Comments on: What decade is it? Anyone? Anyone?

By: sdf

sdf — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:51:18 +0000

This whole article is based on a fallacy. When you don’t have facts, you appeal to smoke and mirrors.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:04:05 +0000

Adam: No… the first decade had ten years, just like every other decade.

But like the writer says, we do not count decades. No one called the 80s the “198th decade”. A decade can be any ten years. If you don’t understand that this has nothing to do with the first ten years AD, then it’ll be hard to explain.

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:40:36 +0000

So by this logic, the first decade (1 A.D.- 9 A.D.) would have had only nine years.

By: Brian Laskiewicz

Brian Laskiewicz — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:53:21 +0000

Decade names???
-2000-2009, for the current decade, how about the ‘nullies’? It has a catchy 2-syllable ring to it, captures the essence of the numbers, but doesn;t make the decade sound like a bunch of zeroes or ‘ohs.’ Plus, it’s different than the run of the mill suggestions like zeroes, ohs, aughts, aughties, noughts, or noughties.

-201-2019, as for the next decade, that answer is unclear, but I am leaning toward “deccas” for now since “teens” is a misnomer and “tens” doesn’t have the catchy 2-syllable sound. “Tensions” is interesting, but sounds too nervous or angst-filled, projecting negative vibes.

-As for speaking, bring on “twenty ten,” it seems like the media has caught on (except for car commercials, but even some of them are turning the corner now). Down the line, we’ll probably hear “twenty oh seven” instead of “two thousand seven” (blame that on Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick in 2001: A Space Odyssey pre-production, though “two thousand” should still prevail. The allure of 3 zeroes and all digits changing is all there, plus I have yet to hear anyone say in common usage “twenty hundred.”

By: Felipe Dias

Felipe Dias — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:29:24 +0000

Wich means the first “00s” AD and the last “00s” BC had only nine years, correct?

Funny. (not being ironic)

By: TashaKay

TashaKay — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:46:46 +0000

You know, when December 31st, 2000, rolled around, I thought all those killjoy math nerds would be having giant parties, since it was the REAL turn of the century … but were they? No, of course not. It was just like any old New Year’s Eve. All that whining trying to ruin everybody’s fun for nothing, telling everybody how stupid they were … you know that it’s the LOOK of the numbers more than what they mean (since, honestly, how accurate of a calendar do we really have anyway?) that most people care about …

Also, has anyone ever taught a history class where you have to explain over and over and over again that the 18th century is NOT the 1800s but is the 1700s? The young ones are very confused. (And by “young ones,” I mean people in high school and college.) Very sad.

By: sam

sam — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:41:49 +0000

I would just like to point out that at the start of next year we get to start saying “twenty” instead of “two thousand.” The future has arrived in twenty ten!

By: Calmom

Calmom — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:57:08 +0000

On what to call the next ten years the media (Adam Roberts- The Economist) also lists “perhaps the “decas”, “dekkas”, or –fingers crossed for the economy–the “decadents”. (In addition to the “teens”, “tens”, “twenty tens” or “two thousand and tens”.)

By: iAlex

iAlex — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:24:16 +0000

To quote an X-files episode that relates to this subject.

Mulder: “no one likes a math nerd Scully”

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:46:42 +0000

Paul—Actually, the logical extension would be to call the years 101 b.c. to 2 b.c. the Zeroth Century, and then 1 B.C. to 99 a.d. would be the “First Century.” Sure, that’s confusing for the ancients, since their centuries neither start nor end on nice round numbers, but they’re already counting backwards and anyway, they’re all dead. (Also, if we had used a proper “Year 0,” then the Zeroth Century would run from 100 b.c. to 1 b.c.; much tidier).

If you consider the birth of Jesus a turning point, then our current system is still arbitrary, because Jesus wasn’t born on Jan. 1. For example, Mormons generally believe Jesus was born April 6, 1 b.c. Based on that assumption, the 21st Century started April 6, 2000. If you believe Jesus was born on Dec. 25, the 21st Century started Dec. 25, 2000. And if you believe Jesus was born on some unknown day in 4 a.d., then the 21st Century started on that unknown day in 2004. Either way, Jan. 1, 2001 is arbitrary, unless we’re talking about the 21st century since something that happened Jan 1, 1 a.d. (A cold winter day, perhaps?)

So I still maintain that my arbitrary date of Jan. 1, 2000, chosen to optimize the intersection between the Gregorian calendar and party-ability, is at least as good as any other arbitrary date.