Year Zero

[tim-n-va]

@DSYoungEsq

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.”

There is nothing in your entire post that I didn’t understand. What I reject is your insistence that when someone talks about the “next Millennium” that then couldn’t possibly be thinking about the 2000s and must be thinking incorrectly about the third millennium. While I’m sure some people make that mistake, there are plenty of people who understand the difference between ordinal and cardinal numbers.

All I’ve really asserted is that you can know whether a person is making that error without additional information. That is, I can accurately say “The new millennium started on Jan 1, 2000”. If I’m talking to someone who is pedantic on the subject, it will be better if I clarify that I’m talking about the 2000s millennium but that doesn’t mean the simple form of the statement is wrong. When the context is appropriate I would say “the century of the 1900s” if the difference is significant or if I think there is a chance of misunderstanding.

The only opposing arguement that has been offered is the assertion that you somehow know that when someone says one thing they really mean (or are thinking) another. Do you understand why that is not a convincing arguement?

[Powers]

@tim-n-va

That is, I can accurately say “The new millennium started on Jan 1, 2000”.

A new millennium started that date. To say the new millennium strongly implies you’re counting integral millennia.

A new year started five hours ago, but the new year began 12 days ago (depending on time zone).
Powers &8^]

[BigT]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Ooh, ooh, ooh. I got under Ed’s skin! He reads me! He reads me!

:):eek::mad::rolleyes::p;):D:o:dubious::(:smack:

Granted, this would be a bigger deal if getting under Ed’s skin weren’t just as easy as correcting him. In fact, they’re normally one and the same thing. Remember the brouhaha earlier this year over moderating when Ed said that this was his Message Board and threatened to pick it up and take it home?

For the record, I didn’t get involved in that one. Rightly or wrongly, I only speak up when a factual mistake gets made. (I kinda thought that was the point here. It used to be.) Those do seem to concentrate in math and science articles. (And are contagious, since I obeyed Gaudere’s Law and made a silly error of my own in the correction.) But a “constant refrain”? How many times have I said this? Twice? Maybe three times. Maybe. Constant? Seems like another math error to me.

Anyway, why start a separate thread for this? I’m not pitting you for getting it wrong. I’m stating as a fact in the appropriate thread that your column fell down in the details. Which is what I did to the OP of the thread. You don’t get any special treatment. Oh, wait. You do. You have a whole forum that is the correct place for Comments on Cecil’s Columns. (Can we start calling it Comments on Cecil’s and Una’s Columns since she’s now doing all the heavy lifting for you, Ed? You should try being all alone out here on the other side.)

I like it here, Ed. It’s my favorite Internet site. Thanks for starting it. Now if you want to go all intellectual macho on me, let’s go tête-à-tête. That’s my idea of a good time. Maybe we could work out rankings, like in chess. From Perfect Master to Grand Master.

P.S. Mijin, here’s some highbrow discussion from the original column.

It all comes down from the source.

You said he makes a lot of errors. It would therefore make sense to open up another thread to discuss said errors. That you refuse to do so implies you were not telling the truth.

It would also make sense that, if you guys are going to duke it out, you would do so in a thread for that purpose.

[tim-n-va]

@Powers

[To say the new millennium strongly implies you’re counting integral millennia.

Using the definite article only implies that a specific item is under discussion. The general rule would be that the listener would know which specific item or be able to figure it out.

The listener knowing is covered by my earlier comments that it is better to be specific when there is a chance of misunderstanding. Being able to figure it out would come from the context. If someone says “the new millennium started today” and it is Jan 1, 2001, I can tell from the context that they are talking about the third millennium. If it is Jan 1, 2000, I can tell from the context that they are talking about the two-thousands millennium. If it is Jan 12, 2010, I’ll have to ask them which specific millennium they are talking about.

[Powers]

@tim-n-va

Using the definite article only implies that a specific item is under discussion. The general rule would be that the listener would know which specific item or be able to figure it out.

The listener knowing is covered by my earlier comments that it is better to be specific when there is a chance of misunderstanding. Being able to figure it out would come from the context. If someone says “the new millennium started today” and it is Jan 1, 2001, I can tell from the context that they are talking about the third millennium. If it is Jan 1, 2000, I can tell from the context that they are talking about the two-thousands millennium. If it is Jan 12, 2010, I’ll have to ask them which specific millennium they are talking about.

I disagree that most uses of the phrase are so generic, but I’m obviously not going to convince you otherwise.
Powers &8^]