Happy New Year 2010 !!!!

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

That's true. But we're now in the second decade of the 2000s. Apparently people care more about that one than about the other one. I assume nobody is going to claim that 1990 was part of the '80s.

Yes, from a mathematical standpoint I do consider 1990 to have been the last year of the 9th decade of the 20th century. Just as I consider 2009 to be the 9th year of the 21st century, and thus the 9th year of the 1st decade of that century.

"The 80's" (like any such designation) is a cultural designation, not a calendar one.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by JWBear

"The 80's" (like any such designation) is a cultural designation, not a calendar one.

That was my point. And celebrating the end of any particular 10 year period is also a cultural designation. We aren't commenting on the end of the first decade of the 21st century, we're commenting on the end of the 10-year period consisting of years that start with 200x. We're culturally excited by an extra number on the odometer changing, not by oddities introduced into the system by a monk a millennium ago.

Of course, the fact that there was no year zero is just a cultural designation and not an inherent calendrical one either. This whole thing could go away by designating 1BCE as Year 0 (it doesn't matter since they got the year of Jesus's birth wrong anyway) and if we had kept the Babylonian sexigesimal counting system we'd not care a damn about decades, we'd have to wait 60 years for an onslaught of "decadal" recaps and 3600 years for an end of the "century" party.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

That was my point. And celebrating the end of any particular 10 year period is also a cultural designation. We aren't commenting on the end of the first decade of the 21st century, we're commenting on the end of the 10-year period consisting of years that start with 200x. We're culturally excited by an extra number on the odometer changing, not by oddities introduced into the system by a monk a millennium ago.

By that logic it makes just as much sense to celebrate NYE on 11/30. The numbers change after all!

Celebrate the change in digits, if that's you want. Don't say it's a new century (or decade) when it's not.

Originally Posted by Alex

Of course, the fact that there was no year zero is just a cultural designation and not an inherent calendrical one either. This whole thing could go away by designating 1BCE as Year 0 (it doesn't matter since they got the year of Jesus's birth wrong anyway) and if we had kept the Babylonian sexigesimal counting system we'd not care a damn about decades, we'd have to wait 60 years for an onslaught of "decadal" recaps and 3600 years for an end of the "century" party.

Which year would you replace by "year zero"? 1AD or 1BC? Either way, you screw up the count of years, and every history book in existence would need to be rewritten to change all the dates.

[JWBear]

Your bitchy sarcasm is isn't doing your position any good, Alex: and frankly, I'm surprised to hear it from you.. If it makes you feel the bigger man to insult and demean me, more power to you.

I don't have a "preferred decade". If people want to celebrate the ending of the 9th year of the century, fine. More power to them.

This all started when I posted this:

Originally Posted by JWBear

We're still in the first decade of the 21st century. The second decade doesn't start until 1/1/2011.

An innocuous statement that you agreed with, but still have attacked me for saying.

I'm done with this discussion

[Strangler Lewis]

Happy new year, everybody.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

Happy New'ish Year LoT! Disneyland was AMAZING at midnight.

[flippyshark]

If you give the calendar a theoretical year zero (and why not), then you can consider it mathematically a new decade. By way of analogy, we humans have a year zero, our first year of life, and on our tenth birthday, we have indeed entered our second decade. I see no reason not to extend this way of reckoning to the calendar, and thereby end years of tiresome debate about it.

[flippyshark]

They did get the year of Jesus' putative birth laughably wrong, indeed. But let's pretend that the decision to remake the calendar in his honor happened while he was still alive. I would think they would want the year to match up with his age, and wouldn't want to pester him by having a year in his honor that is always irritatingly off by one. (I know you're thirty-three, but it's the year thirty-two, m'Lord.) In any case, I declared a year zero back at the 1999-2000 turnover and haven't looked back since.

[Alex]

That's always the difference between cardinal and ordinal counting of age.

Currently I'm 35, but I'm in my 36th year. The cultural decision to be "1 year old from birth to first anniversary" is just as valid as the decision to be "1 year old from first anniversary to birth".

We could just move Year 1 back to the actual year of Jesus's birth (probably 4BCE) and then this last year change would be completely meaningless.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

That's always the difference between cardinal and ordinal counting of age.

Currently I'm 35, but I'm in my 36th year. The cultural decision to be "1 year old from birth to first anniversary" is just as valid as the decision to be "1 year old from first anniversary to birth".

We could just move Year 1 back to the actual year of Jesus's birth (probably 4BCE) and then this last year change would be completely meaningless.

I've never heard people call infants under 1 as "1 year old". It's always "He's 6 months old" or "She's 9 months" etc. I've never heard that designation as "1 year old" used until after the 1st birthday.