4 ms·

The same off-by-one annoyance under discussion bites the author in this very article and he didn't even notice: He calls 1776 the 76th year of the 18th century.

• bonzini 2y ago
  The 18th century started in 1701 and ended in 1800.
  • OJFord 2y ago
    I could give you 'ended in 1800' (I'd prefer 'at') but it very much started in 1700, not 1701.
    • bonzini 2y ago
      I didn't make the convention. The 17th century started on January 1, 1701 and ended on December 31, 1800. That's because the purported year of the birth of Christ was the "first year of the lord", or AD 1, and that's when the first century started. In turn that's because at the time Latin had a word for nothing but not a word for zero, so you couldn't count years starting at zero. That also means that those old enough to have partied on December 31, 1999 were technically partying for the beginning of the last year of the second millennium.
      • OJFord 2y ago
        Only American Christians say 'year of our lord' after the date, if that's what that means to you and is how you want to think of it that's fine, but be aware nobody else is doing that, even though they're working in AD/BC.
        • bonzini 2y ago
          "Year of the lord" (not "our" lord, please double check what I wrote) is the literal translation of Anno Domini and it's the reason why years are counted from one instead of zero. I quoted the expression, wrote "lord" in lowercase and added "purported" to make it clear that the religious reference was only for historical reasons, I don't know what else I could have done. If I wanted to imbue some religious meaning I probably would have said "Jesus" or "the Christ". I am also not American and not a native English speaker. In fact Latin languages say in expanded form "après Jésus-Christ", "dopo Cristo", "despues de Cristo" (abbreviation is only used in writing), so even speakers who are not religious very much know the reference even if they couldn't care less. We're stuck with it. I agree that it's more of a "who wants to be a millionaire" quirk than something that actually matters, but this case of correcting someone was one of the few cases where it matters.
          • OJFord 2y ago
            That is what they say though. I am Christian in a very literal sense, would use AD dating etc. and have no problem with it whatsoever, I just don't feel the need to suffix (or sometimes prefix) it with 'year of our lord' the way some Americans do; I find it quite jarring. It's like feeling the need to say 'day of rest' or 'sabbath' every time you say a particular day of the week, or some other (possibly areligious) descriptor of something whenever it's mentioned.
            • bonzini 2y ago
              I am replying specifically to "if that's what that means to you" which felt a bit ad hominem sinceI didn't even use the words "year of our lord".
              • OJFord 2y ago
                I was referring to 1701 to 1800 inclusive, which is not the standard way people refer to centuries and is not what other people will mean or will think you mean, in general.
                • bonzini 2y ago
                  Ok, then you're just wrong, just like you were wrong about my nationality and faith, and it's pointless to argue with you.
            • satvikpendem 2y ago
              You're on a tangent, who cares what it's called but the fact is that years started at 1, not 0, therefore centuries also start on the first year, not the zeroth year.
• satvikpendem 2y ago
  You didn't read far enough because he specifically notes this. The 18th century started on January 1, 1701, therefore 1776 is indeed the 76th year of that century, not the 77th, as the year 1700 is part of the 17th century.