# The decade is almost half over. What are we calling it anyway? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [December 20, 2004, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794 "2004-12-20T14:24:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/61 "2005-02-18T13:02:45Z")
While there never was a year 0, hence the idea that centuries run from 1 to xxx1, every decade has a year ending in zero. Therefore, this decade is 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2009. This decade has lots of zeroes. Maybe it’s the “nothing decade.” ---
**Author:** ![bleach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bleach/32/3106_2.png) [@bleach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bleach)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2005, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/62 "2005-02-18T15:18:50Z")
It seems to me that most people have been referring to this present decade as “ **Post-9/11** ”. It’s not a formal answer to the question but it’s a defining event that seems to have usurped other naming conventions. ---
**Author:** ![Kantalooppi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a5b964/32.png) [@Kantalooppi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kantalooppi)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/63 "2005-02-19T08:05:08Z")
It’s ‘two thousands’. Live it. Love it. Experience it. It’s odd that anyone would defend that naughties/noughties thing with a straight face. It sounds dreadfully silly. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/64 "2005-02-19T13:16:05Z")
> [@bleach](#): > > It seems to me that most people have been referring to this present decade as “ **Post-9/11** ”. It’s not a formal answer to the question but it’s a defining event that seems to have usurped other naming conventions. In his latest book “Down Here,” Andrew Vachss refers to the event as **Nine/Eleven**. I wish everybody would adopt this written usage, to differentiate from the way of writing the date. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/65 "2005-02-19T14:14:07Z")
I still maintain that we found no good solution to this question last time around, and will eventually settle into calling it “the turn of the century”. ---
**Author:** ![CuriousCanuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@CuriousCanuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CuriousCanuck)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/66 "2005-02-19T14:28:51Z")
Vote for the “O-zones”, the environmaentally friendly alternative. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/67 "2005-02-19T16:11:38Z")
Bush, alas, has given us nothing to compare with Harding’s “normalcy”, which seems remarkably unfair. ---
**Author:** ![canyonoak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8797f3/32.png) [@canyonoak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/canyonoak)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/68 "2005-02-19T17:17:12Z")
I call it The Dark Age. ---
**Author:** ![Herbert\_Treefrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e57/32.png) [@Herbert\_Treefrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Herbert_Treefrog)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/69 "2005-02-20T20:08:27Z")
> [@scotch](#): > > With considerable help from one Tony Blair. Just because he’s the PM, it doesn’t mean we all agree! Anyway, Ithink we were scared we’d get invaded next - after all, a lot of Muslims live here 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Herbert\_Treefrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e57/32.png) [@Herbert\_Treefrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Herbert_Treefrog)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/70 "2005-02-20T20:10:21Z")
> [@Kantalooppi](#): > > It’s ‘two thousands’. Live it. Love it. Experience it. > > It’s odd that anyone would defend that naughties/noughties thing with a straight face. It sounds dreadfully silly. I’m English - we like ‘silly’ - have you seen Monty Python? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2005, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/71 "2005-03-13T05:24:55Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > While there never was a year 0, hence the idea that centuries run from 1 to xxx1, every decade has a year ending in zero. Therefore, this decade is 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2009. This decade has lots of zeroes. Maybe it’s the “nothing decade.” Yes, every decade has a year ending in zero. For the nineties it is 2000 for the eighties it is 1990 etc. If it is not done this way then the very first decade would have only had 9 years. Of course, the reality is that years have been lost and gained on our great journey and so squabling over whether the year 2000 ended the last millenium or started this one is meaningless when there haven’t actually been 2000 years since year 1 anyway. My vote is for the “two thousands”, it is, after all, how many people say the year e.g., “two thousand (and) five”. I’d also give the (twenty) “hundreds” a go in keeping with eighties, nineties, etc. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/72 "2005-03-13T15:40:09Z")
> [@1920s Style "Death Ray"](#): > > Of course, the reality is that years have been lost and gained on our great journey and so squabling over whether the year 2000 ended the last millenium or started this one is meaningless when there haven’t actually been 2000 years since year 1 anyway. Ummmm… No. It has been known for centuries that Dionysius Exiguus miscalculated the year of the birth of Jesus, who could not have been born later than 4 BC. But only the wackos of the Russian “New Tradition” cult doubt the chronology itself. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/73 "2005-03-14T10:46:15Z")
> [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > “So? Zero, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven. That’s a dozen, buddy.”\*\* But, if you’re actually counting, that _is_ twelve eggs. We might as well get started on this now: Sometime in the near future, say, 2061, someone is going to say to their friend, “I really like fifties music.” Shouldn’t we be trying to disambiguate that _now_? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/74 "2005-03-14T16:43:55Z")
There is no realy accepted term for 1901- 1910, or even 1910-1919 either.And the rest of the decades got a term, because “raoring twenties’ sounds so cool. In fact, the 30’s are more often called 'the Great depression” and the 40’s 'the war years" (even though the line up isn’t precise, of course). Thus, there may never be a solid, generally accepted term for this decade. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/75 "2005-03-14T20:55:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Sometime in the near future, say, 2061, someone is going to say to their friend, “I really like fifties music.” Shouldn’t we be trying to disambiguate that now? Nah, by that time, everyone but classical music afficionados will be lumping all of the music of the twentieth century, from the flappers to heavy metal, in a single category. And those afficionados will be using technically precise terms (or at least, what will become technically precise terms), to describe the eras and styles they like, and “bobbysock” will just become one more category of “classical” music. For comparison, does anyone today say “I like the music of the '90s”, in reference to the 1890s? ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/76 "2005-03-15T17:03:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, every decade has a year ending in zero. For the nineties it is 2000 for the eighties it is 1990 etc. You’ve taken this too far. The (nineteen-) eighties are 1980 to 1989. The ninteen-hundreds are 1900 to 1999, which is almost, but not quite, the same as the twentieth century. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/77 "2005-03-16T00:25:15Z")
> [@John W. Kennedy](#): > > Ummmm… No. > > It has been known for centuries that Dionysius Exiguus miscalculated the year of the birth of Jesus, who could not have been born later than 4 BC. But only the wackos of the Russian “New Tradition” cult doubt the chronology itself. Ok, I didn’t know the details, just that the year 2000 AD isn’t actually the 2000th year since the birth of christ. > [@ZenBeam](#): > > You’ve taken this too far. The (nineteen-) eighties are 1980 to 1989. The ninteen-hundreds are 1900 to 1999, which is almost, but not quite, the same as the twentieth century. So the very 1st decade was from 0 to 9? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2005, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/78 "2005-03-16T00:28:03Z")
Disregard that, I see that you’re just reffering to the term “eighties”, “nineteen-hundreds” etc. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_the\_Turtle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_the_turtle/32/2926_2.png) [@Fear\_the\_Turtle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_the_Turtle)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/79 "2005-03-24T16:43:35Z")
Jon Stewart may have solved (or at least provided a data point for) this dilemma for us a week or so back. During an interview with the guest they were talking about the media’s short attention span and (parodying VH-1’s “We Love the 80’s”) mentioned maybe there should be a show called “We Love the Aughts” I personally prefer Naughts, but can live with Aughts. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794/80 "2005-03-24T18:49:43Z")
The name of the decade should describe the digit that signifies the tens. e.g. “eighties” for the years 80, 81, 82, … 89, “nineties” for the years 90, 91, … 99 Since the years 00, 01, 02, …, 09 all start with ‘0’, to me, it is obvious that the decade should be called “the zeros” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-decade-is-almost-half-over-what-are-we-calling-it-anyway/280794.md?page=5)