People born on August 22 often do celebrate the beginning of a new year on August 22.
I guess you can assume what “the” millennium means but you can’t assume others think that way. The easier way is to specify. If you say “the third millennium” you won’t get as much arguement about it starting in 2001.
I think the millennium where the thousands digit is two is culturally signfiicant. I don’t care that there would not be a full millennium with a zero in the thousands digit. Since this calendar system wasn’t being used then, it wasn’t culturally significant to anyone.
No, and which hole you pulled that out of is unclear. In case you haven’t noticed, it is not 1905 any more, and physics has moved forward in the last ~100 years.
We’ll pick apart any stupid statements made. If you don’t want your examples picked apart, choose better examples.
Yes, but no one goes around saying “Happy New Year” on that date. They use other terminology appropriate to the event they’re commemorating. In the absence of other modifiers, “the new year” always begins on January 1. Likewise “the new millennium” always begins in years ending in 001.
Powers &8^]
And now you are just asserting that the way you assume things is correct. Jewish people say “Happy New Year” on a different day than January 1. The new year starts on different days for people in China and for followers of Islam.
It is a cultural issue and if your culture thinks it is more significant to go to the start point of a calendar that no one was using at the time, that if fine - for you. If someone thinks that for a cultural perspective that the millennium of years that have the same digit in the thousands position is significant, they are just as correct - for them.
Not if they mean the start of the “Third Millenium” after the putative birth of Christ. In that case, they are, simply, W R O N G. You know, the opposite of correct.
If by contrast they are celebrating the beginning of the 2000s, then yes, they were fine. But they THINK they are celebrating the start of the Third Millenium, which is why they are wrong. :smack:
Now, of course, someone who uses a calendar with a different set of year numbering (e.g.: the Jewish calendar) might wonder why the fuss? But since virtually all the world by default uses the Gregorian calendar for everything except cultural left-overs, that’s not too many people.
But my point was that someone who celebrates “the new millennium” on Jan 1, 2000 is not wrong because there is a valid defintion of a specific millennium for which that is correct.
I’ll need more proof of your mind reading skills before what you assert other people think carries any weight.
I got no problem with estimating. I mean, c’mon, it’s 2000 years. I hear all the time say things like Columbus sailed 500 years ago, and I don’t correct them to say, no, it was 517. Or, my father in law is nostalgic that it’s been 60 years since the end of WWII, and I don’t say, no, you’re wrong, it’s 64. Pedantry has its place, but when folks are estimating years, I don’t get worried about it. I mean, in this millenium thing, it’s a rounding error of, what, 0.05% ?
Yes, of course, for people using other calendars, their third millennium is yet to begin or was over long ago. Likewise, their new year starts on a different date.
But, ha, silly me, since we were talking about whether the third millennium began in 2001 or 2000, I thought we were talking about the Gregorian calendar. And under the Gregorian calendar, millennial boundaries are between years ending in 000 and years ending in 001. 2001 is when we turned the virtual calendarical page from MILLENNIUM II to MILLENNIUM III.
Sure, you can flip your calendar to 2011 tomorrow if you want to, but you should be prepared for odd looks if you start going around saying “Happy New Year” and dating your checks accordingly. Likewise, you can say the two-hundred-and-second decade began last week, but it just doesn’t fit with the way the rest of Gregorian-calendar-using society numbers things.
Powers &8^]
Actually, there hasn’t been any contention about when the third millennium started in this thread for several days. The issue of the last few posts is the response to someone saying “the new millennium started in 2000”. Not the third but just the new. The insistence that they were obviously thinking “third” when they said “new” and therefore they are wrong is a conclusion that has little merit without other information.
The language associated with centuries is easier but the parallels are valid. The 20th century included the years 1901 thru 2000. The 1900s included the years 1900-1999. Both are valid ways of referring to a century. If someone says that the new century started in 2000 they are correct. If they say the new century started in 2001 they are correct. If a person born Jan 6, 1910 says he is starting his second century, I’d have to double check. In all cases they are referring to a different named century.
Forget centuries; parallel a year. Sure, you can say a new year begins on any random day of the year, but without such qualification, the “new year” in a Gregorian calendar is always January 1. It’s an integral number of years since the origin point of the calendar system. If you mean something else, like a fiscal year that starts April 1, you say “fiscal year” (unless that context has been established previously).
Likewise, centuries begin an integral number of centuries since the origin point of the calendar system. You can define other centuries if you want, but unadorned with such definitions, “the new century” logically refers to one beginning in a year ending in 01, just like “the new year” logically refers to one beginning on January 1.
Powers &8^]
Once again you are changing the issue. You are correct in that there is only one common definition for a year (starting 1 Jan) although others do exist. However, there are at lease two common definitions for a century (1900’s and 20th century). There is no logic to saying that one or the other is the only acceptable answer without definition.
But anyone who said, “the 1900s century”, rather than “the 1900s” or “the 20th century”, would be instantly detected as someone whose first language was not English.
Commonality is irrelevant, because the logical answer is dependent on the structure of the calendar system. There is a defined right and a wrong based on the calendar we use, and no amount of public opinion can change that.
Powers &8^]
Commonality is the only thing that is relevent because you are insisting applying a definite meaning to a statement that has multiple viable meanings. Your insistence that the only context that is relevent is the calendar is an opinion, not a fact.
Do you have any argument to the assertion that the century “the nineteen-hundreds” didn’t end in 1999?
The idea of 1900’s ending in 1999 are based on the same calendar that is being held up as the definitive proof of when millennium change.
I don’t think there is anything more to be gained by this discussion. I’ll continue to understand that words can have multiple meanings and you can continue to insist that your definition is the only one that is correct.
I missed any cogent comment on my thesis by John W. Kennedy. If you are referring to his last post in this thread, it is not a comment on my thesis at all. I never said someone would say “the 1900s century” but if they did, not being a native speaker of English wouldn’t be a factor in them understanding time periods. I envision this dialog as an example:
(on Dec 31, 1999) “It is the end of the century.”
“No, the 20th century doesn’t end until the end of next year.”
“Yes, but the 1900s end tonight.”
In short, no one in this thread has disputed that there are multiple specific decades, centuries or millennium. All that has been asserted is that if someone refers to one of these they must be thinking about counting from year 1 because that is when the calendar starts. I pointed out that the 1900s, the 2000s and any number of other time segments are also derived from that same calendar.
In the original column that this thread is based on, Cecil seems to be acknowledging this with his comment:
Great post tim-n-va. Your point seems so obviously reasonable that I can’t understand the resistance. I guess some people don’t like having their Pedant Powers reduced.
No, sadly, it is you who have missed the point of what’s being said entirely.
If someone is talking about the 2000s, they began at midight 1/1/2000.
If someone is talking about the 3rd Millenium since the putative birth of Christ, that began on 1/1/2001.
If someone talks about the “next Millenium”, they may think they are referring to the 2000s, but the reason they are talking about it is because it is the Third Millenium, and they simply either don’t care, or don’t know, that they are conflating two concepts to come to an incorrect conclusion. This is the point John Kennedy was making: people don’t talk about “the 2000s Millenium” just as they don’t talk about the “1900s century.”
And the reason for the confusion is the particular chronological convention that is the subject of the OP: the use of “1” to denote the time period from 1/1/1 (retroactively) to 12/31/1 (i.e.: the first 365 days after the calculated birth of Christ). The average Joe on the street assumes that it all started from 0, like most anything else he deals with.
In all cases they are referring to a different named century.