Which do you use? I personally prefer the 1800s to the 19th century, simply as the years start with "18" rather than "19". We apparantly couldn't have a "0th century", which leads to the confusion. There are people who see that the years start with "18" and assume it must be the 18th century rather than the 19th century, though it is the 19th century.
19th century or 1800s
Oddly though, I have no problems with referring to the 20th century or the 21st century though, and if I said 1900s I'd be referring to the decade from 1900 to 1909.
I personally think that the astronomical dating should be adopted, and that the time period from the year 0 to the year 99 should be referred to as the 0th century. That would end the confusion many people have as to whether or not, for example, 1856 is in the 19th century or the 18th century.
<<Which do you use?>>
I use both interchangeably.
<<and that the time period from the year 0 to the year 99...>>
There was no year 0. The first century was from 1 to 100.
<<...should be referred to as the 0th century.>>
That makes no sense - it's like saying that George Washington was the 0th president, or renaming Henry I to "Henry the Zeroth". Ordinal numbers are used to enumerate things in a sequence, and the first thing in a sequence is, quite naturally and obviously, called "the first".
It's a matter of simple mathematical fact that the period from 1 to 100 was the first century, and that the period from 1801 to 1900 was the nineteenth century.
I use both interchangeably.
<<and that the time period from the year 0 to the year 99...>>
There was no year 0. The first century was from 1 to 100.
<<...should be referred to as the 0th century.>>
That makes no sense - it's like saying that George Washington was the 0th president, or renaming Henry I to "Henry the Zeroth". Ordinal numbers are used to enumerate things in a sequence, and the first thing in a sequence is, quite naturally and obviously, called "the first".
It's a matter of simple mathematical fact that the period from 1 to 100 was the first century, and that the period from 1801 to 1900 was the nineteenth century.
>><<...should be referred to as the 0th century.>>
That makes no sense - it's like saying that George Washington was the 0th president, or renaming Henry I to "Henry the Zeroth". Ordinal numbers are used to enumerate things in a sequence, and the first thing in a sequence is, quite naturally and obviously, called "the first". <<
That is, except in Mathematics, Computer Science, and other fields influenced by them, where it is normally traditional to count from zero rather than to count from one (there have been some programming languages which have counted from one, but usually this is looked back upon as a mistake more than anything else).
That makes no sense - it's like saying that George Washington was the 0th president, or renaming Henry I to "Henry the Zeroth". Ordinal numbers are used to enumerate things in a sequence, and the first thing in a sequence is, quite naturally and obviously, called "the first". <<
That is, except in Mathematics, Computer Science, and other fields influenced by them, where it is normally traditional to count from zero rather than to count from one (there have been some programming languages which have counted from one, but usually this is looked back upon as a mistake more than anything else).
I know that "zeroth" does have some specialized uses. But for simple historical issues, I think the more traditional ordinal numbers should be used.
<<Oddly though, I have no problems with referring to the 20th century or the 21st century though, and if I said 1900s I'd be referring to the decade from 1900 to 1909.>>
You raise an interesting point there - while it seems natural for me to refer to the period from 1800 to 1899 (which is almost the same as the 19th century) as "the 1800s", I don't think I would naturally refer to the period from 1900 to 1999 as "the 1900s".
<<Oddly though, I have no problems with referring to the 20th century or the 21st century though, and if I said 1900s I'd be referring to the decade from 1900 to 1909.>>
You raise an interesting point there - while it seems natural for me to refer to the period from 1800 to 1899 (which is almost the same as the 19th century) as "the 1800s", I don't think I would naturally refer to the period from 1900 to 1999 as "the 1900s".
<<There was no year 0. The first century was from 1 to 100.>>
There is in astronomical dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_year_numbering. I think even them though would refer to the period from 0 to 99 (or 1 to 100 for that matter) as the 1st century rather than the 0th century.
There is in astronomical dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_year_numbering. I think even them though would refer to the period from 0 to 99 (or 1 to 100 for that matter) as the 1st century rather than the 0th century.
<<There was no year 0. The first century was from 1 to 100.>>
I concur.
year 2000th was the last year of the 20th century
I concur.
year 2000th was the last year of the 20th century
<<That makes no sense - it's like saying that George Washington was the 0th president, or renaming Henry I to "Henry the Zeroth". Ordinal numbers are used to enumerate things in a sequence, and the first thing in a sequence is, quite naturally and obviously, called "the first".>>
Henry I is the first Henry in a sequence, hence it makes no sense to call Henry I anything other than "Henry the first". However, the period from 0 to 9 (or 1 to 100) is not the first century in a sequence as there were centuries before that, so it makes just as much sense to call it the "0th century" as it does to call it the "1st century".
Also, saying the "-2nd century" and the "-1st century" makes more sense than saying the "2nd century BC" and the "1st century BC", as afterall, how can the first come after the second? negative one, on the other hand, comes after negative two.
Henry I is the first Henry in a sequence, hence it makes no sense to call Henry I anything other than "Henry the first". However, the period from 0 to 9 (or 1 to 100) is not the first century in a sequence as there were centuries before that, so it makes just as much sense to call it the "0th century" as it does to call it the "1st century".
Also, saying the "-2nd century" and the "-1st century" makes more sense than saying the "2nd century BC" and the "1st century BC", as afterall, how can the first come after the second? negative one, on the other hand, comes after negative two.
EIGHTEEN HUNDREDS/NINETEENTH CENTURY
<<"Eighteen hundreds,” “sixteen hundreds” and so forth are not exactly errors; the problem is that they are used almost exclusively by people who are nervous about saying "nineteenth century” when, after all, the years in that century begin with the number eighteen. This should be simple: few people are unclear about the fact that this is the twenty-first century even though our dates begin with twenty. Just be consistent about adding one to the second digit in a year and you’ve got the number of its century. It took a hundred years to get to the year 100, so the next hundred years, which are named “101,” “102,” etc. were in the second century. This also works BC. The four hundreds BC are the fifth century BC. Using phrases like “eighteen hundreds” is a signal to your readers that you are weak in math and history alike.>>
<<"Eighteen hundreds,” “sixteen hundreds” and so forth are not exactly errors; the problem is that they are used almost exclusively by people who are nervous about saying "nineteenth century” when, after all, the years in that century begin with the number eighteen. This should be simple: few people are unclear about the fact that this is the twenty-first century even though our dates begin with twenty. Just be consistent about adding one to the second digit in a year and you’ve got the number of its century. It took a hundred years to get to the year 100, so the next hundred years, which are named “101,” “102,” etc. were in the second century. This also works BC. The four hundreds BC are the fifth century BC. Using phrases like “eighteen hundreds” is a signal to your readers that you are weak in math and history alike.>>
<<However, the period from 0 to 9 (or 1 to 100) is not the first century in a sequence...>>
Yes it is! If we arbitrarily choose some year to be "year 1", then we've just designated it as the first in a sequence, and by extension we've designated the century from 1 to 100 as the first in a sequence. If you refuse to acknowledge that the year 1 is the first in a sequence, then you shouldn't be referring to it as "year 1" in the first place.
<<Also, saying the "-2nd century" and the "-1st century" makes more sense than saying the "2nd century BC" and the "1st century BC", as afterall, how can the first come after the second?>>
But the "B" of "BC" or "BCE" has *the same purpose* as your negative sign. If we count back one hundred years before Christ (or before the Common Era), then we have enumerated the first century before Christ; if we count back another hundred years, then we have the enumerated the second century before Christ, and so forth.
This scheme is used in the ecclesiastical calendar - for example, they have "the third Sunday before Advent", followed by "the second Sunday before Advent", and so forth.
Your proposal is unprecedented because it invents negative ordinal numbers that have never been part of non-specialized usage.
Yes it is! If we arbitrarily choose some year to be "year 1", then we've just designated it as the first in a sequence, and by extension we've designated the century from 1 to 100 as the first in a sequence. If you refuse to acknowledge that the year 1 is the first in a sequence, then you shouldn't be referring to it as "year 1" in the first place.
<<Also, saying the "-2nd century" and the "-1st century" makes more sense than saying the "2nd century BC" and the "1st century BC", as afterall, how can the first come after the second?>>
But the "B" of "BC" or "BCE" has *the same purpose* as your negative sign. If we count back one hundred years before Christ (or before the Common Era), then we have enumerated the first century before Christ; if we count back another hundred years, then we have the enumerated the second century before Christ, and so forth.
This scheme is used in the ecclesiastical calendar - for example, they have "the third Sunday before Advent", followed by "the second Sunday before Advent", and so forth.
Your proposal is unprecedented because it invents negative ordinal numbers that have never been part of non-specialized usage.
<<If you refuse to acknowledge that the year 1 is the first in a sequence, then you shouldn't be referring to it as "year 1" in the first place.>>
Are you then saying that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_year_numbering makes no sense. I'm sure all the astronomers would like to hear you say that, and I wonder what they'd think.
Are you then saying that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_year_numbering makes no sense. I'm sure all the astronomers would like to hear you say that, and I wonder what they'd think.
Note though that they don't actually use negative ordinal numbers in astronomical year numbering, just negative cardinal years.
<<Your proposal is unprecedented because it invents negative ordinal numbers that have never been part of non-specialized usage.>>
It does though get rid of the confusion between years started with for e.g. "17", whether or not there in the 17th century or the 18th century. Most people don't have a problem with the 20th century and the 21st century, but when it comes to the 18th century, many people aren't sure whether the years start with "18" or "17". I've heard many people talk about the 18th century when they actually meant "1800 through 1899". I can't blame them. It seems absurb to several people that years starting with "18" are actually in the 19th century.
It does though get rid of the confusion between years started with for e.g. "17", whether or not there in the 17th century or the 18th century. Most people don't have a problem with the 20th century and the 21st century, but when it comes to the 18th century, many people aren't sure whether the years start with "18" or "17". I've heard many people talk about the 18th century when they actually meant "1800 through 1899". I can't blame them. It seems absurb to several people that years starting with "18" are actually in the 19th century.
<<year 2000th was the last year of the 20th century>>
The majority of millennial celebrations took place at the end of 1999. Clearly it makes sense to say that 2000 is the beginning of a new millennium, century and decade as that's when the digits "rolled over". This is clearly another reason why astronomical year numbering should be adopted.
The majority of millennial celebrations took place at the end of 1999. Clearly it makes sense to say that 2000 is the beginning of a new millennium, century and decade as that's when the digits "rolled over". This is clearly another reason why astronomical year numbering should be adopted.