Pre-Teens is perfect; most of the so-called adults have acted like spoiled children for the past 10 years.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Decade Slips Away With No Name
- Thread starter rdowns
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pre-Teens is perfect; most of the so-called adults have acted like spoiled children for the past 10 years.
Well, for some alternatives...The Zeroes? The Zips? The Ciphers?
Or, for an oldie-but-a-goodie...the Turn of The Century. Nice retro feel, IMHO.
Or the Turn of the Millennium
Twenty ten, or Two thousand and Ten, the former is simpler to say
Yes, for 2010, it's easier to say, but think about "2013" or better yet, "2017."
There is no way I'm saying "Twenty Seventeen" instead of "Two Thousand Seventeen." Granted, the former has fewer syllables, but the latter is much easier to say.
I'm with the previous commenter. I'm guessing we keep "Two Thousand..." until 2020.
And I've always called it (albeit awkwardly) "The 2000s." I've never heard "The Noughties." Perhaps it's solely British?
I've always heard "The Noughties", I thought it sounded strange at first but I think it's probably the only decent name.. It's not like you can say "The Twenty Hundreds" like how people refer to the 1900's.
While I understand that you don't want the thread to be about this you made it apart of the topic with a title like that. The decade has another year, it hasn't slipped away at all.
I've never heard the naughties used in the US...
Dictionary.app said:
The year 2000 was not a part of the 90's so it was the beginning of a new decade (2000's/Noughties/whatever). Starting with 2000 as year 1 of the new decade, 2009 is year 10.
The decade is over.
I'd probably call it the "ought nots" becasuse a lot of folks throughout the decade did a lot of stupid stuff they ought not have.
In UK (and the British Empire, as it was then) the first decade of the previous century was referred to as the "Edwardian Era" (King Edward VII - ruled 1901-1910 rather conveniently). Not much use now though.
As mentioned previously, the British media has decided for us that this was the "naughties"; with endless retrospective clipshows about the decade on TV. Aren't there such shows about the decade elsewhere in the world? What to they call it?
Good one!
There you go: The Bush Years, for the U.S. - well, this year, and 2000 fell outside his administration. But, 4 out of 5 ain't bad.
The decade of the 200x's is about over, yes.
The 201st Decade, A.D. has another year, yes.
The decade 2000-2009 does have a name, it should be referred to as 'Paul'. The boffins are still working out the name for 2010-2019, I believe 'Mike' is their current favourite.
I think the "2000s" works fine. We call 1900 - 1909 the "1900s," even though 1920 -1999 were also in the 1900 century.
Nah! When I hear 1900s, I think anything with a 19 at the front.
When you hear 1800s, do you think only of 1800-1809?
Maybe it's a matter of perspective.
When you hear 1800s, do you think only of 1800-1809?
Maybe it's a matter of perspective.
9 is 10? It's amazing the pretzel shapes in which people will bend themselves to try to justify an anachronism.
The "It's not really a new decade" argument is stupid. The world did not begin at year 1. A decade is an arbitrary period of 10 years. 1672-1681 is a decade. You can even do it by seconds. 5:23:41 on May 23rd, 1947 to 5:23:41 on May 23rd, 1956 is a decade. So therefore, if we decide the first decade of the modern calendar is 1 BC to 9 AD, then 2010 begins a new decade.
It's amazing the pretzel shapes in which people will bend themselves to try to justify an anachronism.
Or perhaps you didn't read his post correctly? 2009 is, indeed, the 10th year if you're counting from 2000. It's not complicated.
And to be honest, even though "officially" the decade won't be over until January 1st, 2011, it's still over conversationally.
When I say the '60's, I was thinking of 1960-1969. You too, no?
If you can count 2000-2009 is ten years.
It's amazing the pretzel shapes in which people will bend themselves to try to justify an anachronism.
It's okay, with the American education system I can see how you never learned to properly count to ten. (Ten is how many toes you have)
First statement: it depends. As you say a new decade can begin each second. However, your last statement is confused. You start with the and end with a. No one is making such a decision anyway. And if one did, why would anyone else have to heed it? Who do you think "we" is anyhow? Perhaps you should have said "I".
The facts are these:
The 1st Decade A.D. was 1 A.D. to the end of 10 A.D.
The decade known as the 1990's (for example) was 1990 to the end of 1999.
It is certainly easier to think of decades as the 1980's 1990's ect. rather than the 198th Decade A.D. 199th Decade A.D. etc.
Somebody did decide when 1 A.D. occurred. Dude named Gregory. Somehow, it became accepted, though subsequently the choice was proven to be a few years off. When that decision was made, it also defined when 1 B.C. occurred. Those two years are clearly not both part of the same decade or century. If they were, what happens to the distinction between B.C and A.D.? Your "logic" just doesn't hold water.