What is the official name of.......

A

ALVIN

Guest
#1
Happy New Year fellow ARRSERS, but what is the official name of this, the second decade of this or any other century called ?
 
#5
OrangeBiscuit said:
BarkingSpider said:
ALVIN said:
Happy New Year fellow ARRSERS, but what is the official name of this, the second decade of this or any other century called ?
Wah. You noughtie boy. :wink:
surely the noughties have been and gone?

tenties? sounds like some travellers site
It's still the first decade for the rest of this year. Decades last for ten whole years don't they?
I thought Alvin was trying to catch people out.

Mind you most people got the date of end of the last millennium wrong.
 
#6
I've often thought about this. Sad I know.

You are kind of stuck with the twenty tens or, hideously, the teens. Both of which beat the Noughties hands down!

Am I the only person that thinks the Noughties just sounds poofy?
 
#8
'Teenies' implies that we've reached the teens, which would really be 2013.
Is there really a need to call the next decade anything? (when it eventually comes along) I wonder what they called the second decade last time around. I suppose some of it was called the Great War.
 
#9
[quote="BarkingSpider]It's still the first decade for the rest of this year. Decades last for ten whole years don't they?
I thought Alvin was trying to catch people out.

Mind you most people got the date of end of the last millennium wrong.[/quote]

And by that dazzling piece of deduction the first decade of the 21st century would be eleven years? Um......................
 
#10
if they call it the teens, then it's a misnomer, cos of 10, 11, 12.

i have a joke as well. (just had to throw it in), they can't call it the teens! i mean, if they did, i could say "i have a teenage girlfriend" instead of "i'm ******* a ten year old" ;)
 
#12
MakaPaka said:
[quote="BarkingSpider]It's still the first decade for the rest of this year. Decades last for ten whole years don't they?
I thought Alvin was trying to catch people out.

Mind you most people got the date of end of the last millennium wrong.
And by that dazzling piece of deduction the first decade of the 21st century would be eleven years? Um......................[/quote]

No. 0 to 1 is one, 9 to 10 is the 10th. 31 December 2010 is the last day of the first decade in the 21st century.

Close your hands into 2 fists, starting with zero open your fingers and thumbs and count how many you have.



31 December 1999 to 1 January 2000 was the expected date of the wrongly named millenium bug.

31 January 2000 was the last day of the previous millenium.
 
#13
Being the lover of consistencey that I am, the decade we are going into should be known as the twenty tens, and the one we have just come out of should be the twenty hundreds. None of this noughtie nonsense.

Everything before was thus names... Nineteen hundreds etc. Why deviate just because we have gone into a new millenium or just because most respected members of society 'nowdays have no knowledge that there was a world before they were born.
 
#14
MakaPaka said:
[quote="BarkingSpider]It's still the first decade for the rest of this year. Decades last for ten whole years don't they?
I thought Alvin was trying to catch people out.

Mind you most people got the date of end of the last millennium wrong.
And by that dazzling piece of deduction the first decade of the 21st century would be eleven years? Um......................[/quote]

Didn't think it through then did you. Try again. It's a counting thing that has been confused with the words used to describe decades. I'll do it slowly for you.

A millennium is 1000 years long so it ends on the last day of the final year, the final year ending on 31st December 2000. Thats 2000 whole years. So the next millennium starts on 1st Jan 2001. Still with me? We got that wrong because the politicians (John Major actually - and he'd been Chancellor of the Exchequer - you couldn't make that up) decided to hold the celebrations at the end of 1999 when we still actually had a year to go until the end of the 1000 year period.

The first decade of the next millennium starts at the beginning of 2001, the first year ends with the start of year 2002 Second year ends with the start of year 2003 and so on until the last year of the decade ends with last day of 2010, the next decade starts on 1st January 2011.

It's been confused because the decades are denoted by the numbering rather than the sum. The nineties would be every year with a nine in it i.e. 1990, 91, 92, 93, up to 99. but the end of that decade really includes the last year of the century which would be year 100. 100 years, yes?
Confusing isn't it?

Beaten to it! But it took ages to write this out without getting it hopelessly wrong. Then I've never been Chancellor. :D
 
#15
CrownImperial said:
Being the lover of consistencey that I am, the decade we are going into should be known as the twenty tens, and the one we have just come out of should be the twenty hundreds. None of this noughtie nonsense.

Everything before was thus names... Nineteen hundreds etc. Why deviate just because we have gone into a new millenium or just because most respected members of society 'nowdays have no knowledge that there was a world before they were born.
My bold.
Agreed.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#17
BarkingSpider said:
'Teenies' implies that we've reached the teens, which would really be 2013.
Is there really a need to call the next decade anything? (when it eventually comes along) I wonder what they called the second decade last time around. I suppose some of it was called the Great War.
Don't think they were so bothered by calling decades things then, more like Victorian followed by Edwardian.
 

udipur

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
BarkingSpider said:
MakaPaka said:
[quote="BarkingSpider]It's still the first decade for the rest of this year. Decades last for ten whole years don't they?
I thought Alvin was trying to catch people out.

Mind you most people got the date of end of the last millennium wrong.
And by that dazzling piece of deduction the first decade of the 21st century would be eleven years? Um......................
Didn't think it through then did you. Try again. It's a counting thing that has been confused with the words used to describe decades. I'll do it slowly for you.

A millennium is 1000 years long so it ends on the last day of the final year, the final year ending on 31st December 2000. Thats 2000 whole years. So the next millennium starts on 1st Jan 2001. Still with me? We got that wrong because the politicians (John Major actually - and he'd been Chancellor of the Exchequer - you couldn't make that up) decided to hold the celebrations at the end of 1999 when we still actually had a year to go until the end of the 1000 year period.

The first decade of the next millennium starts at the beginning of 2001, the first year ends with the start of year 2002 Second year ends with the start of year 2003 and so on until the last year of the decade ends with last day of 2010, the next decade starts on 1st January 2011.

It's been confused because the decades are denoted by the numbering rather than the sum. The nineties would be every year with a nine in it i.e. 1990, 91, 92, 93, up to 99. but the end of that decade really includes the last year of the century which would be year 100. 100 years, yes?
Confusing isn't it?

Beaten to it! But it took ages to write this out without getting it hopelessly wrong. Then I've never been Chancellor. :D[/quote]

Matter of debate there because it's almost as if, from your reasoning, that the first year never occurred, i.e. 0 AD, which was a full year, just not complete until the end, whereupon it became 1 AD.

Therefore, like the old 2359 to 0001 time classification we used to use which technically 'lost' a minute a day, we count from year zero, day zero as the start of a new decade.

By the time we get to 31st December we have almost completed a year and at midnight it is finished. Then we get into day 1, year '1' and we are off again.

I hope that explained it.
 
#20
udipur said:
Matter of debate there because it's almost as if, from your reasoning, that the first year never occurred, i.e. 0 AD, which was a full year, just not complete until the end, whereupon it became 1 AD.

Therefore, like the old 2359 to 0001 time classification we used to use which technically 'lost' a minute a day, we count from year zero, day zero as the start of a new decade.

By the time we get to 31st December we have almost completed a year and at midnight it is finished. Then we get into day 1, year '1' and we are off again.

I hope that explained it.
Oh I'm sorry, I was under the impression 0BC and 0AD didn't exist as such. Numbering of years is such a modern thing and even the calendars have been changed a couple of times as our understanding of the way the earth rotates increased.
Do you really think that they would have had a year 0 way back then, or is it just a modern attribution for mathematical purposes? We went from 1BC to 1AD, no year 0.

Here's a linky which isn't wikipedia...

Here's the wikipedia linky which surprisingly enough, states the same thing.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top