Heh. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)
By the way… here’s a good Volokh post about the whole 2010 vs. 2011 “decade” debate, essentially agreeing with me on the issue. Money quote:
[T]he second decade of the twenty-first century, if you want to use the term “second decade,” might begin either in the 2010 or 2011; my sense is that actual usage is mixed on this. But the decade that we will call the 2010s (or “the tens” or “the teens,” whichever the preferred term ends up being) will pretty certainly begin a few days from now, on Jan. 1, 2010, and will run until the end of 2019.
This seems obviously right to me; I’ve yet to hear a compelling counterargument for why 2010 isn’t part of the “2010s” (or why 2000 isn’t part of the “2000s,” why 1990 isn’t part of the “1990s,” etc.). Seems nonsensical on its face. (Hat tip: InstaPundit, again.)
Taking the bait…when one speaks of a decade, or a century, or any period of time really, they may be referring to
a) a technically accepted, objective period of time, or
b) an era that roughly corresponds to the period of time, or
c) something in between a and b.
A good example of the “era” might be the ‘American Century’ that some folks argue ended on 9/11/2001. Indeed, the group “Project for a New American Century” is certainly using the ‘era’ interpretation; if they meant the technical period of time, then the project would be no more complicated than simply waiting for the clock to turn – I am not very familiar with the group, but as I understand it they are looking to achieve something more than reaching an arbitrary milestone.
When we speak of something like the “Eighties” or “Nineties”, conventionally we mean the era and not the technical/astronomic passing of ten agreed-upon years. See for example, Killing Joke’s song “Eighties”, which was not at all making the case that the decade began on 1/1/80 or 1/1/81, but rather about the many horrors of life in Reagan/Thatcher world. Etc.
If you’re speaking of a decade as an era – as Killing Joke was in their song, and just about everyone else is when they refer to the “80s” – you can begin or end your decade anywhere in the vicinity of the astronomically-agreed upon beginning point. However, if you’re making a list like “my biggest moments in the decade”, then you are not talking about an era – unless of course the decade refers to your era – but rather an astronomically-agreed upon time period.
As an example of a personal era, consider Neil Young’s 3-disc career retrospective, published in 1977, called “Decade”. Those 36 songs covered the 11 or so years from Buffalo Springfield in 1966 to Young’s solo career in the 1970s. Most of those songs are classics; Young’s effort in those 11 years was legendary; he is not out of line to refer to it as “his” decade. 2 years after the end of his decade, he released arguably his greatest album, and then 10 years beyond that he released Freedom, including the influential Rocking in the Free World. The ten years from Rust Never Sleeps to Freedom would have been great for just about any musician, but they are not Neil Young’s decade. Come to think of it, even the 10 years after Freedom were pretty influential, with Young’s godfather of grunge phase, but still not “his” decade.
If the decade in question is “your” decade, you can treat it as an era, no worries. If on the other hand you are simply listing interesting things that happened to you, corresponding to a publicly-agreed upon astronomical period of time, you should probably stick to the conventional definition of decade, i.e. 2001-2010. In fairness, I suppose there could at least be a tongue-in-cheek reference to this as “your” decade, particularly in the context of your blog…but lacking that, I certainly favor sticking with the technical decade use where you are not referring to an era.
I dunno . . . the 1340s were really, REALLY bad.
I mean the Black Death ravaged Europe. The 1320s and 30s were a bad time to be in Central Asia as well.
But did the 1340s start in 1340, or 1341? 🙂
That doesn’t matter, since the plague started in 1345 or 6.
And something that halfs or quarters the population of a continent clouds the whole decade, even if it only ravaged for half of said decade.
Brendan,
The first year was year 1 (since, even in retrospect, there was no year zero). Since a decade has ten years, the first decade included years 1 through 10 (note: stopping at year 9 would not make for a decade). The second decade, therefore, went from years 11 through 20. The third decade, from 21-30. The fourth, from 31-40… The ninth, from 81-90. The tenth from 91-100. The eleventh, from 101-110…The one-hundred-ninety-ninth, from 1981-1990. The two-hundredth, from 1991-2000. And that means the two-hundred-and-first decade runs from 2001-2010. The year 2011 will begin the two-hundred-and-second decade. I agreed with you on the “twenty eleven” pronunciation thing, but not on this. We don’t get to renumber decades just because we feel like it!!!
And the “1340’s” started in 1341 and ran through 1350. It was the one-hundred-and-thirty-fifth decade in the common era.
You’re obviously free to disagree with me, teotcw, but would you please address the argument I’m actually making? I specifically pointed out, both in my earlier post and here — and Volokh specifically agrees — that, if we actually referred to decades as “the third decade,” “the fourth decade,” etc., then there would be a valid argument for the 2011-2020 definition. But we don’t. Nobody says that. Decades are called the “1990s,” the “2000s,” the “2010s,” etc. Unlike centuries and millennia, they are not referred to by ordinal numbers, almost ever.
Now, if you want to say that the “202nd decade A.D.,” or the “second decade of the 21st century,” starts in 2011, that’s fine with me, I have no problem with that. I don’t think your argument is unassailable, but it’s at least plausible. However, you can’t plausibly say that the “2010s” — which is how we actually refer to decades — start in 2011. The 2010s, obviously and definitionally, start in 2010. To claim that 2010 isn’t part of the “2010s,” but 2020 is, is just absurd on its face.
If that means the “2010s” describe something different than the “second decade of the 21st century,” then so be it. There is no intrinsic reason why those two terms — one of which is almost never used anyway — need to describe the same 10-year period. (Likewise, even if the “20th century” went from 1901-2000, the “1900s” went from 1900-1999.) If you think this is wrong, tell me why! I’ve never heard a good counterargument argument on this point, and I increasingly suspect that one doesn’t exist.
Which means the year “2000” was part of the 1990’s. For the same reason, the third millennium didn’t begin until 2001. (The first ran from 1-1000; the second from 1001-2000). Similarly, the Black Death, though it occurred in the mid-1300’s, occurred in the “fourteenth century.” The 1900’s were part of the “twentieth century” and ran from 1901 through 2000.
[T]he “1340’s” started in 1341 and ran through 1350. It was the one-hundred-and-thirty-fifth decade in the common era.
You say this, but — with regard to the first sentence — you don’t defend it. WHY should this be so? Why can’t it be true that “the one-hundred-and-thirty-fifth decade in the common era” started in 1341 and ran through 1350, but the “1340’s” started in 1340 and ran through 1349?
Brendan,
Your argument is wrong because it contains and inherent inconsistency, and requires renumbering and redefinition, and cannot be carried back to the start of our numbering system without creating an absurdity.
I’ve never seen anyone else describe the 1900’s as anything other than the 20th century.
Brendan,
You write:
“However, you can’t plausibly say that the “2010s” — which is how we actually refer to decades — start in 2011. The 2010s, obviously and definitionally, start in 2010. To claim that 2010 isn’t part of the “2010s,” but 2020 is, is just absurd on its face.”
I’m saying exactly that. I would be happy to use your definition, if it didn’t mean that, going back in time, one decade would (namely the first) would only have nine years. If you can arrange your system, so that going back in time the first decade actually has ten years, then I jump over to your system. Of course, to do this, your first decade would have to run from 1 BC to 9 AD. Which is even more absurd than the “absurdity” of claiming 2010 isn’t part of the 2010s (which I still claim is the only plausible argument).
Your argument is wrong because it contains and inherent inconsistency, and requires renumbering and redefinition, and cannot be carried back to the start of our numbering system without creating an absurdity.
What inherent inconsistency? Why is it “inconsistent” for one term to mean one thing, and another term to mean another thing? What “absurdity” is created by acknowledging the self-evidently obvious fact that the “1990s” included 1990 (regardless of whether the “200th decade A.D.” included 1990)?
The only “absurdity” is the notion that the term “1990s” can be thought of as excluding 1990 but including 2000. That makes no sense at all, and you’ve said nothing to disprove it. Your argument is purely based on ordinal numbers (i.e., if the “first” decade started in 1, then the “second” decade necessarily started in 11, etc. etc.). I understand that argument, but I’m not using ordinal numbers — indeed, NO ONE uses ordinal numbers when talking about decades (as opposed to centuries and millennia — so your argument has no applicability to what I’m talking about.
And I’m not “renumbering” or “redefining” anything. You are! It has never been common usage that the Sixties didn’t include 1960, or the Roaring Twenties didn’t include 1920. You’re the one who wants to change the common definition of decades, as they are actually described in real life (“1990s” as opposed to “200th decade”), by applying a logic that’s based on ordinal numbers to a usage that has nothing to do with ordinal numbers.
I’m not saying that we should “get to renumber decades just because we feel like it.” I’m saying that words mean what they say. The 1960s obviously include 1960. The 1990s obviously include 1990. The 2010s obviously include 2010. Otherwise, why on earth would we call them the 1960s, 1990s and 2010s? It just doesn’t make any damn sense. Nothing you’ve said about the “numbering” of decades remotely disproves, or even addresses, this core linguistic fact.
I’ve never seen anyone else describe the 1900’s as anything other than the 20th century.
Wait, wait, wait. Suddenly you care about common usage? Your argument flies in the face of common usage — it’s all about using a 2,000-year-old technicality to overturn common usage. Which is fine, as far as it goes, but you can’t then turn around and try to disprove my argument with common usage. Either usage matters, or it doesn’t.
Common usage, obviously, is that both the 1900s AND the 20th century go from 1900-1999. You’re saying that common usage is wrong with regard to the “20th century,” and I’m saying, OK, fine, but it’s NOT wrong with regard to the “1900s.” And your answer is… but… but… common usage! Well, that’s not much of an argument. If we shift the playing field to common usage, you lose, hands down. To win, you need to make a technical argument for why the “1900s” don’t include 1900 (or, to shift back to decades, why the “2010s” don’t include 2010). You’ve yet to do this.
Your argument about 1 BC – 9 AD is irrelevant, because since we’re not dealing in ordinal numbers at all, it doesn’t matter how the “first decade” was defined — it has no relevance to today, and doesn’t lead to some necessary piggyback counting effect that goes back 2,000 years and mandates a counterintuitive result, since we’re not counting, we’re just using the actual numbers on the calendar and saying “hey look, 1990-1999, that’s a ten-year period (a ‘decade‘), let’s call it the ‘1990s.'”
If people back in 1 AD called that decade “the ones,” and said that it went from 1-10 AD, well, fine. Or, alternatively, if they said it was an era, but not a “decade,” that went from 1-9 AD, that’s fine, too. In reality, of course, people back then didn’t call the decade “the ones,” or anything else, because the calendar in question didn’t exist for centuries. But again, we’re straying into questions of “usage” here, and your argument is supposed to be about mathematics, not usage.
In any event, I’m NOT saying the first decade A.D. had only 9 years, or started in 1 B.C., because I’m not saying ANYTHING about the “first decade A.D.,” because I’m not addressing ordinally numbered decades at all, and I have been presented with no reason why colloquial terms like “the 1990s” must necessarily match the corresponding ordinally numbered decades as defined by you.
Y’all are nuts.
LOL
P.S. I know it’s perilous to quote Wikipedia, but since I linked to the page on the word “decade” (solely for the definition “a period of ten years”), I might as well quote the relevant passage:
Now… why, again, is it necessarily true that “the 2010s” (the cultural reference) and “the 202nd decade of the common era” (an ordinal reference) must refer to the same time period, even though this yields the counterintuitive, indeed I would say “absurd,” result that 2010 isn’t part of the 2010s, but 2020 is?
And I don’t find the “common usage” argument compelling when there is an internal inconsistency within that “common usage.” I’m sure we can all think of examples where common usage is wrong (for instance, a lot of people think “thou/thee” is the formalized usage and that “you/you” is the informal…the truth is just the opposite: “Thou” is akin to the French “Tu” and “You” is akin to the French “Vous.” Because we have forgotten the historical roots of the distinction, many people incorrectly make up their own explanations. Similarly with our numbering system, which stretches back to time immemorial…just because many people have forgotten the roots of our numbering system does not justify creating an incorrect decade with only nine years).
But my argument DOES NOT CREATE an “incorrect decade with only nine years,” as I’ve already pointed out repeatedly.
In any case, again, I’m fine with you arguing that “common usage” is outweighed by technical correctness, but you’ve yet to actually explain why it’s technically incorrect to state that the “1990s” start in 1990. You’ve only argued why it’s technically incorrect to state that the “200th decade” starts in 1990, which, again, for purposes of this discussion, I don’t dispute. But that doesn’t advance the ball. We’re still left with you asserting that the “1990s” don’t include 1990, and me seeking an explanation of why this must be so, despite its self-evidently counterintuitive nature
Your only real attempt to bridge this gap is to say that, by common usage, the “1990s” must necessarily mean the same thing as the “200th decade.” Since there is no such thing as “common usage” of the phrase “200th decade,” I dispute this.
As for the notion that, with regard to centuries rather than decades, it defies “common usage” to suggest that 1900 is part of the “1900s” but NOT part of the “20th century,” I confess this probably does fly in the face of common usage, but since common usage is actually that 1900 is part of both the 1900s and the 20th century (i.e., the exact opposite of your position), I’m not sure where that conclusion gets us. I fail to see why my non-commonly-used solution is any worse than your non-commonly-used solution, if both are technically correct (which you’ve yet to successfully prove mine isn’t).
You write: “Either usage matters, or it doesn’t.”
Insofar as usage is correct, it matters. In so far as it is incorrect, it doesn’t matter.
Your dichotomy is artificial. You keep referring to “self evident” and “obvious” facts, that have no internal consistency but boil down to incorrect common usage. This is not a compelling argument.
Brendan,
It’s a proof by contradiction. If you want to call 1990-1999 the “90’s,” then fine (heck, if you want to call it “gazorninplat” then fine too). I’m just saying that if your system wants to call it a decade, then it should have a name for every other relevant decade. Now, you have a name for SOME other relevant decade (you call 1980-1989 the “80’s), but your system can’t be carried back systematically to the beginning of our calendar, and so it fails from the beginning. If you can come up with a name for the first decade, consistent with your system, then I’ll adopt your usage. But you can’t. Period. All you can do is point out the obvious fact that people in the first decade didn’t use the current numbering system. Obviously. It didn’t exist. They also didn’t use English, which didn’t exist either. That doesn’t prove you right. You, in retrospect, need to come up with a name (or at least a system for naming) every decade. But you haven’t. I have. Therefore, I believe mine is more inclusive and therefore superior, since it leaves no years or decades out. Yours does.
Insofar as usage is correct, it matters. In so far as it is incorrect, it doesn’t matter.
Okay, I’ll take that bait. You cited usage as the reason why, e.g., “the 1990s” must necessarily mean the same thing as “the 200th decade A.D.” Now, you say usage matters “insofar as usage is correct.” So… why is that usage correct?
Hint: it’s not. On the contrary, since a “decade” is any period of 10 years, there is no intrinsic reason why “the 1990s” must refer to the same “decade” as “the 200th decade A.D.” Thus, any “usage” suggesting that they are necessarily the same thing — which I argue does not exist, since ordinal numbers are not commonly used to describe decades — is incorrect. They need not describe the same thing, by the definition of “decade.”
In any event, my argument is about far more than usage. I contend that it is mathematically correct to state that “the 1990s” include 1990. I further contend that to state otherwise — to argue that “the 1990s” include 2000, but not 1990 — is illogical in the extreme. Linguistically, “the 1990s” is a phrase that is plainly intended to describe a period of 10 years beginning in 1990. The phrase makes no sense otherwise.
You have no actual arguments to the contrary. Your core arguments relate solely to ordinally numbered decades, which I am not talking about. You have failed to point out any “inconsistencies” or “absurdities” in my actual arguments, except for what you argue is an “inconsistency” in having different definitions for “the 1990s” and the never-used phrase “200th decade.” But your only support for this allegation of “inconsistency” is based solely on common usage, which you concede only matters if it’s correct, and you’ve offered no argument for why this particular alleged “usage” is correct.
You, in retrospect, need to come up with a name (or at least a system for naming) every decade.
No I don’t, because my system is not an ordinally numbered system, so it doesn’t depend on prior decades’ names, the way yours does. The first decade A.D. has no relevance to my system.
But, okay, let’s say you’re right. For the sake of argument, I’ll admit that my system creates an “absurdity” in describing a single, nine-year period of time, 2,000 years ago. Now, will you please admit that your system creates an “absurdity” every ten years, by suggesting that 1990 isn’t part of “the 1990s,” 2010 isn’t part of “the 2010s,” etc., even though that flies in the face of how any logical person would naturally define such terms? (This isn’t just “usage,” it’s mathematics and linguistics — why would anyone call 2011-2020 “the 2010s”?)
Seems to me, a system that creates a counterintuitive absurdity every ten years is considerably worse than one with an arguable flaw that only arises once, and only if you go back 2,000 years.
Look..every calendar ever created is arbitrary anyway. I hearby proclaim two days from now to be Jan 1 year 0 ATG (according to Gahrie) . I also proclaim that it is a binary system, and must be numbered as such.
Having entered this conversation long before it got interesting, I must admit – somewhat crestfallenly – that Loy is probably right here. The “1990’s” type usage for decades is so overwhelmingly common usage that it would be nuts to fight against it. My Sports Illustrated has a cover story: “What a Decade”. Rolling Stone does “The Best 100 albums of the 1980s”, at the end of 1989. And on and on and on.
Said universality offends my sensibility, and while I am gratified to find even a few fellow travellers on this issue, this is a battle we cannot win. For Loy always has at his disposal the ultimate trump card:
“If you think the decade ends 12 months hence, go ahead and publish your own top 10 list of the first decade of the 20th century at that time”.
After which he might understandably look off to the side and snicker a little, knowing full well that no one would publicly contravene common usage in such a nutty way, even if it is ideologically pure. Thanks for fighting, guys, but I think we lost.
Teoctw,
Time doesn’t start at 1 it starts at zero. When you have a baby (or meet one in a dark alley) you’ll find that out.
Time on earth ironically started at 1 zillion BC, and we worked our way up/down to 0 from there. Silly Earthlings.