271
If a person from 1700 asked you your job, would they understand your answer, and if not, how would you explain it to them? (lemm.ee)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
401 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago* (6 children)

Worth noting that the 1700s are, in fact, the 18th century. The first century was the years from 1-100, the second century from 101-200, etc.

But, yes. It was invented later in the 18th century than our audience came from.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

    Also a good point. It's dumb that we've zero-indexed centuries and then given them one-indexed names, but that is the standard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Well, it's just how math and numbers in English work.

    Cardinal numbers, the number of things you have, start with zero because you can have none of something (or less with negatives, but that's neither here nor there).

    Original numbers, Numbers that show which things were in what order (first, second, etc) start at one, because you can't really have a zeroth something because then it would really be the first one.

    So year 1 is 1 because it's the first year, and it starts the first century. It would have been entirely possible for English to make the names a little nicer, but given that it isn't, the math means the first set of one hundred years are the years before the one-hundredth year and cetera.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    I mean, zeroth would still be zeroth; it's just based on the cardinal the moment before it arrived rather than after, assuming you start with nothing and add objects. Unfortunately that's not conventional, probably in any language, and so you get a situation where a positional notation clashes with how we want to talk about the larger divisions of it casually. This sort of thing is exactly why computer science does use zero indexing.

    Relatedly, there was also no year 0; it goes straight from 1 BC to 1 AD.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children)

    But then otherwise we would have a year +0 and a year -0. You really want that on your conscience?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Signed zero is hiding under your bed.

    I mean, it would be notated 0AD/BC(E) so it's not like it would look goofy either. A separate year 0 that's neither would also be an option, with the reference event within it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •