Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!bbn!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Happy New Decade!
Message-ID: <50271@bbn.COM>
Date: 2 Jan 90 16:46:54 GMT
References: <9001010220.AA17906@world.std.com> <10410001@hpuamsa.UUCP>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Lines: 19

jaap@hpuamsa.UUCP (Jaap Vegter AEO) writes:

}re: happy new year and happy new decade....

}Well, stating that a new decade started on Jan.1 this year (1990) is incorrect
}I think.  The first decade ran from year 1 through year 10 and the second
}decade started when the year 11 came around.  Likewise the current decade
}runs from Jan.1 1981 through Dec.31 1990.  The next decade starts on Jan.1 1991
}and the next century starts on Jan.1 2001.

Geez, is this going to pop up on EVERY newsgroup?  You are wrong.  decades
are conventionally named *cardinally* not *ordinally*.  We did not just
complete "the eighth decade of the twentieth century", but just completed
"the eighties" --- that is, the set of ten years (->decade) which happen to
be numbered of the form "198?".  We can debate when we think the
century/millennium ends, but there's no question about how decades are
defined.

  /Bernie\