Decades: A Small Rant

 

I just read the following phrase on a blog I frequent (which will remain unnamed to protect the blogger): “I ought to care that a decade is about to end (in 17 days!).” No, it isn’t, unless you are referring to a moving 10-year unit that came into existence in Year 11.

Now I recognize that there are calendar units called “decades” and cultural units called “decades.” They seem to be one year apart. The calendar decades take into account that there was no year “0.” There was the year “1.” Hence, a decade ends on the last day of a ten-year period that starts on the first day of a numbered year ending in “1,” e.g., 2001, 2011, 2021.

Culturally, we have tended to think of decades as beginning in numbered years ending with “0,” e.g., 2000, 2010, 2020. It makes it easy to label the various generations, e.g., millennials, Gen X, etc. Remember the Y2K scare? Disaster was to strike at the start of the new “century,” January 1, 2000.

I have occasionally posted on Facebook about ultra-endurance cycling events. In my summary of, say, the finishers on Race Day 27, some commenter will invariably ask if I am a day off, since the race clock shows their time as 26:xx:xx? So, I gently remind them that there is no Race Day 0, just as I am in my 70th year, which will not be completed for some months yet.

The language of math is complicated, no?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 48 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    This was a boring tendentious argument twenty years ago, and age hasn’t improved it.

    Are you saying it’s boring, repetitive, and tense?

    • #31
  2. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    You and the New York Times keep making this argument every 10 years….

    • #32
  3. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    You and the New York Times keep making this argument every 10 years….

    Now, Gary, that’s just cruel, comparing a Ricochet member to the New York Times.

    • #33
  4. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    You and the New York Times keep making this argument every 10 years….

    Now, Gary, that’s just cruel, comparing a Ricochet member to the New York Times.

    If the shoe fits….

    • #34
  5. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    just as I am in my 70th year, which will not be completed for some months yet.

    Waves “me too.”

    My own mini-rant is what to  call the years we’re living in during this century. Most people say that this year is “two thousand nineteen.” But in the last century, say in 1998, did we say it’s “one thousand nine hundred ninety-eight?” No, we said “nineteen ninety-eight.” That’s why I usually try to say it’s “twenty-nineteen.” 

    End of a really mini-rant.

    • #35
  6. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    just as I am in my 70th year, which will not be completed for some months yet.

    Waves “me too.”

    My own mini-rant is what to call the years we’re living in during this century. Most people say that this year is “two thousand nineteen.” But in the last century, say in 1998, did we say it’s “one thousand nine hundred ninety-eight?” No, we said “nineteen ninety-eight.” That’s why I usually try to say it’s “twenty-nineteen.”

    End of a really mini-rant.

    Thank you for drawing some fire away from me, @oldphil. 

    • #36
  7. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    OldPhil (View Comment):
    Most people say that this year is “two thousand nineteen.”

    You must run in different circles than I do.  I almost never hear anyone say that.

    • #37
  8. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Skyler (View Comment):

    OldPhil (View Comment):
    Most people say that this year is “two thousand nineteen.”

    You must run in different circles than I do. I almost never hear anyone say that.

    It’s only the fashionable set, dahling.

    • #38
  9. Samuel Block Support
    Samuel Block
    @SamuelBlock

    You’re in your 70th year?!?

    For some reason I thought you were a really smart Millennial. (Shows what I know!)

    • #39
  10. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Samuel Block (View Comment):
    For some reason I thought you were a really smart Millennial. (Shows what I know!)

    Seems to be a lot of that going around.

    • #40
  11. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Rodin: The language of math is complicated, no?

    Not really. It’s just that most folks are ijits.

    Most people can’t count to ten if you spot them the one and let them use their fingers.

    • #41
  12. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):

    Clavius (View Comment):
    This calendar era is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus of Nazareth, with AD counting years from the start of this epoch, and BC denoting years before the start of the era. There is no year zero in this scheme, so the year AD 1 immediately follows the year 1 BC. This dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus of Scythia Minor, but was not widely used until after 800.[9][10]

    And who says that Dionysius Exiguus was the big counting sheriff of the house? He can’t simply be wrong? Dude didn’t even know about zero.

    Here’s an idea: add to the Wiki page the following: “In 2020 a small adjustment was made to DE’s obviously wrong counting method, and the zero was finally acknowledged. Everybody who was born in year Zero rejoiced, because all their birthdays were now recognized. Dionysis Exiguus, appearing under uncomfortable questioning on Fox, begrudgingly admitted his mistake.”

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):

    If you insist on keeping DE’s counting method, what’s stopping us from including the year Zero in our counting, saving us all of these headaches, and this unending argument. We can just call “Zero” the year before his Year one, that one right there that he is calling “One BC”. Nope, it’s not One BC, it’s Zero.

    This will of course make all the BC years off by one, by our counting method. But who cares? Aristotle did such-and-such in year 430 BC instead of year 431 BC.

    I will trade having to deal with any complaint he might lodge at this point for having us all agree finally that our 2020th year ends on what we call 2020, not 2021.

    Well, Bruce, I don’t see any reason to depart from a tradition of roughly 1,500 years in order to make you the “big counting sheriff.”

    Perhaps there should have been a year zero.  There was not.  No amount of insisting on your part is going to make it so.

    There were many dating systems in the ancient world.  The Romans used one (abbreviated “AUC”) based on the semi-mythical founding of the city, in what we now call the year 753 BC.

    So the year before the hypothetical birth of Christ was the year 753 AUC.  So 1 BC = 753 AUC, and 1 AD = 754 AD, with no year zero in the system.

    • #42
  13. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Perhaps there should have been a year zero. There was not. No amount of insisting on your part is going to make it so.

    Wait a minute, there’s proof:

    See the source image

    • #43
  14. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):

    Clavius (View Comment):
    This calendar era is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus of Nazareth, with AD counting years from the start of this epoch, and BC denoting years before the start of the era. There is no year zero in this scheme, so the year AD 1 immediately follows the year 1 BC. This dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus of Scythia Minor, but was not widely used until after 800.[9][10]

    And who says that Dionysius Exiguus was the big counting sheriff of the house? He can’t simply be wrong? Dude didn’t even know about zero.

    Here’s an idea: add to the Wiki page the following: “In 2020 a small adjustment was made to DE’s obviously wrong counting method, and the zero was finally acknowledged. Everybody who was born in year Zero rejoiced, because all their birthdays were now recognized. Dionysis Exiguus, appearing under uncomfortable questioning on Fox, begrudgingly admitted his mistake.”

    The Scarecrow (View Comment):

    If you insist on keeping DE’s counting method, what’s stopping us from including the year Zero in our counting, saving us all of these headaches, and this unending argument. We can just call “Zero” the year before his Year one, that one right there that he is calling “One BC”. Nope, it’s not One BC, it’s Zero.

    This will of course make all the BC years off by one, by our counting method. But who cares? Aristotle did such-and-such in year 430 BC instead of year 431 BC.

    I will trade having to deal with any complaint he might lodge at this point for having us all agree finally that our 2020th year ends on what we call 2020, not 2021.

    Well, Bruce, I don’t see any reason to depart from a tradition of roughly 1,500 years in order to make you the “big counting sheriff.”

    Perhaps there should have been a year zero. There was not. No amount of insisting on your part is going to make it so.

    There were many dating systems in the ancient world. The Romans used one (abbreviated “AUC”) based on the semi-mythical founding of the city, in what we now call the year 753 BC.

    So the year before the hypothetical birth of Christ was the year 753 AUC. So 1 BC = 753 AUC, and 1 AD = 754 AD, with no year zero in the system.

    So we’re not even within a year of the “current” decadenal marker?!

    • #44
  15. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    just as I am in my 70th year, which will not be completed for some months yet.

    Waves “me too.”

    My own mini-rant is what to call the years we’re living in during this century. Most people say that this year is “two thousand nineteen.” But in the last century, say in 1998, did we say it’s “one thousand nine hundred ninety-eight?” No, we said “nineteen ninety-eight.” That’s why I usually try to say it’s “twenty-nineteen.”

    End of a really mini-rant.

    I say twenty nineteen. I called the year after 2000, twenty oh one. I am looking forward to January when I think most of us  will be saying twenty twenty.

    • #45
  16. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    TBA (View Comment):

    Bah.

    Decades are properly measured by musical styles. For example; the ’80s actually started in 1978, with the unlamented death of disco and the beginning of new wave.

    Did the 60s start in 1957 with Bill Hayley and Buddy Holly? Or in 1963 with the Beatles?

    I must maintain that 1963 is the correct date for the beginning of the ’60s although I realize that opens me up to charges Fabism. 

    • #46
  17. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    OldPhil (View Comment):

    just as I am in my 70th year, which will not be completed for some months yet.

    Waves “me too.”

    My own mini-rant is what to call the years we’re living in during this century. Most people say that this year is “two thousand nineteen.” But in the last century, say in 1998, did we say it’s “one thousand nine hundred ninety-eight?” No, we said “nineteen ninety-eight.” That’s why I usually try to say it’s “twenty-nineteen.”

    End of a really mini-rant.

    I say twenty nineteen. I called the year after 2000, twenty oh one. I am looking forward to January when I think most of us will be saying twenty twenty.

    I said “two-thousand, two-thousand-one, -two…” etc through “ten” whereupon I might mix it up between “two-thousand eleven” etc and “twenty-eleven” etc.

    • #47
  18. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Rodin: The language of math is complicated, no?

    Not really. It’s just that most folks are ijits.

    Well, they’re not mostly congenital idiots, at least. They’re just lazy and their minds are soft and slack. 

    When they hate you, you know you’re a good drill sergeant.

    • #48
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.