|
Calendar years have no zero (as we've decided to count them) because they are ordinals. When you count physical objects you're using cardinals. I had a first kiss, I never had a zeroth kiss. There was a time when I had had zero kisses then I had had one kiss.
We could easily have had a year zero if we wanted one. All we had to do was decide to count years as cardinals rather than ordinals. Doing so would violate no physical laws (in fact computers generally start counting at zero -- such as the first character in a string occupies position 0 in that string -- and it works just find) of counting.
And in fact, we do have a year zero when talking about years. We use them for ages. You get your birthday cake on the first anniversary of your birth. However, when your mom got her "baby's first year" scrapbook she didn't wait until you were one to start using it. Your entire first year of life you were 0 years old (and that's why in this period when small fractions of time are significant we break it down, nobody now cares that I am 4 months past my last birthday).
All of which is irrelevant to the question of the decade just celebrated other than the fact that having a year zero would avoid this silly conversation every time it comes up.
You're correct that there is almost another full year to go in the first decade of the 21st century. Good for you. Almost nobody cares, you'll be all alone at your "end of the decade" party next year.
It is also correct that the first decade of the 2000s just ended. For the most part, people inclined to reflect on the passage of a decade choose to do it then.
Neither of these landmark dates are inherently any more significant than the other. The universe is indifferent.
And it is worth noting that not once did I see a reference to the just ended decade as "the end of the first decade of the 21st century." So nobody's been wrong.
|