The same would apply if your factotum were to return with only tomatoes, cucumbers and olives…
Why must “decade”, “century” and “millennium” be strict, mathematically precise terms?
Is anyone actually using these units to measure a precise length of time for any purpose?
They are not part of any formal unit system - nobody expresses a precise length of time as “2 centuries, 3 decades, 7 years”. If we want to express an exact number of years, we’d just say 237 years.
So it seems to me that colloquial usage of decade, century and millennium tends to be primarily to refer to an era in a historical/cultural sense. That being so, if colloquial usage implies that the First Century has 99 years, and the First Millennium has 999 years, why does it matter?
Because it does. A century (cent-) has 100 years, which is why there are 100 cents in a dollar. A millennium has 1000 years, not more or less. It’s important to be consistent. Those who believe the new millennium started on January 1, 2000, are many in number, though they are all wrong.
That’ll be nonsense then; there are already people born in the 21st century eligible to vote, in Scotland.
You meant 1st January 2000…correct?
I’ve heard more compelling arguments.
How many legs does a centipede have? A centurion commanded how many soldiers?
Why is such precision is important for the concept of a millennium or a century? Again, when a precise length of time is measured, those units are never used: we would say (for example) 157 years, never 1.57 centuries. Decade, century, and millennium seem only to be used for general historical and cultural reference, not as precise measures of time.
I’m not saying you can’t be vague some of the time or even most of the time.
But when you are being specific, then you should, you know, be specific.
So when people say THE millennium began on Jan. 1st, 2000 they are being very specific and not vague at all. And being specific and wrong is … wrong.
Again. Note a key principle of this message board is fighting ignorance. Being wrong is something that’s not highly thought of here.
It’s no different than seeing someone post here that the Dodgers won the 2017 World Series. Do you really expect people to let that slide? Do you wave it off with “Who really cares? Does it matter?”
This whole shrugging if off attitude just means you’ve lost the argument and don’t want to admit it.
No, we are not admitting to losing the argument; we shrug it off because we see no reason to be arguing over anything so trivial.
No, the millennium they are interested in started on 1st Jan 2000, the next one worth noting will start on 1st Jan 3000. The same mindset of person will mark the start of new century on 1st Jan 2100. They will also probably note the fact next year that it’ll be a century since the end of the Great War.
Maybe not in your word. Don’t be so sure about what happens in everyone else’s. When I say century, I mean 100 years. When I say decade, I mean exactly ten years. Eleven or nine years does not a decade make. I wouldn’t use a centipede or millipede as a frame of reference. How many beads in a decade on a rosary?
So, if I told you that my grandmother was born a century ago, and it turned out she was born in 1916, you would insist that I was wrong, and that she was born 1.01 centuries ago?
I would say she was born a little over a century ago, like most people I know would.
And if you wanted to say exactly how many years ago she was born, how would you say it? 1.01 centuries or 101 years?
Distance:
The kilometer and mile are precise formal units of distance. Thus we will say 1.8 kilometers, or 1.2 miles, or 1 mile 300 yards - and we clearly mean a precise distance.
Short times:
Likewise, the hour. When describing a precise time, we say 1 hour 25 minutes (and it’s much more common to say this than to say 85 minutes).
Long times:
Why do we not use decade, century or millennium this way? We never say 1.6 centuries or 1 millenium 200 years. If want to refer to a precise length of time, we say it as a total number years.
I think the reason is simply that decade, century and millennium as necessarily precise formal units of time in the same way. Sure, if someone asks (out of context) “how many years in a century”, our immediate answer is 100. But in practice the term century is used far more often to refer to (say) “the eighteenth century”, which connotes a historical era rather - where the historical connotations are what’s important, not the precise length of time.
101 years, 38 weeks, 14 hours and 7 minutes. Why does it matter? We were talking about whether a century means one hundred years in common parlance. I know of no other meaning myself.
If “millennium” and “century” are not commonly used at precise measurements of time, than all the pedantry about the start date of the millennium is not just unimportant, it’s simply wrong, because it’s false precision. More so since the start date for the Gregorian calendar is entirely arbitrary, it’s not measuring time from any precisely dated event. Even if you believe in the historicity of Jesus, nobody seriously claims that his birth can be precisely dated to Jan 1st 0001.
So if our society has decided to celebrate the “new millennium” (or “new century”) on the memorable day when the leading digit of the year turns over, there is really no sense in which that choice is “wrong”. The only objection is that under that convention the first millennium only contained 999 years. But so what? 999 years from a start date of no specific significance fulfills the common usage of the term “millennium” quite adequately.
Neither Jan 1st 2000 nor Jan 1st 2001 have any significance as measures of actual time. So granting the former date significance simply because that’s when the leading digit turns over is quite reasonable. The leading digit of the year changing is really the only significance of the turn of the millennium.
I understand what you’re saying, and I even agree to a large part, but I think you’re dismissing the meaning of “century” and “millennium” a little too easily. The words may not have much precision in your world, but they do in mine and the world of many people. There is no circumstance where I would agree that a millennium is 999 years. Maybe we got the start date wrong, or switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar half way through, but a millennium is a millennium as far as I’m concerned.
Then please cite an example where they are used as precise measures of time.
If I say:
[Some historical event] happened in the year 1020; a millennium later, nothing has changed.
Would you scratch your head and not understand what I was saying because only 997 years have passed?
World War I ended one century ago.
But I don’t think “one century ago” in that sentence is common English usage.
We far more usually say:
World War I ended a century ago.
Here there is no emphasis on precision, could be +/- a few years.
And if we want to emphasize precision, we are much more likely to say:
World War I ended 100 years ago.
This is more likely to mean exactly 100 years, although it’s not explicit.
World War I ended exactly 100 years ago.
Fully explicit.
Cite:
And again, if you think a century is a precise unit of time, how do you account for the fact that we never say “1.2 centuries”?