The battle rages on.....or does it?
Thanks to everyone who responded to my last post. It was an interesting mix of answers and that was kind of what I was hoping for. And the best part for my loyal readers is that no one has to feel they were wrong!
As some pointed out, there are in fact different, yet legitimately rational arguments for each perspective. Traditional calendar-based formality, does dictate that decades are counted from 1 and not 0, because in the calendar, there was never a year 0. And for this method, the decade would begin next year.
Still, there is a very sound argument to be made that for colloquial clarity, there's a neatness to keeping decades within their general grouping of tens, twenties, thirties, etc.
I think we have a few options: 1: we can wrestle for it like the ladies above. Winner gets to decide when the decade begins while the loser......for this crowd.....has to not only concede the point, but get a spanking for arguing the other side.
2: We can leave it as a stalemate and rekindle the debate again next year and then again nine years after that.
3: Or we could acknowledge that since we would probably all LIKE to keep the decades neatly numbered, and since they now can begin with a zero, why not consider that the first CE decade to have simply lost a year? (I doubt anyone will miss it or complain they were shorted a year.) And If we can have a Lost Weekend......
......and even a 'lost decade'......
......what's the big deal about losing one measly year from a chunk of years that passed 2000 years ago? We make exceptions to rules all of the time. This one would actually give a nod to those who like to keep the facts straight about never having had a year 0 to start the count with, but recognize that it really is just simpler now to start with zeroes.
As an aside, my beloved monster, Ana just left to go back to Pittsburgh for her next semester but.....not before handing over her slip for my year-end punishment. Next chance I get, I will review that discussion and a lot more.