htm) > [@](#): > > It might have seemed at the time that the first moment of 1970 would be too optimistic a choice for a “deadline” stated in public. > > But it could have meant by the end of 1970, using the very questionable extension of century-starting to decade starting. Fair enough, “this decade” is ambiguous enough that by the end of 1970 could have worked as well as the beginning of 1970. > [@](#): > > If fact, as has been pointed out, the “decade” could have literally started with May 25th, that year. (Yes, it’s a small difference.) How so? > [@](#): > > We can go even farther with the exact date-beginning decade, though, and state that the goal, including the ambitious time-frame, would not have been a “failure” as long as a man had returned safely from the moon by February 21, 19 **77** , since the Apollo Program could have been conceived to have started that date in 1967. Sorry, that argument fails. Kennedy’s quote is > [@](#): > > First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before \*\*this decade \*\*is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him back safely to the earth. Bolding added. _This_ decade, not “a decade once the actual Apollo Program starts”. And no, I don’t agree that the Apollo 1 fire counts as the beginning of the Apollo Program. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2009, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedant-but-not-on-sundays/486263/51 "2009-02-26T16:38:31Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Your link is broken. > [http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/Urgent+National+Needs+Page+4.htm](http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/Urgent+National+Needs+Page+4.htm)… At least double oops, although the small difference meant is because of the date in May. I did, however, feel that my most of post wasn’t well thought out soon after posting it. :o Thank you for fixing the broken link, Irishman. - “Jack” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pedant-but-not-on-sundays/486263.md?page=2)