At 17:01 -0700 on 11/05/2009, Stan Ulrich wrote about Counting years [WAS Re: Is there a way to duplicate a line?:
>On 10/27/09, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: >>At 16:20 -0600 on 10/22/2009, Doug McNutt wrote about Re: Is there a >>way to duplicate a line?: >> >>>So are we going to celebrate the start of a new decade at the end of >>>this year? Or do the tens start at in January 2011? >> >>2011. There was no Year 0 (it went from 1 BCE/BC to 1 ACE/AD) so >>decades run from xxx1 to xxx0). This is the same reason why the 21st >>Century/ 3rd Millennium started in 2001 not (as many >>thought/celebrated) in 2000 confusing the Year 2K computer problem >>with the start/end of the Century/Millennium. > >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 gay 90's refers to the years numbered 189x (ie: 1890-1899). It is not the same as the 190'th decade (which is 1891-1900). >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. The Decade/Century/Millennium is a 10/100/1000 year span and is measured from the theoretical DAY 1 of the Year 1. They all end on December 31 of the year numbered XXX0. This is the same difference as measuring your age as years since your birthday (ie: Counting Birthdays) vs years you have lived (counting from your birth - at Age 1 you are starting the 2nd year of your life). > >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. > >This is an issue in ancient calender studies, such as the Maya >calendar, because calendar correlations, typically using Julian Day >Numbers, need to know whether there is a Year Zero. Things have >settled down mostly now, but for a while back in the 50s-80s >(1950-1989!!) some major Mayanists got it wrong and messed up by a >year looking forward or backward by including a Year Zero in their >calculations. You also have to take into consideration that in switching from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar in 1752, 11 days were skipped (at least for England/the American Colonies) thus causing Washington (who was born under the Old Style Calender) to not be born on the date we celebrate as "Washington's Birthday. More days were lost in counties that delayed the switch. > >Trust me... > >SU --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the "BBEdit Talk" discussion group on Google Groups. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bbedit?hl=en If you have a feature request or would like to report a problem, please email "[email protected]" rather than posting to the group. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
