Post: Why January 1, 2011 marks the start of a new decade
Options
12-31-2010, 08:43 PM
#1
Sync
Guest
It is important to learn from past mistakes, although sometimes there are good reasons for mistakes recurring. The issue concerning the start of the millennium has spilled over to the issue of when the new decade starts. Indeed, at the end of 2009, there are reviews of the decade in the spheres of sport and human interest for instance. However, the end of the first decade does not coincide with the end of the year 2009. The new decade actually begins on January 1 2011.
The correct date for the turn of the decade seems strange to many persons—perhaps rightly so. The argument of those who saw the start of 2000 as the turn of the millennium and 2010 as the beginning of a new decade is that is that counting normally starts at zero. For example, when you first come into the world, you are zero years old. Therefore, when you are 40, you have already spent 40 years on earth. By that logic, the year 2010 indicates that 2,010 years passed since the birth of Christ. The argument is logical and sensible but uses an incorrect premise.
The premise for that argument is flawed because the calendar year is really an ordinal number. Ordinal numbers denote place, rank or position and are followed by st, rd, nd and th. For example 1st, 2nd , 3rd and 4th are all examples of ordinal numbers. Cardinal numbers are normally represented in pure form: 1, 2, 3, 4. Typically, when we write the date, we use cardinal numbers—particularly for the year. For example, the form January 1 2011 uses cardinal instead of ordinal numbers. When we use an ordinal number in the date, we still do not represent the year as the ordinal number it should be (January 1st 2011).
This gives some folks the impression that the year is a cardinal number when it is ordinal. The reality is that the calendar year began with Anno Domini 1 (AD 1). That translates to the 1st Year of Our Lord. Since this renders the calendar year an ordinal number, it meant that the year we are in is not completed until the end of the year. This is unlike our age, where our age represents the quantity of years we have lived. So in 2010, that is really the 2010th year, which would be complete at the beginning of the 2011th year.
The main issue that makes 00:00:01 on January 1 2011 the start of the new decade is the fact that the calendar year is an ordinal number and began at AD 1. However, folks would likely measure the decade on the premise of cardinal numbers. This is because we refer to decades as the 60s and 90s etc. For that reason, the truth wouldn't stop folks from marking the new decade from January 1, 2010 instead of January 1, 2011.
The correct date for the turn of the decade seems strange to many persons—perhaps rightly so. The argument of those who saw the start of 2000 as the turn of the millennium and 2010 as the beginning of a new decade is that is that counting normally starts at zero. For example, when you first come into the world, you are zero years old. Therefore, when you are 40, you have already spent 40 years on earth. By that logic, the year 2010 indicates that 2,010 years passed since the birth of Christ. The argument is logical and sensible but uses an incorrect premise.
The premise for that argument is flawed because the calendar year is really an ordinal number. Ordinal numbers denote place, rank or position and are followed by st, rd, nd and th. For example 1st, 2nd , 3rd and 4th are all examples of ordinal numbers. Cardinal numbers are normally represented in pure form: 1, 2, 3, 4. Typically, when we write the date, we use cardinal numbers—particularly for the year. For example, the form January 1 2011 uses cardinal instead of ordinal numbers. When we use an ordinal number in the date, we still do not represent the year as the ordinal number it should be (January 1st 2011).
This gives some folks the impression that the year is a cardinal number when it is ordinal. The reality is that the calendar year began with Anno Domini 1 (AD 1). That translates to the 1st Year of Our Lord. Since this renders the calendar year an ordinal number, it meant that the year we are in is not completed until the end of the year. This is unlike our age, where our age represents the quantity of years we have lived. So in 2010, that is really the 2010th year, which would be complete at the beginning of the 2011th year.
The main issue that makes 00:00:01 on January 1 2011 the start of the new decade is the fact that the calendar year is an ordinal number and began at AD 1. However, folks would likely measure the decade on the premise of cardinal numbers. This is because we refer to decades as the 60s and 90s etc. For that reason, the truth wouldn't stop folks from marking the new decade from January 1, 2010 instead of January 1, 2011.
Is 2011 a new decade?
So I thought I’d end the year with a question: Does the new decade begin on Jan. 1, 2011, or did it begin Jan. 1, 2010?
I’d like to hear what you think and why.
The consensus at newspapers seems to be that it begins in 2011, with the main reason being that there was no year zero. There was much talk about this at the beginning of the “new millennium,” and most papers determined 2001 began the millennium. (Dick Teresi at The Atlantic had a fantastic, well-researched article on this in 1997 – it’s well worth checking out.)
I would argue that it makes more sense to consider a decade as beginning in a zero year. My reasoning is that the public generally identifies a zero year as the beginning of new decade, and it’s fairly logical since one would speak of “the ‘20s” or “the ‘90s.” When have you ever heard someone say “the decade that began in 1921”? Furthermore, the assigning of our A.D. years is arbitrary anyway – as Teresi’s article mentions, the dates weren’t set until the late fifth century.
I could go on and on, but I’ll let you weigh in. So what do you think?
I’d like to hear what you think and why.
The consensus at newspapers seems to be that it begins in 2011, with the main reason being that there was no year zero. There was much talk about this at the beginning of the “new millennium,” and most papers determined 2001 began the millennium. (Dick Teresi at The Atlantic had a fantastic, well-researched article on this in 1997 – it’s well worth checking out.)
I would argue that it makes more sense to consider a decade as beginning in a zero year. My reasoning is that the public generally identifies a zero year as the beginning of new decade, and it’s fairly logical since one would speak of “the ‘20s” or “the ‘90s.” When have you ever heard someone say “the decade that began in 1921”? Furthermore, the assigning of our A.D. years is arbitrary anyway – as Teresi’s article mentions, the dates weren’t set until the late fifth century.
I could go on and on, but I’ll let you weigh in. So what do you think?
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
