On 18/12/2009, at 12:39 PM, Rick Faaberg wrote:
> Btw, the decade began Jan. 1, 2001 and ends Dec. 31, 2010, as has been said
> already. Right??? :-)



This was discussed on another list recently, and here's the most logical (or at least sensible) approach as far as I can see.


Stan Ulrich wrote on BBEdit-Talk:

> This is true about no Year Zero. BUT the consequence is that the first century had only 99 years. Every other century has 100. Otherwise things aren't common sensical and pedants insist on arguing with history and popular culture.
>
> So, too, the decades would be wrong -- the Gay 90s would start in 1891 and run to 1900. The 50s, I think we can agree, run from 1950-1959, and if decades are to exist co-extensive within their centuries, then centuries need to start with the zero year, e.g., 1800, 1900, 2000.
>
> Everything works fine if you accept that the first century took the hit on the absence of Year Zero. That is where the problem started, so the problem should be solved where it occurred.
>
> It really makes sense and you'll avoid all that anguish if you accept that the first century (an artificial construct anyway) had only 99 years, since it was missing its Year Zero -- the rest of the centuries have theirs. This is a fact for the civil calendar, as opposed to the astronomical calendar.


Solve the problem where it occurred, that makes the most sense to me. :-)


cheers,
Richard

_____________________________________________________________
http://www.golivehost.com :: high performance web hosting




--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/GoLive/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/GoLive/