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.
no subject
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.