Live data from Hacker News

Let's stop counting centuries

dynomight.net

171–180 of 449 posts

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#171
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody says "21st year" either On the contrary, enough people say it, it's a quora question: https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-mean-to-be-in-your-twenty... Authors love phrases like this. Which, in turn, comes from another ordinal/cardinal confusion stemming back to common law: "A person who has completed the eighteenth year of age has reached majority; below this age, a person is a minor." That means they complet…

It's just not true. You've completed being 17 years old on your 18th birthday, when you enter your 19th year and can count 18 years under your belt. Consider a newborn. As soon as they're squeezed out they are in their first year of life. That continues until the first anniversary of their decanting, at which point they are one year old and enter their second year of life. There is nobody, nobody, who refers to a bab…

> It's just not true.

No one's saying it's true! All that's being claimed is that writers will often use phrases like "became an adult in their 18th year" or "was legally allowed to drink in their 21st year".

It's completely incorrect, but some people use it that way, and ultimately everyone understands what they actually mean.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#172
post #166

The aughts or naughts (or aughties) are a pretty easy to understand way to refer to 2000-2009, though saying “the early aughts” is clearly more verbose than saying 2000-2003 (except that 2000-2003 looks more specific than is meant)

I think that last point, "there’s no good way to refer to 2000-2009, sorry", was a bit tongue in cheek, refusing to acknowledge "the aughts", since it is a terrible, terrible, stupid way to refer to anything.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#173

> Did the American revolution happen before, during, or after the Enlightenment? I’ve no idea. When did the American revolution happen? Not everyone’s cultural frame of reference is the same as yours. I can tell you when the Synod of Whitby happened, though.

It's tiresome when people seem to think it's necessary to be annoyed that others make reference to their own cultural frame of reference in their writing.

Even more tiresome when they feel the need to comment about it.

Most people here, even non-Americans, likely have at least a rough idea of when the American Revolution was. And those who don't will either just gloss over it and think no more of it, or find the answer on the internet in a shorter amount of time than it took me to type this sentence. And then there are people like you. Look at the completely useless subthread you've spawned! Look at the time I've bothered to waste typing this out! Sigh.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#175

It's funny that for me it feels right to associate the 20s with 2020 and the 40s with 1940, but somehow, the 30s is very foreign, and I can't think of 1930 or 2030 either.

Funny, when you say "20s" I think of the 1920s (aka the "Roaring 20s" here in the US). I wonder if it's an age thing (I'm in my 40s), or perhaps a cultural or regional thing.

The 30s as 1930s seems pretty solid to me: US Great Depression, start of WWII, not to mention many of the smaller conflicts that led up to it.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#177
post #50

> There’s no good way to refer to 2000-2009 I like the German Nullerjahre (roughly, the nil years). Naught years or twenty-naughts works pretty well too imho.

In the USA we say “the aughts”

Speak for yourself. I refuse to use that abominable construct!

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#178

I thought the exact same thing... when I was eight. Then I just learned the mental gymnastics of hearing, say, "20th century" and associating it with "1900" at got along with it. Really, it's a bit dated, but if people can function with miles and furlongs, they can handle centuries...

It's funny, I'm in my 40s and my brain still pauses longer than I'd expect is necessary to do that conversion. I think for 21st or 20th century I'm fine (since I've lived in both of them), but anything prior and it takes me a beat to figure out which date range it is.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#179
post #10

Another ambiguity, though perhaps less important, is that "2000s" could refer to 2000-2999.

Not "another"; the article addresses this, and admits to not having a good solution, aside from just writing out the actual dates as you did.

Re: Let's stop counting centuries

#180
post #10

Another ambiguity, though perhaps less important, is that "2000s" could refer to 2000-2999.

Could make the convention to say "the twenty hundreds" when referring to [2000, 2100), and "the two thousands" for [2000, 3000).

I actually really like that!

But then how about [2000, 2010)? During the current time period, I expect people are more likely to refer to the decade rather than the century or millennium.

Post reply on HN