August 31, 2009

1. Jeff J. Snider
   August 31st, 2009 @ 10:57 am

   My only problem with the “the decade won’t be over for another year” argument is that it blatantly disregards other (perfectly accurate) ways of looking at what a “decade” is, and in a snobbish manner. According to Random House dictionary, here is what a “decade” is:

   1. a period of ten years: the three decades from 1776 to 1806.
   2. a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s.
   3. a group, set, or series of ten.

   So yes, while the snobby, “there was no year 0″-based definition is popular, it doesn’t actually show up in the dictionary. It is certainly a valid definition — after all, 2001-2010 IS “a period of ten years” — but isn’t it okay that, at some point, we took this arbitrary measurement of time and started using it in a way that, at least, makes sense?

   Because, let’s face it, if I ask you what decade 1990 was in and you tell me the 1980s, I will probably punch you in the throat. And if you tell me, “It was the last year of the 198th decade since the birth of Christ or whatever event I happen to believe in upon which our modern calendar is based,” I will have walked away to talk to someone interesting before you are done.

   (Sorry about the rant. I meant it all, but I also wrote it in a good-natured way, I promise.)

   Reply
2. David Pinto
   August 31st, 2009 @ 11:30 am

   @Jeff J. Snider: Of course, if were that inaccurate with other numbers people would jump down my throat.

   Somehow I’m not surprised that people who write dictionaries can’t do math.

   Reply
3. Ed
   August 31st, 2009 @ 12:06 pm

   The idea that decades start with the year that ends in “1″ and ends in the year that ends in “0″ is pretty standard. We don’t have to give it up yet.

   The Yankees have won a world championship every decade but one since Babe Ruth joined the team, the missing decade being the 1980s. The oughts would make it two, but they still have this year and next year to get it done.

   Reply
4. Ed
   August 31st, 2009 @ 12:09 pm

   Actually a New York based team has won the World Series at least once every decade the Series has been played, so this decade could break that streak.

   Of course, until 1957, New York accounted for almost 19% of the teams in major league baseball. Now its 7%. So eventually the streak will be broken.

   Reply
5. Jeff J. Snider
   August 31st, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

   All you really mean, Dave, is that the people who write dictionaries don’t do the same mathematical equations that you do.

   My point, of course, is that the modern usage of decades (which we generally refer to as “the eighties” or “the nineties” or whatever) is NOT based on a mathematical calculation that goes back to the beginning of our calendar; it is based on an easy naming scheme — “How about all years that start with ‘nineteen eighty-’ are part of the 1980s?” And since there is nothing inherently sacred — or even meaningful — about the 1981-1990 decade as compared to the 1980-1989 decade, it is perfectly acceptable to use either one.

   Reply
6. Theron
   August 31st, 2009 @ 1:18 pm

   So Bill Buckner and Tim McCarver were not “four-decade players,” then?

   Reply
7. David Pinto
   August 31st, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

   @Theron: I would think someone would have to play 31 years to be a four decade player. It would be interesting to see who are the four decade players if you do it right.

   Reply
8. Jeff J. Snider
   August 31st, 2009 @ 1:43 pm

   You wouldn’t have to play any more years to be a “four-decade player” under Dave’s definition (which he so humbly refers to as “doing it right”), you’d just have to shift the career forward one year. Buckner wouldn’t qualify because his last year was 1990. But if he had shifted his career forward one year — 1970 to 1991 instead of 1969 to 1990 — he would have played in four of Dave’s decades. Which all kind of underscores my point about how arbitrary and silly (and meaningless) ANY definition of a decade is.

   Reply
9. Dirty Water
   August 31st, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

   I don’t know about you MFY fans but if the team I rooted for choked a decade away I’d just admit and move on. For sure I would not resort to this nonsense.

   Reply
10. James
    August 31st, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

    You may have some kind of misconception, David, about “people who write dictionaries.” There are editors and compilers and contributors, of course — nobody really “writes” a dictionary. In general the people in charge will be linguists. And in general, linguists are very good at math.

    But really, the question of what counts as a “decade” isn’t a mathematical question. It’s a semantic question. And linguists tend to be extremely good at semantics…

    Reply
11. David Pinto
    August 31st, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

    @James: They are not good at math if they can’t label decades correctly. Unless you mean Orwellian math (2+2=5) or Annie Hall math (7+3=9).

    Reply
12. James
    August 31st, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

    David, labeling decades correctly… LABELING. That’s semantics, not math!

    Oh well, I wouldn’t expect a sports/math guy to be good at English

    

    Reply

Leave a Reply