Another stock rant: End of the Decade

[cos]

The eighteenth century, if it is to have a coherent character, must be allowed to divest itself of strict chronological limits and wriggle itself into the period from 1660 to somewhere in the 1780s; that is, from the Restoration to the decade when the American Revolution triumphed, the French Revolution began, and the Industrial Revolution got underway with Cartwright's power loom and Watt's steam engine.
[...]
The term "nineteenth century" is another verbal convenience of some elasticity. If you want it to mean a century, you use it to cover the period 1815-1914. The quarter-century from Bastille to Waterloo, 1789-1815, is then fitted in as a sort of entr'acte between eighteenth and nineteenth, featuring a special performance by the French Revolution and Napoleon.
-- Barbara Tuchman, Bible and Sword

lilairen's rant reminded me to post one of mine from about ten years ago that's come up again recently: What's with people pedantically claiming that this New Years wasn't the end of the decade, because technically decades start with years ending in 1?

Technically, any ten year period is a "decade". 1988 through 1997 was a decade. 1999 through 2008 was a decade. It actually doesn't need to even be a group of whole numbered years - decades start, and end, every day. The question isn't whether it was the end of a decade, because it obviously was; the question is which decade are we talking about when we say "the decade."

When it comes to centuries, the pedants have a point, because the way we name our centuries implies that we're counting them one by one from the beginning. While the years 1900 through 1999 were most certainly a century, "the twentieth century" is not quite the most accurate name for that exact set of years.

But decades? We don't see people calling them names like "the two hundred and first decade". You'd have to be daft to claim that the decades we referred to as "the twenties" or "the 1980s" must necessarily have begun in 1921 and 1981 rather than 1920 and 1980. Not only is it obvious what decade people mean when they say this December 31st was the end of "the decade", but the way we name decades is just as clear.

So, just to be clear:
- The 20th Century AD: 1901 - 2000 (which is a century)
- The 1900s: 1900 - 1999 (which is also a century)
- The 202nd Decade AD: 2011 - 2020 (which is a decade)
- The 2010s: 2010 - 2019 (which is also a decade)

- Any roughly 100-year period you name and describe in context: also a century.
- Any roughly 10-year period you name and describe in context: also a decade.

Next time someone says "the decade" didn't just end, ask them how often they've heard anyone talking about "the two hundred and first decade".

Comments

[eirias.livejournal.com]

Bravo! I had this argument with Graham recently but didn't manage to get my point across well. This is much better than I did!

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I would have argued with you, but I get the point.

Which was why I was so pissed about the "blue moon" crap on friday.
Not a blue moon. Not according to "Sky and Telescope" magazine.

[cos]

That one's harder to argue either way, because there seem to be several different definitions of a "blue moon" floating around. Who's to say which one is the one true definition?

Note: Until I looked for it on the web a few days ago, I didn't even know what a "blue moon" was, I just thought it was a symbolic metaphor for something that happens very rarely.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

I consider the "two in a calendar month" definition to be one that is traceable to an error which the offending publication corrected.

It's shown, historically, in the USA, since blue moons were being recorded by those interested, that blue moon meant third in a four moon season.

Then again, I'm someone who has to send out calendrical announcements based on the lunar cycle, and using specific names - where the first one after a seasonal change, the second one after, and the last one before the next seasonal change, all have names - thus, the third has no name, and needs one.

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

Oh god. Thank you for taking the time to actually write this out. Now I can just paste in this url rather than having to smack people.

[thaisa.livejournal.com]

I had this discussion with my boyfriend, and like eirias, I'm grateful someone could argue the point better than I could!

[l33tminion]

As far as I'm concerned, if we're going to make divisions every hundred years, it makes more sense to make those based on the change in decimal dates, not the n-hundredth anniversary of the year 1 AD. The 21th century began on January 1, 2000; by a quirk of how we count years, the 1st century was 99 years long.

[cos]

If you make it clear that that's the period you're talking about, I don't see a problem with it, but still admit the pedants have a point in that the name "the 21st century" *does* imply starting in 2001. You could use a different name (such as the convenient ones we had for the last few centuries, "nineteen-hundreds", "eighteen-hundreds", etc.), or you could just say what you mean and gain plenty of latitude (as in the Barbara Tuchman quotation at the top). If you try to assert that "the 21th century began on January 1, 2000" and that's simply what the term means, always, then I think you lose to the pedants on that :) Clearly there's basis for using that name for several different roughly-similar periods of time, one of which is "the years 2001 through 2100", and people do sometimes use it with that meaning and probably always will.

BTW, why shouldn't the first century include the year 1 BC? That would also be a "quirk of how we count years" :)

[l33tminion]

Having the first century include 1 BC would be fine, too (though I don't think anyone currently accepts that convention and I'm not arguing for it).

If you try to assert that 'the 21th century began on January 1, 2000' and that's simply what the term means, always, then I think you lose to the pedants on that [emphasis mine]

I agree. The meaning of a term is indeed contingent on how the term is used and understood. My argument for why "the 21st century" should be 2000 to 2099 (having all the years in a century share the same hundreds place is more clear / intuitive / beautiful) is by no means strong enough to justify a change in convention. Rather, I'm arguing that "the 21st century" means 2000 to 2099 because that's what most people intend when they say it and what most people think when they hear it. (I will revise my opinion if the common impression (e.g. here) that most people go by the '00 to '99 convention is shown to in fact be incorrect.) You can make valid prescriptivist arguments based on a current convention being in conflict with historical precedent, but I don't think "you might mistakenly believe that an author means 1800-1899 when they say 'the 19th century' when they really mean 1801-1900" is strong enough to be compelling.

The easiest way for the confusion on this particular issue to be resolved is for the SNOOTs* to cede this particular battle. There are good arguments that one should not follow the most common usage in some cases, but not this one.

* Reading the essay at that link should really be a prerequisite for those who want to argue about language, plus it's a tremendously entertaining piece IMO.

[cos]

Oh, David Foster Wallace... I've really enjoyed a few of his essays, and I thought I was safe when the longest sentence in the first paragraph of this one was a mere 43 words long. Then I got to the second paragraph, with its 130+ word sentence :/

This may perhaps be less edifying, but even more entertaining:
http://www.kottke.org/09/03/growing-sentences-with-david-foster-wallace

[l33tminion]

Yeah, the guy was a master of unskimable prose. There's a reason why Infinite Jest sat on my shelf for the better part of a decade before I could get into it. Probably the most brilliant thing I've ever read, but those first fifty pages were quite a harsh adjustment.