As you probably know, the actual start of the millineum was 2001. But I was recently reading that the way that most people think of the length of time is often made the official version in calenders and stuff, even though it's wrong.

And then I realized that that would mean decades and centuries would start at 1901 and 1991, too. Because in the first decade, there was no 0. I was starting to see why the common way is often taken instead because that just seems so weird. But it's true, isn't it. Why can't we start making a decade at 1991?

It also said that Stephen Jay Gould (is he a respectable guy?) actually took the average person's view of it, rationalizing that the first decade simply had 9 years in it. Does that makes sense? A decade is ten years. Why make an exception like that? Is it just to make it easier for people?

I think people just like things neat and tidy. I've always looked for the odometer in the car to change over to large numbers (eg: 50,000 miles, etc), I have no idea why, but I do.

Its wierd but people like to see patterns and be orderly and systematic. I guess that is part of what this debate is.

And no, I don't think that the first decade could be 9 years, but I think people get caught up on picayune details and don't drop them even when it makes sense to.

I'd say Gould is respectable, but I have no idea why the opinion of a paleontologist/biologist would matter here.

"Why can't we start making a decade at 1991?"

A decade is ten years, regardless of when you start counting. When a decade is referred to by a name, such as "the 60s" it is unclear if 1960 or 1970 is part of that decade. It seems to me that the meaning must be determined by the speaker. Gould's idea that the first decade simply had nine years in it is absurd, unless you also think that the first ten whole numbers consist of 1-9. When you start counting anything, you start at zero, and add one every time one comes along, whether it is sheep or years. How many polar bears walking on stilts have you seen today, Justin? I assume that you have seen none. The next one you see will be #1. Not until 9 more walk by will you have seen 10. No matter how anyone wants to look at it, that's the way it is.

Stephen Jay Gould, who died in 2002, was a widely respected biologist. What biology has to do with time terminology or semantics is beyond me. In those areas, I don't see him as any more of an expert than a great many people, most of whom have remained silent on the issue. However, if he wanted to change when decades are, he should have started with the 60s, which actually started in about 64, and ended in 71. I know. I was there.

Eh well, I got it from Wikipedia. They just mention him.

Yeah, Sher. It also seems that people tend to look at the last number, and so they see 0 in 1990 instead of seeing it representing 10.

I mean 1991 is when the decade should start, right, DG? In the first decade, it was from 1 to 10. So year 11 to year 20 would be the second decade. And so 1991 to 2000 should be last decade, no? I'll keep an eye out for that polar bear on stilts, by the way.

There are two sets of terminology.

"The 19th century" refers to the years 1801-1900.

I would interpret "the 1800s" as the years 1800-1899.

Likewise, I would interpret "the 198th decade" (not that anyone would say it) as 1991-2000, but would interpret "the '90s" or "the 1990s" as as 1990-1999.

Oh of course. I had a feeling something was wrong. I didn't even think about the fact that we don't count decades and that's why. It even explained it in my link. Glossed right over that. Thanks for the response, Methos.

Brainfreeze. Of course, I should have said 200th decade in my example.

Oh wait a minute, so if we were to say 'at the turn of the decade, Trent Reznor released Pretty Hate Machine (1989),' that would be wrong. Because the turn of the decade is 1990/1991. Right?