Referring to decades and centuries

[Steve Hayes]

A few weeks ago I read something online where someone referred to "the
1900s".

I assumed that they were referring to the period 1900-1909, but it
turned out that they actually meant the 1990s, and by immediate
thought was "why couldn't they say so?"

Since then I've noticed quite a lot of ambiguity in such references,
and decided to run a poll on exTwitter and Mastodon.

The question is:

When someone writes "the 2000s" do you think

2000-2009 66.7%
2000 to now 33.3%

Results so far on exTwitter, and so far Mastodon seems to have a
higher proportion thinking it refers to the decade rather than the
century.

Thoughts? Comments?

[Mike Spencer]

Post by Steve Hayes
When someone writes "the 2000s" do you think
2000-2009 66.7%
2000 to now 33.3%
Results so far on exTwitter, and so far Mastodon seems to have a
higher proportion thinking it refers to the decade rather than the
century.

I'd regard it initially as ambiguous, looking to context to resolve it.

I refer to the first decade of the present century as "the naughties".
Alas, no one to whom I've said it has thought it was amusing. Maybe only
we'uns octogenarians even know the word "naught"?

Post by Steve Hayes
Thoughts? Comments?

FWIW

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Mike Spencer
I refer to the first decade of the present century as "the naughties".

I've seen that before - in the naughties. It's mildly funny.

Post by Mike Spencer
Alas, no one to whom I've said it has thought it was amusing. Maybe only
we'uns octogenarians even know the word "naught"?

Can't you still hear it in sports games? Tennis?

In an Ngram there are only three 0s after the decimal point. That means
that it is very common.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 11:40:40 +0200

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Mike Spencer
I refer to the first decade of the present century as "the naughties".

I've seen that before - in the naughties. It's mildly funny.

Post by Mike Spencer
Alas, no one to whom I've said it has thought it was amusing. Maybe only
we'uns octogenarians even know the word "naught"?

Can't you still hear it in sports games? Tennis?

Love is naughty. But you get nul points. (Thank you, Norway)

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
In an Ngram there are only three 0s after the decimal point. That means
that it is very common.
--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

[occam]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 11:40:40 +0200

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Can't you still hear it in sports games? Tennis?

Love is naughty.

Yes, 'love' in tennis.

An alterative for 'the noughties' could therefore be 'the lovvies'.

But you get nul points. (Thank you, Norway)

(That should be "null poeng" from Norway, surely. )

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:57:15 +0200

Post by occam

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 11:40:40 +0200

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Can't you still hear it in sports games? Tennis?

Love is naughty.

Yes, 'love' in tennis.
An alterative for 'the noughties' could therefore be 'the lovvies'.
But you get nul points. (Thank you, Norway)
(That should be "null poeng" from Norway, surely. )

It's a firm favourite British phrase from Eurovision, as promulgated by
Katie Boyle.

https://eurosong-contest.fandom.com/wiki/Nul_Points

(Norway has the "highest" score - 3x Nul Points)


(Also 'nil' is the teletype readers rendition of zero ..chica chica..)

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Steve Hayes
A few weeks ago I read something online where someone referred to
"the 1900s".
I assumed that they were referring to the period 1900-1909, but it
turned out that they actually meant the 1990s, and by immediate
thought was "why couldn't they say so?"

It might have been a thinko. We have always said "the nineties" to refer
to that decade. (Except that "the gay nineties" meant the 1890s.)

Post by Steve Hayes
Since then I've noticed quite a lot of ambiguity in such references,
and decided to run a poll on exTwitter and Mastodon.
When someone writes "the 2000s" do you think
2000-2009 66.7% 2000 to now 33.3%
Results so far on exTwitter, and so far Mastodon seems to have a
higher proportion thinking it refers to the decade rather than the
century.
Thoughts? Comments?

Towards the end of the twentieth century we were consistently referring
to decades as the forties, the fifties, and so on. As the odometer was
about to turn over we had a discussion in this newsgroup about what to
call the period 2000-2009, and the consensus was "the noughties" or "the
naughties". (So Mike Spencer wasn't the only one.) There was less of an
agreement on what to call the decade after that.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Steve Hayes
A few weeks ago I read something online where someone referred to "the
1900s".

That is to me the century. In Danish I'd have to be specific if I wanted
to talk about 1900-1909.

Post by Steve Hayes
Since then I've noticed quite a lot of ambiguity in such references,
and decided to run a poll on exTwitter and Mastodon.
When someone writes "the 2000s" do you think
2000-2009 66.7%
2000 to now 33.3%

That is understandable. We are not so far away from the time when
"2000s" could only mean "2000-200X" because the actual year was less
than 2010. In time it'll come to mean the whole century - if mankind
survives that long.

[Hibou]

Post by Steve Hayes
A few weeks ago I read something online where someone referred to "the
1900s".
I assumed that they were referring to the period 1900-1909, but it
turned out that they actually meant the 1990s, and by immediate
thought was "why couldn't they say so?"
Since then I've noticed quite a lot of ambiguity in such references,
and decided to run a poll on exTwitter and Mastodon.
When someone writes "the 2000s" do you think
2000-2009 66.7%
2000 to now 33.3%
Results so far on exTwitter, and so far Mastodon seems to have a
higher proportion thinking it refers to the decade rather than the
century.
Thoughts? Comments?

Hmm. I think 'the 1900s' were from 1900 to 1999, and approximate the
twentieth century (1901 to 2000) - just as 'the 1400s', for instance,
ran from 1400 to 1499. 'The 2000s' will run till 2099.

The period 1901 to 1910 was 'Edwardian'.

2000 to 2009 were 'the noughties' (I don't recall them being
particularly naughty). The next decade would have to be 'the
twenty-tens', I suppose; 'the tens' doesn't seem enough by itself. And
the clear-sighted know we're now in 'the twenty-twenties', 'the
twenties' already being heavily associated with prohibition, gangsters,
flappers, and post-war excess....

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by Hibou
The period 1901 to 1910 was 'Edwardian'.

Only in Britain. And even there it's a rather silly usage, since
there were ten other King Edwards, nine before him and one after.
And he was the only one not actually named Edward.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Hibou
The period 1901 to 1910 was 'Edwardian'.

Only in Britain. And even there it's a rather silly usage, since
there were ten other King Edwards, nine before him and one after.
And he was the only one not actually named Edward.

The terms "Victorian" and "Edwardian" have been used in AmE and well as
elsewhere.

[Madhu]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Hibou
The period 1901 to 1910 was 'Edwardian'.

Only in Britain. And even there it's a rather silly usage, since
there were ten other King Edwards, nine before him and one after.
And he was the only one not actually named Edward.

The terms "Victorian" and "Edwardian" have been used in AmE and well
as elsewhere.

and "Regency", in both India an America in "living usage".

[musika]

Post by Keith F. Lynch

Post by Hibou
The period 1901 to 1910 was 'Edwardian'.

Only in Britain. And even there it's a rather silly usage, since
there were ten other King Edwards, nine before him and one after.
And he was the only one not actually named Edward.

Only 8 of them were king of England. Edward VII names were Albert Edward.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Post by musika
Only 8 of them were king of England.

Only if you don't count Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, or Edward
the Confessor. The fourth such king, Edward Longshanks, the Hammer of
Scots, was later numbered Edward I.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Steve Hayes
A few weeks ago I read something online where someone referred to "the
1900s".
I assumed that they were referring to the period 1900-1909, but it
turned out that they actually meant the 1990s, and by immediate
thought was "why couldn't they say so?"
Since then I've noticed quite a lot of ambiguity in such references,
and decided to run a poll on exTwitter and Mastodon.
When someone writes "the 2000s" do you think
2000-2009 66.7%
2000 to now 33.3%
Results so far on exTwitter, and so far Mastodon seems to have a
higher proportion thinking it refers to the decade rather than the
century.
Thoughts? Comments?

If someone refers to (e.g.) "the 1900s", but from context it seems they
mean the whole of the 19th Century, I ask them (if possible) what they
would use to refer to the first ten years of that century?

Why make a clear, unambiguous reference redundant, and replace it an
ambiguous one? It makes no sense.

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Sam Plusnet
If someone refers to (e.g.) "the 1900s", but from context
it seems they mean the whole of the 19th Century, I ask
them (if possible) what they would use to refer to the
first ten years of that century?

Demand a regular expression, or a wildcard,
e.g.: 190#, 19##...

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Sam Plusnet
If someone refers to (e.g.) "the 1900s", but from
context it seems they mean the whole of the 19th
Century, I ask them (if possible) what they would use to
refer to the first ten years of that century?

Demand a regular expression, or a wildcard, e.g.: 190#,
19##...

I usual convention at least in the books I read (past tense)
was to supply only two numbers for the final year, e.g.
1933-57.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Sam Plusnet
If someone refers to (e.g.) "the 1900s", but from
context it seems they mean the whole of the 19th
Century, I ask them (if possible) what they would use to
refer to the first ten years of that century?

Demand a regular expression, or a wildcard, e.g.: 190#,
19##...

I usual convention at least in the books I read (past tense)
was to supply only two numbers for the final year, e.g.
1933-57.

Just this afternoon, a local farmer was being interviewed on the news,
and he said "My grandfather came over in '23..."

I turned to my wife and said "his grandfather is WAY to young to have
dexscendants".

[lar3ryca]

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Sam Plusnet
If someone refers to (e.g.) "the 1900s", but from context
it seems they mean the whole of the 19th Century, I ask
them (if possible) what they would use to refer to the
first ten years of that century?

Demand a regular expression, or a wildcard,
e.g.: 190#, 19##...

bashing out comments now, are we?

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Steve Hayes
Since then I've noticed quite a lot of ambiguity in such
references, and decided to run a poll on exTwitter and
Mastodon.
When someone writes "the 2000s" do you think
2000-2009 66.7%
2000 to now 33.3%

I believe the sane, simple, and conventional intepretation
is a reference to a decade. It is also the most frequently
intended meaning. But there is a nuance: formally speaking,
a cetury starts with a first year and ends with an
hundredth, e.g. the 18th century comprises years
1801..1900 . It is therefore logical to apply the same to
decades, making 1990 the last year of the eighties.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:56:29 +0300, Anton Shepelev

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Steve Hayes
Since then I've noticed quite a lot of ambiguity in such
references, and decided to run a poll on exTwitter and
Mastodon.
When someone writes "the 2000s" do you think
2000-2009 66.7%
2000 to now 33.3%

I believe the sane, simple, and conventional intepretation
is a reference to a decade. It is also the most frequently
intended meaning. But there is a nuance: formally speaking,
a cetury starts with a first year and ends with an
hundredth, e.g. the 18th century comprises years
1801..1900 . It is therefore logical to apply the same to
decades, making 1990 the last year of the eighties.

So, you think it is logical to let the peculiarity of the BCE
numbering system for years to guide the syntax used
to refer to decades of years.

I figure, it is logical to apply the SIMPLE (and obvious)
convention of referring to decades of everything else;
use the initial digit.

Now, if the "first decade" regularly came into discussion,
that could make a difference. I suppose, if the OTHER
calendar systems did it your way, that could make a
difference. If there were common examples of this
sort of pedantry applied elsewhere, that could make a
difference. - I don't know of those examples.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:56:29 +0300, Anton Shepelev

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Steve Hayes
Since then I've noticed quite a lot of ambiguity in such
references, and decided to run a poll on exTwitter and
Mastodon.
When someone writes "the 2000s" do you think
2000-2009 66.7%
2000 to now 33.3%

I believe the sane, simple, and conventional intepretation
is a reference to a decade. It is also the most frequently
intended meaning. But there is a nuance: formally speaking,
a cetury starts with a first year and ends with an
hundredth, e.g. the 18th century comprises years
1801..1900 . It is therefore logical to apply the same to
decades, making 1990 the last year of the eighties.

So, you think it is logical to let the peculiarity of the BCE
numbering system for years to guide the syntax used
to refer to decades of years.
I figure, it is logical to apply the SIMPLE (and obvious)
convention of referring to decades of everything else;
use the initial digit.
Now, if the "first decade" regularly came into discussion,
that could make a difference. I suppose, if the OTHER
calendar systems did it your way, that could make a
difference. If there were common examples of this
sort of pedantry applied elsewhere, that could make a
difference. - I don't know of those examples.

We can't even get agreement on what "teenager" means.

Pedants insist this starts at age 13, whilst most people just take it to
mean the second decade of life.

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Sam Plusnet
We can't even get agreement on what "teenager" means.
Pedants insist this starts at age 13, whilst most people
just take it to mean the second decade of life.

Then pedants are right, for it the etymological, literal,
and original meaning of the word. Futhermore, the age of
thirteen years is a better approximation of the child-
adolescent transition.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Sam Plusnet
We can't even get agreement on what "teenager" means.
Pedants insist this starts at age 13,

Of course.

Post by Sam Plusnet
whilst most people just take it to mean the second decade of life.

I have *never* come across this meaning.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Sam Plusnet
We can't even get agreement on what "teenager" means.
Pedants insist this starts at age 13,

Of course.

Post by Sam Plusnet
whilst most people just take it to mean the second decade of life.

I have *never* come across this meaning.

I think I've seen "mid-teens" starting at 13, and
that led me to

"Early Teens (9-13)"

https://www.michellemehta.com/how-to-identify-rebellion-in-your-teenager/



"Low teens or low double digits 10% to 13%"

(forecasts of growth in earnings)

https://ir.nasdaq.com/static-files/e4e6070d-0e34-419b-8b90-aea821b23ca9


"10am – 12:15pm: young teens (11–12-year-olds)"

https://lbbonline.com/news/gareth-southgate-deborah-meaden-and-more-headline-ees-learn-live-festival-for-secondary-students


Then there's this bizarre former usage:

"The competition was previously divided into three age
categories; pre-teens (12 years and below), mid-teens
(13–15 years of age) and late teens (16 years old and
over).[2]

"The categories are now pre-teens (12 and under) and
teens (13 and over)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeenStar

--
Jerry Friedman

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Sam Plusnet
whilst most people just take it to mean the second decade of life.

I have *never* come across this meaning.

I think I've seen "mid-teens" starting at 13, and
that led me to
"Early Teens (9-13)"

Very early teens: 5-9

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by jerryfriedman
Early Teens (9-13)"

Very early teens: 5-9

Negative teens, years -2..-5 PT, preteens.

[Snidely]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Sam Plusnet
We can't even get agreement on what "teenager" means.
Pedants insist this starts at age 13,

Of course.

Post by Sam Plusnet
whilst most people just take it to mean the second decade of life.

I have *never* come across this meaning.

I think I've seen "mid-teens" starting at 13, and
that led me to
"Early Teens (9-13)"
https://www.michellemehta.com/how-to-identify-rebellion-in-your-teenager/
"Low teens or low double digits 10% to 13%"
(forecasts of growth in earnings)
https://ir.nasdaq.com/static-files/e4e6070d-0e34-419b-8b90-aea821b23ca9
"10am – 12:15pm: young teens (11–12-year-olds)"
https://lbbonline.com/news/gareth-southgate-deborah-meaden-and-more-headline-ees-learn-live-festival-for-secondary-students
"The competition was previously divided into three age
categories; pre-teens (12 years and below), mid-teens
(13–15 years of age) and late teens (16 years old and
over).[2]
"The categories are now pre-teens (12 and under) and
teens (13 and over)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeenStar

More often, lately, have I seen "tweens".

/dps

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Snidely

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Sam Plusnet
We can't even get agreement on what "teenager" means.
Pedants insist this starts at age 13,

Of course.

Post by Sam Plusnet
whilst most people just take it to mean the second decade of life.

I have *never* come across this meaning.

I think I've seen "mid-teens" starting at 13, and
that led me to
"Early Teens (9-13)"
https://www.michellemehta.com/how-to-identify-rebellion-in-your-teenager/
"Low teens or low double digits 10% to 13%"
(forecasts of growth in earnings)
https://ir.nasdaq.com/static-files/e4e6070d-0e34-419b-8b90-aea821b23ca9
"10am – 12:15pm: young teens (11–12-year-olds)"
https://lbbonline.com/news/gareth-southgate-deborah-meaden-and-more-headline-ees-learn-live-festival-for-secondary-students
"The competition was previously divided into three age
categories; pre-teens (12 years and below), mid-teens
(13–15 years of age) and late teens (16 years old and
over).[2]
"The categories are now pre-teens (12 and under) and
teens (13 and over)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeenStar

More often, lately, have I seen "tweens".

I have sometimes seen that, but have never seen a consistent
definition of it.

I've also heard "Middle Grade", but I'm not sure what that covers
either. Assuming 12 years of primary and secondary education, I would
take "middle grade" to mean grades 5-8, which would cover roughly ages
9-13, assuming that most children would have their 10th birthday in
grade 5 and their 13th birthday in grade 8.

And then there is "young adult", which nowadays seems to be a synonym
for teenager.

I recently read an article lamenting the lack of books for "teen
boys", and predicting widespread illiteracy as a result of that. I
tried to recall what I had read as a teen boy, and make a list, and
most of it was not written specifically for teen boys at all. The
exceptions I could recall were the Hardy boys series and the Billy
Bunter series, where the main characters are teen boys and the target
readership was teen boys. I calculated my own reading as being from my
13th birthday to the day before my 20th birthday.

People sometimes speak of the "seven ages of man" but I'm not sure
what those would be. Taking the old Roman law as a start I can come up
with more than 7 ages

Birth-7 -- infancy
7-14 -- childhood
14-21 -- youth/adolescence
21-28 -- young adult
28-35 -- mature adult
35--42 -- early middle age
42-56 -- middle age
56-63 -- late middle age
63-70 -- elderly
70-77 -- old
77-84 -- senior citizen
84-91 -- senility
91-98 -- dotage
98-105 -- decomposition

That's 14 ages, not 7.

And then there are generation names and letters.

I think I belong to the hip generation, being too late for the beat
generation and too early for the hippie generation, but hip or hipster
covers both and everything in between.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 05:24:02 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Snidely

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Sam Plusnet
We can't even get agreement on what "teenager" means.
Pedants insist this starts at age 13,

Of course.

Post by Sam Plusnet
whilst most people just take it to mean the second decade of life.

I have *never* come across this meaning.

I think I've seen "mid-teens" starting at 13, and
that led me to
"Early Teens (9-13)"
https://www.michellemehta.com/how-to-identify-rebellion-in-your-teenager/
"Low teens or low double digits 10% to 13%"
(forecasts of growth in earnings)
https://ir.nasdaq.com/static-files/e4e6070d-0e34-419b-8b90-aea821b23ca9
"10am – 12:15pm: young teens (11–12-year-olds)"
https://lbbonline.com/news/gareth-southgate-deborah-meaden-and-more-headline-ees-learn-live-festival-for-secondary-students
"The competition was previously divided into three age
categories; pre-teens (12 years and below), mid-teens
(13–15 years of age) and late teens (16 years old and
over).[2]
"The categories are now pre-teens (12 and under) and
teens (13 and over)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeenStar

More often, lately, have I seen "tweens".

I have sometimes seen that, but have never seen a consistent
definition of it.
I've also heard "Middle Grade", but I'm not sure what that covers
either. Assuming 12 years of primary and secondary education, I would
take "middle grade" to mean grades 5-8, which would cover roughly ages
9-13, assuming that most children would have their 10th birthday in
grade 5 and their 13th birthday in grade 8.

The term used here is "Middle School". That may vary from place to
place in the US, but in most of Florida that's grades Six, Seven, and
Eight. As an estimate, add 6 to the grade and that's the average age
of the students in that grade.

When I was in school, there were grade schools and there were high
schools. Grade School was grades One to Eight. There were no schools
with Kindergrartens in Indianapolis.

My brother did go to a (private) Nursery School at age 5, but he was
expelled for biting other students.

Post by Steve Hayes
And then there is "young adult", which nowadays seems to be a synonym
for teenager.
I recently read an article lamenting the lack of books for "teen
boys", and predicting widespread illiteracy as a result of that. I
tried to recall what I had read as a teen boy, and make a list, and
most of it was not written specifically for teen boys at all. The
exceptions I could recall were the Hardy boys series and the Billy
Bunter series, where the main characters are teen boys and the target
readership was teen boys. I calculated my own reading as being from my
13th birthday to the day before my 20th birthday.

I read the Hardy Boys books, but preferred the books by John R. Tunis.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Tony Cooper
My brother did go to a (private) Nursery School at age 5, but he was
expelled for biting other students.

Did it help?

[Silvano]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Tony Cooper
My brother did go to a (private) Nursery School at age 5, but he was
expelled for biting other students.

Did it help?

It certainly helped the other students.
Linguistic question: 5-year-old students?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Silvano

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Tony Cooper
My brother did go to a (private) Nursery School at age 5, but he was
expelled for biting other students.

Did it help?

It certainly helped the other students.

I have a story worse than that -- to the extent that it should have
been a matter for the police. When our daughter was three we thought of
putting her in a nursery school associated with the university (of
Birmingham). There was a boy who liked to bite other children. However,
he wasn't expelled. Instead the mistress lined up all the other
children and told them to bite him. We decided that that wasn't the
nursery school wewanted our daughter to go to.

Post by Silvano
Linguistic question: 5-year-old students?

That's one I'm never sure of.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Silvano
Linguistic question: 5-year-old students?

That's one I'm never sure of.

To me a student is one who has finished highschool, but then I am a
Dane, and we always use the word that way. Before student you are an
"elev", and if highschool students feel that they are older than that:
gymnasie-elev (hyphen for the sake of English-reading people).

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Silvano
Linguistic question: 5-year-old students?

That's one I'm never sure of.

To me a student is one who has finished highschool, but then I am a
Dane, and we always use the word that way. Before student you are an
gymnasie-elev (hyphen for the sake of English-reading people).

There is a feeling, not really a rule, that more than one hyphen should
be avoided. It's the same with family names: Cornish-Bowden is OK,
though a bit pretentious, but Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax and
Hovell-Thurlow-Cumming-Bruce overdo it.

[Janet]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Silvano
Linguistic question: 5-year-old students?

That's one I'm never sure of.

Five years olds here are graduates, attending a
graduation ceremony in front of their proud parents as
they leave nursery school to enter primary school.

Academic caps and gowns are worn. And nappies.
Apparently 25% of children entering primary school, have
not yet mastered toilet training.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3dykw576yo

Janet

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Janet
Academic caps and gowns are worn. And nappies.
Apparently 25% of children entering primary school, have
not yet mastered toilet training.

When my children went to Kindergarten I don't think that there was any
child that lacked toilet training. There may have been, but it would the
exception.

I understand that today that is a problem.

I searched for an article that confirms it, and it also has a thorough
description of how to train them. I don't remember having such a problem
with my two children.

One niece in law has a simple method. When the children are three, she
doesn't supply a nappie any more.

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:20:46 +0200, Silvano

Post by Silvano
It certainly helped the other students.
Linguistic question: 5-year-old students?

I still tend to think of students as those in tertiary education,
though I gather from the Harry Potter books that in the UK it extends
to secondary education as well.

I still think of those in primary and secondary education as "pupils",
though many of my fellow-countrymen seem to think of them as
"learners", though I think that thinking is a hangover from apartheid.

Back in the time of apartheid, with an authoritarian government,
political correctness was a big thing, especially among those who,
like teachers, were employed by the government. If the government
called what were previously shown on maps as "Native Locations" "Bantu
Homelands" then you called them "Bantu Locations", Finish and klaar.
Full stop. Period. Menstruation.

After our first democratic election in 1994 the new
democratically-elected government introduced Outcomes-Based Education,
which used the term "learners". "Learners" applied to anyone learning
anything, regardless of age or stage of education.

But teachers, still imbued with the old authoritarian "Ja Baas"
mentality, thought that "learners" was the new politically-correct
term for "school children", and so would say things like "Three
learners were knocked down by a car driven by a drunk driver" (would
that be a "drink driver in BrE?).

It made no sense to speak of people as "learners" when they weren't
actually engaged in the process of learning something, but people did
it anyway.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:20:46 +0200, Silvano

Post by Silvano
It certainly helped the other students.
Linguistic question: 5-year-old students?

I still tend to think of students as those in tertiary education,
though I gather from the Harry Potter books that in the UK it extends
to secondary education as well.
I still think of those in primary and secondary education as "pupils",
though many of my fellow-countrymen seem to think of them as
"learners", though I think that thinking is a hangover from apartheid.
Back in the time of apartheid, with an authoritarian government,
political correctness was a big thing, especially among those who,
like teachers, were employed by the government. If the government
called what were previously shown on maps as "Native Locations" "Bantu
Homelands" then you called them "Bantu Locations", Finish and klaar.
Full stop. Period. Menstruation.
After our first democratic election in 1994 the new
democratically-elected government introduced Outcomes-Based Education,
which used the term "learners". "Learners" applied to anyone learning
anything, regardless of age or stage of education.
But teachers, still imbued with the old authoritarian "Ja Baas"
mentality, thought that "learners" was the new politically-correct
term for "school children", and so would say things like "Three
learners were knocked down by a car driven by a drunk driver" (would
that be a "drink driver in BrE?).
It made no sense to speak of people as "learners" when they weren't
actually engaged in the process of learning something, but people did
it anyway.

I agree, but now you have me wondering if it is valid to describe them
as "school children" if (my assumption) they were not actually in school.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:20:46 +0200, Silvano

Post by Silvano
It certainly helped the other students.
Linguistic question: 5-year-old students?

I still tend to think of students as those in tertiary education,
though I gather from the Harry Potter books that in the UK it extends
to secondary education as well.
I still think of those in primary and secondary education as "pupils",
though many of my fellow-countrymen seem to think of them as
"learners", though I think that thinking is a hangover from apartheid.
Back in the time of apartheid, with an authoritarian government,
political correctness was a big thing, especially among those who,
like teachers, were employed by the government. If the government
called what were previously shown on maps as "Native Locations" "Bantu
Homelands" then you called them "Bantu Locations", Finish and klaar.
Full stop. Period. Menstruation.
After our first democratic election in 1994 the new
democratically-elected government introduced Outcomes-Based Education,
which used the term "learners". "Learners" applied to anyone learning
anything, regardless of age or stage of education.
But teachers, still imbued with the old authoritarian "Ja Baas"
mentality, thought that "learners" was the new politically-correct
term for "school children", and so would say things like "Three
learners were knocked down by a car driven by a drunk driver" (would
that be a "drink driver in BrE?).
It made no sense to speak of people as "learners" when they weren't
actually engaged in the process of learning something, but people did
it anyway.

I agree, but now you have me wondering if it is valid to describe them
as "school children" if (my assumption) they were not actually in school.

I think it is legitimate to call them "school children" when they are
going to or from school, or an an outing (say a visit to a museum)
arranged by the school. But I suspect that it was precisely because of
the imprecision of such terms that the word "learners" was devised to
refer to people who were engaged in learning, but the ingrained or
indoctinated tendency towards political correctness made people see it
as a more correct and officially-approved way of saying "school
children".

But "student" now seems to have replaced "scholar". When I was 5 I had
a Post Office Savings Bank book that described my occupation as
"scholar", but now I use it almost exclusively for adult researchers
who publish books or articles on their research. In the 19th century
it was used in census records to describe any child deemed to be of
school age, whether they were at school or not.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Steve Hayes
But "student" now seems to have replaced "scholar". When I was 5 I had
a Post Office Savings Bank book that described my occupation as
"scholar", but now I use it almost exclusively for adult researchers
who publish books or articles on their research. In the 19th century
it was used in census records to describe any child deemed to be of
school age, whether they were at school or not.

A diller, a dollar,
A ten o'clock scholar,
What makes you come so soon?
You used to come at ten o'clock,
And now you come at noon.

The earliest citation for this that I've seen is 1881, but I haven't
searched very hard, and I have little doubt that it's very much older.
So "scholar" for "school child" has been around for quite a while. These
days, as you say, "scholar" seems to be reserved for adults.

[Joy Beeson]

Post by Peter Moylan
A diller, a dollar,
A ten o'clock scholar,
What makes you come so soon?
You used to come at ten o'clock,
And now you come at noon.
The earliest citation for this that I've seen is 1881, but I haven't
searched very hard, and I have little doubt that it's very much older.
So "scholar" for "school child" has been around for quite a while. These
days, as you say, "scholar" seems to be reserved for adults.

I vaguely remember that as a child, I came across a statement that
"scholars" had determined something important, and wondered why
grade-school children would be entrusted with that.

This would have been the late nineteen-forties.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Steve Hayes
But "student" now seems to have replaced "scholar". When I was 5 I had
a Post Office Savings Bank book that described my occupation as
"scholar", but now I use it almost exclusively for adult researchers
who publish books or articles on their research. In the 19th century
it was used in census records to describe any child deemed to be of
school age, whether they were at school or not.

The times I have met "scholar", it only made sense as a grown-up
studying or having studied.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 19:16:56 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Steve Hayes
But "student" now seems to have replaced "scholar". When I was 5 I had
a Post Office Savings Bank book that described my occupation as
"scholar", but now I use it almost exclusively for adult researchers
who publish books or articles on their research. In the 19th century
it was used in census records to describe any child deemed to be of
school age, whether they were at school or not.

The times I have met "scholar", it only made sense as a grown-up
studying or having studied.

PTD's Wiki page lists him as a "scholar". Whether or not he
represented himself as a "grown-up" in this forum is debatable.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:20:46 +0200, Silvano

Post by Silvano
It certainly helped the other students.
Linguistic question: 5-year-old students?

I still tend to think of students as those in tertiary education,
though I gather from the Harry Potter books that in the UK it extends
to secondary education as well.
I still think of those in primary and secondary education as "pupils",
though many of my fellow-countrymen seem to think of them as
"learners", though I think that thinking is a hangover from apartheid.
Back in the time of apartheid, with an authoritarian government,
political correctness was a big thing, especially among those who,
like teachers, were employed by the government. If the government
called what were previously shown on maps as "Native Locations" "Bantu
Homelands" then you called them "Bantu Locations", Finish and klaar.
Full stop. Period. Menstruation.
After our first democratic election in 1994 the new
democratically-elected government introduced Outcomes-Based Education,
which used the term "learners". "Learners" applied to anyone learning
anything, regardless of age or stage of education.
But teachers, still imbued with the old authoritarian "Ja Baas"
mentality, thought that "learners" was the new politically-correct
term for "school children", and so would say things like "Three
learners were knocked down by a car driven by a drunk driver" (would
that be a "drink driver in BrE?).
It made no sense to speak of people as "learners" when they weren't
actually engaged in the process of learning something, but people did
it anyway.

I agree, but now you have me wondering if it is valid to describe them
as "school children" if (my assumption) they were not actually in school.

I think it is legitimate to call them "school children" when they are
going to or from school, or an an outing (say a visit to a museum)
arranged by the school. But I suspect that it was precisely because of
the imprecision of such terms that the word "learners" was devised to
refer to people who were engaged in learning, but the ingrained or
indoctinated tendency towards political correctness made people see it
as a more correct and officially-approved way of saying "school
children".

I suppose those three "learners" could have been ladies in their 80s on
their way to a flower-arranging evening class[1].
But I suspect the writer of that headline would respond with "Well, you
knew what I was trying to say".

The US term "African American" _could_ be used to describe Elon Musk and
actor Charlize Theron - but again people would say "That isn't what we
mean".

[1] Is the term "Evening Class" widely used?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:20:46 +0200, Silvano

Post by Silvano
It certainly helped the other students.
Linguistic question: 5-year-old students?

I still tend to think of students as those in tertiary education,
though I gather from the Harry Potter books that in the UK it extends
to secondary education as well.
I still think of those in primary and secondary education as "pupils",
though many of my fellow-countrymen seem to think of them as
"learners", though I think that thinking is a hangover from apartheid.
Back in the time of apartheid, with an authoritarian government,
political correctness was a big thing, especially among those who,
like teachers, were employed by the government. If the government
called what were previously shown on maps as "Native Locations" "Bantu
Homelands" then you called them "Bantu Locations", Finish and klaar.
Full stop. Period. Menstruation.
After our first democratic election in 1994 the new
democratically-elected government introduced Outcomes-Based Education,
which used the term "learners". "Learners" applied to anyone learning
anything, regardless of age or stage of education.
But teachers, still imbued with the old authoritarian "Ja Baas"
mentality, thought that "learners" was the new politically-correct
term for "school children", and so would say things like "Three
learners were knocked down by a car driven by a drunk driver" (would
that be a "drink driver in BrE?).
It made no sense to speak of people as "learners" when they weren't
actually engaged in the process of learning something, but people did
it anyway.

I agree, but now you have me wondering if it is valid to describe them
as "school children" if (my assumption) they were not actually in school.

I think it is legitimate to call them "school children" when they are
going to or from school, or an an outing (say a visit to a museum)
arranged by the school. But I suspect that it was precisely because of
the imprecision of such terms that the word "learners" was devised to
refer to people who were engaged in learning, but the ingrained or
indoctinated tendency towards political correctness made people see it
as a more correct and officially-approved way of saying "school
children".

I suppose those three "learners" could have been ladies in their 80s on
their way to a flower-arranging evening class[1].

A very successful head of a biochemistry department in the UK started
his working life as an apprentice in a trawler out of Grimsby. They
called him (and others in the same situation) a decky larner.

Post by Sam Plusnet
But I suspect the writer of that headline would respond with "Well, you
knew what I was trying to say".
The US term "African American" _could_ be used to describe Elon Musk
and actor Charlize Theron - but again people would say "That isn't
what we mean".

Yes, and when they talk about illegal immigrants they don't mean
Melania Trump and Elon Musk.

Post by Sam Plusnet
[1] Is the term "Evening Class" widely used?

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 20:40:31 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Sam Plusnet
I agree, but now you have me wondering if it is valid to describe them
as "school children" if (my assumption) they were not actually in school.

I think it is legitimate to call them "school children" when they are
going to or from school, or an an outing (say a visit to a museum)
arranged by the school. But I suspect that it was precisely because of
the imprecision of such terms that the word "learners" was devised to
refer to people who were engaged in learning, but the ingrained or
indoctinated tendency towards political correctness made people see it
as a more correct and officially-approved way of saying "school
children".

I suppose those three "learners" could have been ladies in their 80s on
their way to a flower-arranging evening class[1].

A very successful head of a biochemistry department in the UK started
his working life as an apprentice in a trawler out of Grimsby. They
called him (and others in the same situation) a decky larner.

Post by Sam Plusnet
But I suspect the writer of that headline would respond with "Well, you
knew what I was trying to say".
The US term "African American" _could_ be used to describe Elon Musk
and actor Charlize Theron - but again people would say "That isn't
what we mean".

Yes, and when they talk about illegal immigrants they don't mean
Melania Trump and Elon Musk.

Who had presumably fulfilled the legal requirements for immigration,
so they wouldn't.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 20:40:31 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden

..

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Sam Plusnet
The US term "African American" _could_ be used to describe Elon Musk
and actor Charlize Theron - but again people would say "That isn't
what we mean".

Yes, and when they talk about illegal immigrants they don't mean
Melania Trump and Elon Musk.

Who had presumably fulfilled the legal requirements for immigration,
so they wouldn't.

According to Wikipedia, citing /First Ladies: The Ever
Changing Role/ by Betty Boyd Caroli, Melania Trump
(then Melania Knauss) entered the U.S. on a travel visa
that did not allow her to work. Nevertheless, in her
first few weeks she worked as a model for considerable
money. After that she got a work visa.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:20:46 +0200, Silvano

Post by Silvano
It certainly helped the other students.
Linguistic question: 5-year-old students?

I still tend to think of students as those in tertiary education,
though I gather from the Harry Potter books that in the UK it extends
to secondary education as well.
I still think of those in primary and secondary education as "pupils",
though many of my fellow-countrymen seem to think of them as
"learners", though I think that thinking is a hangover from apartheid.
Back in the time of apartheid, with an authoritarian government,
political correctness was a big thing, especially among those who,
like teachers, were employed by the government. If the government
called what were previously shown on maps as "Native Locations" "Bantu
Homelands" then you called them "Bantu Locations", Finish and klaar.
Full stop. Period. Menstruation.
After our first democratic election in 1994 the new
democratically-elected government introduced Outcomes-Based Education,
which used the term "learners". "Learners" applied to anyone learning
anything, regardless of age or stage of education.
But teachers, still imbued with the old authoritarian "Ja Baas"
mentality, thought that "learners" was the new politically-correct
term for "school children", and so would say things like "Three
learners were knocked down by a car driven by a drunk driver" (would
that be a "drink driver in BrE?).
It made no sense to speak of people as "learners" when they weren't
actually engaged in the process of learning something, but people did
it anyway.

I agree, but now you have me wondering if it is valid to describe them
as "school children" if (my assumption) they were not actually in school.

I think it is legitimate to call them "school children" when they are
going to or from school, or an an outing (say a visit to a museum)
arranged by the school. But I suspect that it was precisely because of
the imprecision of such terms that the word "learners" was devised to
refer to people who were engaged in learning, but the ingrained or
indoctinated tendency towards political correctness made people see it
as a more correct and officially-approved way of saying "school
children".

I suppose those three "learners" could have been ladies in their 80s on
their way to a flower-arranging evening class[1].

It would be as (in)accurate as the other.

Post by Sam Plusnet
But I suspect the writer of that headline would respond with "Well, you
knew what I was trying to say".

And "learner" applies equally to a PhD candidate.

Post by Sam Plusnet
The US term "African American" _could_ be used to describe Elon Musk and
actor Charlize Theron - but again people would say "That isn't what we
mean".

I believe one US publication referred to our former president Nelson
Mandela as an "African-American".

Post by Sam Plusnet
[1] Is the term "Evening Class" widely used?

It's not unheard of in South Africa.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Sam Plusnet
The US term "African American" _could_ be used to describe Elon Musk and
actor Charlize Theron - but again people would say "That isn't what we
mean".

I believe one US publication referred to our former president Nelson
Mandela as an "African-American".

Did the term "African-nonAmerican" ever get used?

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Sam Plusnet
The US term "African American" _could_ be used to describe Elon Musk and
actor Charlize Theron - but again people would say "That isn't what we
mean".

I believe one US publication referred to our former president Nelson
Mandela as an "African-American".

Did the term "African-nonAmerican" ever get used?

"African-nonAmerican" strikes me as a good idea, but I've
never heard it or seen it.

Oh, today's news - various articles on one African American, like,
"President Joe Biden has slammed Elon Musk for hypocrisy on
immigration after a published report that the Tesla CEO once worked
illegally in the United States"

- early in his career, on a student visa.

If you haven't heard -- He has been prominent in spreading
false claims, etc., on X, from his own account. That sort of
outweighs the earlier complaints about him letting other noted
liars back on to X (ex-Twitter).

I suppose it is too late to deport him. Pascal's Wager.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:20:46 +0200, Silvano

Post by Silvano
It certainly helped the other students.
Linguistic question: 5-year-old students?

I still tend to think of students as those in tertiary education,
though I gather from the Harry Potter books that in the UK it extends
to secondary education as well.
I still think of those in primary and secondary education as "pupils",
though many of my fellow-countrymen seem to think of them as
"learners", though I think that thinking is a hangover from apartheid.
Back in the time of apartheid, with an authoritarian government,
political correctness was a big thing, especially among those who,
like teachers, were employed by the government. If the government
called what were previously shown on maps as "Native Locations" "Bantu
Homelands" then you called them "Bantu Locations", Finish and klaar.
Full stop. Period. Menstruation.
After our first democratic election in 1994 the new
democratically-elected government introduced Outcomes-Based Education,
which used the term "learners". "Learners" applied to anyone learning
anything, regardless of age or stage of education.
But teachers, still imbued with the old authoritarian "Ja Baas"
mentality, thought that "learners" was the new politically-correct
term for "school children", and so would say things like "Three
learners were knocked down by a car driven by a drunk driver" (would
that be a "drink driver in BrE?).
It made no sense to speak of people as "learners" when they weren't
actually engaged in the process of learning something, but people did
it anyway.

I agree, but now you have me wondering if it is valid to describe them
as "school children" if (my assumption) they were not actually in school.

I think it is legitimate to call them "school children" when they are
going to or from school, or an an outing (say a visit to a museum)
arranged by the school. But I suspect that it was precisely because of
the imprecision of such terms that the word "learners" was devised to
refer to people who were engaged in learning, but the ingrained or
indoctinated tendency towards political correctness made people see it
as a more correct and officially-approved way of saying "school
children".

I suppose those three "learners" could have been ladies in their 80s on
their way to a flower-arranging evening class[1].
But I suspect the writer of that headline would respond with "Well, you
knew what I was trying to say".
The US term "African American" _could_ be used to describe Elon Musk and
 actor Charlize Theron - but again people would say "That isn't what we
mean".
[1] Is the term "Evening Class" widely used?

Not that I've heard in Canada, but the terms "night school" and "night
school class" are heard occasionally.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:20:46 +0200, Silvano

Post by Silvano
It certainly helped the other students.
Linguistic question: 5-year-old students?

I still tend to think of students as those in tertiary education,
though I gather from the Harry Potter books that in the UK it extends
to secondary education as well.
I still think of those in primary and secondary education as "pupils",
though many of my fellow-countrymen seem to think of them as
"learners", though I think that thinking is a hangover from apartheid.
Back in the time of apartheid, with an authoritarian government,
political correctness was a big thing, especially among those who,
like teachers, were employed by the government. If the government
called what were previously shown on maps as "Native Locations" "Bantu
Homelands" then you called them "Bantu Locations", Finish and klaar.
Full stop. Period. Menstruation.
After our first democratic election in 1994 the new
democratically-elected government introduced Outcomes-Based Education,
which used the term "learners". "Learners" applied to anyone learning
anything, regardless of age or stage of education.
But teachers, still imbued with the old authoritarian "Ja Baas"
mentality, thought that "learners" was the new politically-correct
term for "school children", and so would say things like "Three
learners were knocked down by a car driven by a drunk driver" (would
that be a "drink driver in BrE?).
It made no sense to speak of people as "learners" when they weren't
actually engaged in the process of learning something, but people did
it anyway.

I agree, but now you have me wondering if it is valid to describe them
as "school children" if (my assumption) they were not actually in school.

I think it is legitimate to call them "school children" when they are
going to or from school, or an an outing (say a visit to a museum)
arranged by the school. But I suspect that it was precisely because of
the imprecision of such terms that the word "learners" was devised to
refer to people who were engaged in learning, but the ingrained or
indoctinated tendency towards political correctness made people see it
as a more correct and officially-approved way of saying "school
children".

I suppose those three "learners" could have been ladies in their 80s on
their way to a flower-arranging evening class[1].
But I suspect the writer of that headline would respond with "Well, you
knew what I was trying to say".
The US term "African American" _could_ be used to describe Elon Musk and
 actor Charlize Theron - but again people would say "That isn't what we
mean".
[1] Is the term "Evening Class" widely used?

Not that I've heard in Canada, but the terms "night school" and "night
school class" are heard occasionally.

I was about to write that the term is used at Northwestern University,
and decided to Google it. I found:

_______

Northwestern University's Evening Divisions were renamed the Division
of Continuing Education in 1978, and then the School of Continuing
Studies in 2000. Northwestern also offers a part-time MBA program
through the Kellogg School of Management that includes evening and
weekend classes:

Evening classes
Held on weeknights from 6–9 PM at Wieboldt Hall in downtown Chicago.
Classes meet once a week.
__________

So, it was used when I attended Northwestern's Kellogg School of
Management, but evidently not in current use.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 10:20:46 +0200, Silvano

Post by Silvano
5-year-old students?

I still tend to think of students as those in tertiary education,
though I gather from the Harry Potter books that in the UK it
extends to secondary education as well.

There was a time when a student was a self-directed seeker after
knowledge, an independent researcher. (Think of the Student's t
distribution in statistics.) Someone doing research for a PhD was an
apprentice student. Using the word for an undergraduate was title inflation.

But the world has moved on, and the meaning has changed, and there's
nothing we can do about it.

Post by Steve Hayes
I still think of those in primary and secondary education as
"pupils", though many of my fellow-countrymen seem to think of them
as "learners", though I think that thinking is a hangover from
apartheid.

I still use "pupil" for a schoolchild, but I suspect that that usage has
become the mark of a pedant.

Give it a couple more generations, and people will be using "student" to
refer to the pupil of an eye.

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:23:05 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Steve Hayes
I've also heard "Middle Grade", but I'm not sure what that covers
either. Assuming 12 years of primary and secondary education, I would
take "middle grade" to mean grades 5-8, which would cover roughly ages
9-13, assuming that most children would have their 10th birthday in
grade 5 and their 13th birthday in grade 8.

The term used here is "Middle School". That may vary from place to
place in the US, but in most of Florida that's grades Six, Seven, and
Eight. As an estimate, add 6 to the grade and that's the average age
of the students in that grade.
When I was in school, there were grade schools and there were high
schools. Grade School was grades One to Eight. There were no schools
with Kindergrartens in Indianapolis.
My brother did go to a (private) Nursery School at age 5, but he was
expelled for biting other students.

I went to a Kindergarten at age 4 (the year I turned 5). The child of
a neighbour had a governess who taught her, and heighbours' kids were
invited to attend (for a fee, of course).

The following year I entered Class 1 a Westville Government School. At
that time there were 3 kids of schools in the province of Natal (now
KwaZulu/Natal):

Infant -- Class 1, Class 2, Standard 1
Junior -- Standard 2 to Standard 5
Senior or High School -- Standards 6 to 10.

Now Class 1 is called Grade 1, and Standard 1 is Grade 3.

In my day children usually began Grade 1 in the year they turned 6,
but now it seems to be in the year they turn 7.

Publishers seem to use a different terminology (to/than/from) the rest
of us, and what they used to call "Juvenile" they now seem to call
Y/A, and below Y/A they seem to have "Middle Grade", and I am
wondering how much overlap there is between "Middle Grade", "teens"
and "tweens".

I write books for children aged about 9-12, and I wonder what those
are called in publishers' argot.

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Steve Hayes
And then there is "young adult", which nowadays seems to be a synonym
for teenager.
I recently read an article lamenting the lack of books for "teen
boys", and predicting widespread illiteracy as a result of that. I
tried to recall what I had read as a teen boy, and make a list, and
most of it was not written specifically for teen boys at all. The
exceptions I could recall were the Hardy boys series and the Billy
Bunter series, where the main characters are teen boys and the target
readership was teen boys. I calculated my own reading as being from my
13th birthday to the day before my 20th birthday.

I read the Hardy Boys books, but preferred the books by John R. Tunis.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 05:57:18 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 00:23:05 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Steve Hayes
I've also heard "Middle Grade", but I'm not sure what that covers
either. Assuming 12 years of primary and secondary education, I would
take "middle grade" to mean grades 5-8, which would cover roughly ages
9-13, assuming that most children would have their 10th birthday in
grade 5 and their 13th birthday in grade 8.

The term used here is "Middle School". That may vary from place to
place in the US, but in most of Florida that's grades Six, Seven, and
Eight. As an estimate, add 6 to the grade and that's the average age
of the students in that grade.
When I was in school, there were grade schools and there were high
schools. Grade School was grades One to Eight. There were no schools
with Kindergrartens in Indianapolis.
My brother did go to a (private) Nursery School at age 5, but he was
expelled for biting other students.

I went to a Kindergarten at age 4 (the year I turned 5). The child of
a neighbour had a governess who taught her, and heighbours' kids were
invited to attend (for a fee, of course).
The following year I entered Class 1 a Westville Government School. At
that time there were 3 kids of schools in the province of Natal (now
Infant -- Class 1, Class 2, Standard 1
Junior -- Standard 2 to Standard 5
Senior or High School -- Standards 6 to 10.
Now Class 1 is called Grade 1, and Standard 1 is Grade 3.
In my day children usually began Grade 1 in the year they turned 6,
but now it seems to be in the year they turn 7.
Publishers seem to use a different terminology (to/than/from) the rest
of us, and what they used to call "Juvenile" they now seem to call
Y/A, and below Y/A they seem to have "Middle Grade", and I am
wondering how much overlap there is between "Middle Grade", "teens"
and "tweens".

I was just in our library today. There's a double row of books in the
section labeled "Young Adult", and each book has a bright red "YA"
sticker on the spine.

I don't know if the publisher or the library adds the sticker.

Post by Steve Hayes
I write books for children aged about 9-12, and I wonder what those
are called in publishers' argot.

There is a separate room in this library where the "Children's Books"
are located.

[Janet]

In article

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Sam Plusnet
We can't even get agreement on what "teenager" means.
Pedants insist this starts at age 13,

Of course.

I am a pedant.

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Sam Plusnet
whilst most people just take it to mean the second decade of life.

I have *never* come across this meaning.

Neither have I.

Janet

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Janet
In article

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Sam Plusnet
We can't even get agreement on what "teenager" means.
Pedants insist this starts at age 13,

Of course.

I am a pedant.

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Sam Plusnet
whilst most people just take it to mean the second decade of life.

I have *never* come across this meaning.

Neither have I.

We have a friend who recently referred to his 11 year-old daughter as
being in her "terrible teens". He did not use "teens" as a
description of her age group, though. He was describing her behavior:
mouthing off to her parents, mood swings, and general attitude.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Janet
In article

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Sam Plusnet
We can't even get agreement on what "teenager" means.
Pedants insist this starts at age 13,

Of course.

I am a pedant.

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Sam Plusnet
whilst most people just take it to mean the second decade of life.

I have *never* come across this meaning.

Neither have I.

We have a friend who recently referred to his 11 year-old daughter as
being in her "terrible teens". He did not use "teens" as a
mouthing off to her parents, mood swings, and general attitude.

Her parents need to read the article I linked to about
how to tell if your teenager is rebelling.

OK, maybe they don't.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Janet

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Sam Plusnet
We can't even get agreement on what "teenager" means.
Pedants insist this starts at age 13,

Of course.

I am a pedant.

+1

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Rich Ulrich

But there is a nuance: formally speaking, a cetury
starts with a first year and ends with an hundredth,
e.g. the 18th century comprises years 1801..1900 . It
is therefore logical to apply the same to decades,
making 1990 the last year of the eighties.

So, you think it is logical to let the peculiarity of the
BCE numbering system for years to guide the syntax used to
refer to decades of years.

It has nothing to do with BCE and is the consequence of
indexing years (as well as other things) with natural
numbers, starting with unity, so that the first year has
index of 1 and the tenth 10.

Post by Rich Ulrich
I figure, it is logical to apply the SIMPLE (and obvious)
convention of referring to decades of everything else; use
the initial digit.

The natural indexing is not by digit but my number: first,
second, third, &c.

Post by Rich Ulrich
Now, if the "first decade" regularly came into discussion,
that could make a difference.

Well, the first decade of the current century does regularly
come into discussion, I believe.

Post by Rich Ulrich
I suppose, if the OTHER calendar systems did it your way,
that could make a difference.

Which ones? How many civilised peoples use a calendar
system startng with year zero?

Post by Rich Ulrich
If there were common examples of this sort of pedantry
applied elsewhere, that could make a difference.

Any decision from precedent or convention is in danger of
being unreasonable in the literal sense, i.e. not based on
reason. There are good and bad convention, and the
dichotomy is indifferent of how wildely adopted they are.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 21:50:02 +0300, Anton Shepelev

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Rich Ulrich

But there is a nuance: formally speaking, a cetury
starts with a first year and ends with an hundredth,
e.g. the 18th century comprises years 1801..1900 . It
is therefore logical to apply the same to decades,
making 1990 the last year of the eighties.

So, you think it is logical to let the peculiarity of the
BCE numbering system for years to guide the syntax used to
refer to decades of years.

It has nothing to do with BCE and is the consequence of
indexing years (as well as other things) with natural
numbers, starting with unity, so that the first year has
index of 1 and the tenth 10.

Speaking with my statistician hat on, scales that start
with zero are much more convenient (and better describe
things of continuous nature) than scales that start with
one.

Is it the Koreans who give the age of a new-born as "1"?
- the rest of us don't.

...

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Rich Ulrich
Now, if the "first decade" regularly came into discussion,
that could make a difference.

Well, the first decade of the current century does regularly
come into discussion, I believe.

Lousy, nit.

I'm not sure, but didn't more of the celebrations take place
in year 2K rather than 2K+1?

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Rich Ulrich
I suppose, if the OTHER calendar systems did it your way,
that could make a difference.

Surely people with other calenders can discuss "decades"
(even though I've never read of it). Chinese. Hebrew.

Post by Anton Shepelev
Which ones? How many civilised peoples use a calendar
system startng with year zero?

Post by Rich Ulrich
If there were common examples of this sort of pedantry
applied elsewhere, that could make a difference.

Any decision from precedent or convention is in danger of
being unreasonable in the literal sense, i.e. not based on
reason. There are good and bad convention, and the
dichotomy is indifferent of how wildely adopted they are.

So, you think there is some palpable GAIN if the hoi-polloi
are reminded (infrequently) that their system has no
year Zero? I don't.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Rich Ulrich

But there is a nuance: formally speaking, a cetury
starts with a first year and ends with an hundredth,
e.g. the 18th century comprises years 1801..1900 . It
is therefore logical to apply the same to decades,
making 1990 the last year of the eighties.

So, you think it is logical to let the peculiarity of the
BCE numbering system for years to guide the syntax used to
refer to decades of years.

It has nothing to do with BCE and is the consequence of
indexing years (as well as other things) with natural
numbers, starting with unity, so that the first year has
index of 1 and the tenth 10.

Post by Rich Ulrich
I figure, it is logical to apply the SIMPLE (and obvious)
convention of referring to decades of everything else; use
the initial digit.

The natural indexing is not by digit but my number: first,
second, third, &c.

Post by Rich Ulrich
Now, if the "first decade" regularly came into discussion,
that could make a difference.

Well, the first decade of the current century does regularly
come into discussion, I believe.

Post by Rich Ulrich
I suppose, if the OTHER calendar systems did it your way,
that could make a difference.

Which ones? How many civilised peoples use a calendar
system startng with year zero?

Raises hand, even though some might not consider me civilized, and I am
certainly not peoples,in that I only speak for myself.

The first years of a decade, century, and millennium start with the year
o of that division of time.

I only use the BCE calendar to avoid confusing the folks who have it wrong.

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Rich Ulrich
If there were common examples of this sort of pedantry
applied elsewhere, that could make a difference.

Any decision from precedent or convention is in danger of
being unreasonable in the literal sense, i.e. not based on
reason. There are good and bad convention, and the
dichotomy is indifferent of how wildely adopted they are.

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by lar3ryca
The first years of a decade, century, and millennium start
with the year o of that division of time.

That is not true:
The first year
of the first decade
of the first century
of the first millenium
starts with the year 1.
By induction,
the same applies
to the first years
of all the consequent
decateds, centuries, and millenia.

I repeat:
this is the natural itemisation
with natural numbers,
(whence they are called natural).
The numerals in English
and many (if not all) other languages
conventionally start with unity,
and the numbering of years
is merely an instance of this.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

You sure do.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 11:59:15 +0300, Anton Shepelev

Post by lar3ryca

Post by lar3ryca
The first years of a decade, century, and millennium start
with the year o of that division of time.

The first year
of the first decade
of the first century
of the first millenium
starts with the year 1.
By induction,
the same applies
to the first years
of all the consequent
decateds, centuries, and millenia.
this is the natural itemisation
with natural numbers,
(whence they are called natural).

Is zero a natural number?

Mr Google gives me Wikipedia,
In mathematics, the natural numbers are the numbers
0, 1, 2, 3, and so on, possibly excluding 0.

Plunking for one arbitrary option is not a good start for an
definitive argument.

I suggest this dictum.
"What we might call the very first decade in BCE has
only nine years; thus, we can maintain a natural and
obvious semantic indicator for numbering later ones.
When two digits start with a 2, they are the 20s."

If you want to preserve "special knowledge" for the
pedants, we can resolve that "a decade of years will
only include nine years, if it is the start of a sequence
that does not linclude the zero ending."

On the other hand, I do see that this qualification
might be used to make fun of pedants. But it will
come up much less often that the specification that
more regularly degrades pedants in popular opinion.

Post by lar3ryca
The numerals in English
and many (if not all) other languages
conventionally start with unity,
and the numbering of years
is merely an instance of this.

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:32:19 -0400, Rich Ulrich

Post by Rich Ulrich
Plunking for one arbitrary option is not a good start for an
definitive argument.

It's not an arbitrary dictum. We are discussing the Gregorian
Calendar, which is a modified version of the Julian Calendar.

In the Gregorian calendar there is no year 0. The year 1 BC is
followed by the year AD 1.

Perhaps that was because when it was first devised, they used Roman
numerals, and in the Roman systerm of numbering there is no zero.
Optiopn base zero only cme into widespread use with the introduction
of Arbic numerals.

Post by Rich Ulrich
I suggest this dictum.
"What we might call the very first decade in BCE has
only nine years; thus, we can maintain a natural and
obvious semantic indicator for numbering later ones.
When two digits start with a 2, they are the 20s."

A decade is a period of 10 years. No need for exceptions.

The decade of the 2020s began on 1 Jan 2020 and will end on 31
December 2029.

The third decade of the 21st century began on 1 Jan 2021 and will end
on 31 Dec 2030.

Both have 10 full years, as has the decade beginning 25 March 2015 and
ending 24 March 2025.

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Steve Hayes
In the Gregorian calendar there is no year 0. The year 1
BC is followed by the year AD 1.

Observe the beautiful symmetry: a "number ray" of natural
numbers going from zero to either direction. There is not
year zero, only point zero.

Post by Steve Hayes
Perhaps that was because when it was first devised, they
used Roman numerals, and in the Roman systerm of numbering
there is no zero.

No, it is universal, why else would you write "first
devised", instead of "zeroeth devised"?

Post by Steve Hayes
Optiopn base zero only cme into widespread use with the
introduction of Arbic numerals.

I hear it is used for /internal/ representation of dates in
the computer, to facilitate calendar calculations. I have
never saw it used as representation for humans.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Anton Shepelev
this is the natural itemisation
with natural numbers,
(whence they are called natural).

Is zero a natural number?

No. It is not natural to start a count with 0 1 2 ...

The definition I learned is that natural numbers start with 1 and the
symbol is N. You write a small zero next to N - N0 - if you need the set
that includes 0.

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by Rich Ulrich
Is zero a natural number?

Definitions differ. From something I wrote a few years ago in another context
where this was relevant:

“There are varying mathematical definitions of what a natural number is,
differing about whether 0 is inside or outside the set. The Oxford
English Dictionary, second edition, does say that they are whole numbers,
not fractional, but it doesn't give a bound, and gives a quotation
talking about the natural numbers from 1 to 100. Since 100 is certainly
*not* the upper bound on natural numbers, we can't take 1 as the lower
bound from that example. The Real Academia Española's dictionary, not of
English but certainly sharing the western academic tradition, says of
"número natural":

1. m. Mat. Cada uno de los elementos de la sucesión 0, 1, 2, 3...

that is, "each of the elements of the succession 0, 1, 2, 3 ...". The
various Wikipedia articles in languages I can read agree.”

Post by Rich Ulrich
Mr Google gives me Wikipedia,
In mathematics, the natural numbers are the numbers
0, 1, 2, 3, and so on, possibly excluding 0.
Plunking for one arbitrary option is not a good start for an
definitive argument.
I suggest this dictum.
"What we might call the very first decade in BCE has
only nine years; thus, we can maintain a natural and
obvious semantic indicator for numbering later ones.
When two digits start with a 2, they are the 20s."
If you want to preserve "special knowledge" for the
pedants, we can resolve that "a decade of years will
only include nine years, if it is the start of a sequence
that does not linclude the zero ending."
On the other hand, I do see that this qualification
might be used to make fun of pedants. But it will
come up much less often that the specification that
more regularly degrades pedants in popular opinion.

Post by Anton Shepelev
The numerals in English
and many (if not all) other languages
conventionally start with unity,
and the numbering of years
is merely an instance of this.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Anton Shepelev
this is the natural itemisation
with natural numbers,
owhence they are called natural).

Is zero a natural number?

No, and in many languages the words for numbers 1..10
predate by a large margin the word for 0, which is often of
borrowed origin. Zero is not a natural number, man having
had no conception of number when there were no objects to
count.

Post by Rich Ulrich
Plunking for one arbitrary option is not a good start for
an definitive argument.

Right. My actual appeal is to orginal numerals, which start
with unity: first (1), second (2), &c.

Post by Rich Ulrich
I suggest this dictum. "What we might call the very first
decade in BCE has only nine years;

Now that's worse than an arbitrary option.

Post by Rich Ulrich
thus, we can maintain a natural and obvious semantic
indicator for numbering later ones. When two digits start
with a 2, they are the 20s."

We may simply define the 20s as denoting 20..29, which make
perfect sense without having the first decade one year
short.

Post by Rich Ulrich
If you want to preserve "special knowledge" for the
pedants, we can resolve that "a decade of years will only
include nine years, if it is the start of a sequence that
does not linclude the zero ending."

IMHO, that's crazy.

[lar3ryca]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by lar3ryca
The first years of a decade, century, and millennium start
with the year o of that division of time.

The first year
of the first decade
of the first century
of the first millenium
starts with the year 1.
By induction,
the same applies
to the first years
of all the consequent
decateds, centuries, and millenia.
this is the natural itemisation
with natural numbers,
(whence they are called natural).
The numerals in English
and many (if not all) other languages
conventionally start with unity,
and the numbering of years
is merely an instance of this.

I disagree, but I will not attempt to change your mind.
When I was born, I was 0 years old.
That's the way I look at it, and I don't care how anyone else looks at it.

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Anton Shepelev
this is the natural itemisation
with natural numbers,
(whence they are called natural).
The numerals in English
and many (if not all) other languages
conventionally start with unity,
and the numbering of years
is merely an instance of this.

When I was born, I was 0 years old.

And so was I. I agree.

Post by lar3ryca
That's the way I look at it, and I don't care how anyone
else looks at it.

And so do I.

I fear, however, that you are confusing
indexing (1st, 2nd, 3rd...) with counting (0, 1, 2...).

[lar3ryca]

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Anton Shepelev
this is the natural itemisation
with natural numbers,
(whence they are called natural).
The numerals in English
and many (if not all) other languages
conventionally start with unity,
and the numbering of years
is merely an instance of this.

When I was born, I was 0 years old.

And so was I. I agree.

Post by lar3ryca
That's the way I look at it, and I don't care how anyone
else looks at it.

And so do I.
I fear, however, that you are confusing
indexing (1st, 2nd, 3rd...) with counting (0, 1, 2...).

Have it your way.

I'll have it my way.

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:56:54 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by lar3ryca
When I was born, I was 0 years old.
That's the way I look at it, and I don't care how anyone else looks at it.

That's the way everyone looks at it.
And at the end of your first year, you were one year old.

But in this case we are not talking about the years of one's age, but
the year in which one reached that age.

And in this case, for the purpose of calculation in the Gregorian
Calendar, Jesus Christ was born on 25 December 1BC, and was
circumcised 8 days later on 1 January AD1.

There is no year 0 in the Gregorian Calendar.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:56:54 -0400, Joy Beeson

Post by lar3ryca
When I was born, I was 0 years old.
That's the way I look at it, and I don't care how anyone else looks at it.

That's the way everyone looks at it.
And at the end of your first year, you were one year old.

But in this case we are not talking about the years of one's age, but
the year in which one reached that age.

You may be, but I am not.

Post by Steve Hayes
And in this case, for the purpose of calculation in the Gregorian
Calendar, Jesus Christ was born on 25 December 1BC, and was
circumcised 8 days later on 1 January AD1.
There is no year 0 in the Gregorian Calendar.

That's right, but I don't calculate years, decade, or millennia using
the gregorian calculator. Nor do I care when (or even if) JC was born.

But I don't mind if you do.

[Peter Moylan]

When I was born, I was 0 years old. That's the way I look at it,
and I don't care how anyone else looks at it.

That's the way everyone looks at it.
And at the end of your first year, you were one year old.

There are exceptions. Until recently, a newborn Japanese baby was one
year old. (This has now changed, I gather.)

[Opinicus]

Post by Peter Moylan
There are exceptions. Until recently, a newborn Japanese baby was one
year old. (This has now changed, I gather.)

Did they used to say something that translates literally as "He's in
his first year"?.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Opinicus

Post by Peter Moylan
There are exceptions. Until recently, a newborn Japanese baby was one
year old. (This has now changed, I gather.)

Did they used to say something that translates literally as "He's in
his first year"?.

I don't know Japanese, so can't be certain, but the impression I have
after a web search was that what they said translated literally as "He
is age 1".

[Snidely]

Post by Peter Moylan

When I was born, I was 0 years old. That's the way I look at it,
and I don't care how anyone else looks at it.

That's the way everyone looks at it.
And at the end of your first year, you were one year old.

There are exceptions. Until recently, a newborn Japanese baby was one
year old. (This has now changed, I gather.)

Race horses are 1-year-olds on the first January 1st after their birth.
Fine if they arrived in February or March, the months most horses are
born, but the spread has apparently increased in the last 100 years
because of newer tools for the intervening humans.

/dps

[Snidely]

Snidely is guilty of <***@snitoo> as of
11/1/2024 2:46:52 AM

Post by Peter Moylan

When I was born, I was 0 years old. That's the way I look at it,
and I don't care how anyone else looks at it.

That's the way everyone looks at it.
And at the end of your first year, you were one year old.

There are exceptions. Until recently, a newborn Japanese baby was one
year old. (This has now changed, I gather.)

Race horses are 1-year-olds on the first January 1st after their birth. Fine
if they arrived in February or March, the months most horses are born, but
the spread has apparently increased in the last 100 years because of newer
tools for the intervening humans.

The issue of the age of course tends to show up if the spread includes
December for the issue of the mare.

/dps

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Peter Moylan

When I was born, I was 0 years old. That's the way I look at it,
and I don't care how anyone else looks at it.

That's the way everyone looks at it.
And at the end of your first year, you were one year old.

There are exceptions. Until recently, a newborn Japanese baby was one
year old. (This has now changed, I gather.)

Tibetans also used to say that, but they now probably do whatever the
Chinese government tells them to do.

[Opinicus]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2024 07:25:11 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan
There are exceptions. Until recently, a newborn Japanese baby was one
year old. (This has now changed, I gather.)

Tibetans also used to say that, but they now probably do whatever the
Chinese government tells them to do.

Some regional dialects in Turkish do something like this as well. (I
still hear older folks using it from time to time.) It caused so much
trouble for official purposes (getting a driver's license, being
inducted into the military, voting etc etc) that parliament had to
pass a law mandating how age was to be calculated.

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Opinicus

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan
There are exceptions. Until recently, a newborn
Japanese baby was one year old. (This has now changed,
I gather.)

Tibetans also used to say that, but they now probably do
whatever the Chinese government tells them to do.

Some regional dialects in Turkish do something like this
as well. (I still hear older folks using it from time to
time.) It caused so much trouble for official purposes
(getting a driver's license, being inducted into the
military, voting etc etc) that parliament had to pass a
law mandating how age was to be calculated.

Whenever such ambiguity is possible and dangerous, the
standard formula in Russian is "age in full years,"
indicating rounding down.

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Opinicus

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan
There are exceptions. Until recently, a newborn
Japanese baby was one year old. (This has now changed,
I gather.)

Tibetans also used to say that, but they now probably do
whatever the Chinese government tells them to do.

Some regional dialects in Turkish do something like this
as well. (I still hear older folks using it from time to
time.) It caused so much trouble for official purposes
(getting a driver's license, being inducted into the
military, voting etc etc) that parliament had to pass a
law mandating how age was to be calculated.

Whenever such ambiguity is possible and dangerous, the
standard formula in Russian is "age in full years,"
indicating rounding down.

Ah, that’s a good approach. Here and now we speak in months until (usually)
after the first birthday, so it is unusual to come ups. (And days before the
end of the first week, and weeks before the end of the first month...)

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Opinicus

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan
There are exceptions. Until recently, a newborn Japanese baby
was one year old. (This has now changed, I gather.)

Tibetans also used to say that, but they now probably do
whatever the Chinese government tells them to do.

Some regional dialects in Turkish do something like this as well.
(I still hear older folks using it from time to time.) It caused
so much trouble for official purposes (getting a driver's
license, being inducted into the military, voting etc etc) that
parliament had to pass a law mandating how age was to be
calculated.

Whenever such ambiguity is possible and dangerous, the standard
formula in Russian is "age in full years," indicating rounding
down.

Ah, that’s a good approach. Here and now we speak in months until
(usually) after the first birthday, so it is unusual to come ups.
(And days before the end of the first week, and weeks before the end
of the first month...)

When people asked my younger brother his age, his reply was "four in
July". That formula lasted him almost a fully year.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Ah, that’s a good approach. Here and now we speak in months until
(usually) after the first birthday, so it is unusual to come ups.
(And days before the end of the first week, and weeks before the end
of the first month...)

When people asked my younger brother his age, his reply was "four in
July". That formula lasted him almost a fully year.

My age: One hundred in 2048.

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Opinicus

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan
There are exceptions. Until recently, a newborn
Japanese baby was one year old. (This has now changed,
I gather.)

Tibetans also used to say that, but they now probably do
whatever the Chinese government tells them to do.

Some regional dialects in Turkish do something like this
as well. (I still hear older folks using it from time to
time.) It caused so much trouble for official purposes
(getting a driver's license, being inducted into the
military, voting etc etc) that parliament had to pass a
law mandating how age was to be calculated.

Whenever such ambiguity is possible and dangerous, the
standard formula in Russian is "age in full years,"
indicating rounding down.

Ah, that’s a good approach. Here and now we speak in months until (usually)
after the first birthday, so it is unusual to come ups. (And days before the
end of the first week, and weeks before the end of the first month...)

I don't remember whether my classwork taught it to me, but
as a working data analyst and statistician, I learned to pay
attention to how AGE in particular was collected for (say)
school children -- rounded down makes the "average age"
six months lower than precise computation from dates of
"Today minus Birth date".

The classroom did tell us that a convention for a 'range' of
scores is to assume the midpoint, 'but be careful.' When I
think about it, though, I don't remember when I had to be
careful about ranges except for the couple of times I worked
with kids' ages.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Opinicus

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan
There are exceptions. Until recently, a newborn
Japanese baby was one year old. (This has now changed,
I gather.)

Tibetans also used to say that, but they now probably do
whatever the Chinese government tells them to do.

Some regional dialects in Turkish do something like this
as well. (I still hear older folks using it from time to
time.) It caused so much trouble for official purposes
(getting a driver's license, being inducted into the
military, voting etc etc) that parliament had to pass a
law mandating how age was to be calculated.

Whenever such ambiguity is possible and dangerous, the
standard formula in Russian is "age in full years,"
indicating rounding down.

Ah, that’s a good approach. Here and now we speak in months until (usually)
after the first birthday,

Up to 18 months in my experience.

Post by Aidan Kehoe
so it is unusual to come ups. (And days before the
end of the first week, and weeks before the end of the first month...)

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 17:44:12 +0300, Anton Shepelev

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Opinicus

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan
There are exceptions. Until recently, a newborn
Japanese baby was one year old. (This has now changed,
I gather.)

Tibetans also used to say that, but they now probably do
whatever the Chinese government tells them to do.

Some regional dialects in Turkish do something like this
as well. (I still hear older folks using it from time to
time.) It caused so much trouble for official purposes
(getting a driver's license, being inducted into the
military, voting etc etc) that parliament had to pass a
law mandating how age was to be calculated.

Whenever such ambiguity is possible and dangerous, the
standard formula in Russian is "age in full years,"
indicating rounding down.

In SAfE the equivalent on official forms is "age at last birthday".

That doesn't cover the Japanese reckoning, but it's good enough for
government work.

[Opinicus]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:56:54 -0400, Joy Beeson

And at the end of your first year, you were one year old.

And how old are you on the second day of your first year?

Some languages may differ on this. Turkish does for example. Possibly
others do as well.

[lar3ryca]

Post by lar3ryca
When I was born, I was 0 years old.
That's the way I look at it, and I don't care how anyone else looks at it.

That's the way everyone looks at it.
And at the end of your first year, you were one year old.

That's right, and the first year was year 0.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Rich Ulrich
I suppose, if the OTHER calendar systems did it your way,
that could make a difference.

Which ones? How many civilised peoples use a calendar
system startng with year zero?

This discussion was fought around the year 2000. There's no point in
repeating it. There will be no agreement, but my guess is that the
0-count is the largest group.

This article explains both views:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 15:56:29 +0300, Anton Shepelev

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Steve Hayes
Since then I've noticed quite a lot of ambiguity in such
references, and decided to run a poll on exTwitter and
Mastodon.
When someone writes "the 2000s" do you think
2000-2009 66.7%
2000 to now 33.3%

I believe the sane, simple, and conventional intepretation
is a reference to a decade. It is also the most frequently
intended meaning.

And it seems from the polls that roughly 2 out of 3 people interpret
it as meaning a decade.

Post by Anton Shepelev
But there is a nuance: formally speaking,
a cetury starts with a first year and ends with an
hundredth, e.g. the 18th century comprises years
1801..1900 . It is therefore logical to apply the same to
decades, making 1990 the last year of the eighties.

The current decade is the twenties, or the twenty twenties, if you
prefer and that is from the beginning of 2020 to the end of 2029.

But if you are not talking about the twenties, but about the third
decade of the 21st century, that begins and ends a year later.

[Anton Shepelev]

Post by Anton Shepelev
I believe the sane, simple, and conventional intepretation
is a reference to a decade. It is also the most
formally speaking, a cetury starts with a first year and
ends with an hundredth, e.g. the 18th century comprises
years 1801..1900 . It is therefore logical to apply the
same to decades, making 1990 the last year of the
eighties.

I have reconsidered. When used as the divisions of the
calendar, /decade/, /century/, and /millenium/ refers to the
a range of years 1..10/100/1000, for consistency with the
numbering of single years: a decade comprises ten years,
from 1st (year one) to 10th (year ten); a century comprises
ten decades, from 1st to 10th, &c.

The -ties notation, however, refers to decades with the same
digit in the three highest positions, offset a year behind
the corresponding calendar decade, because this is the
literal and intuitive meaning, e.g. the eighties include
years 1980..1989, whereas the ninth calendar decade includes
years 1981..1990.

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:33:33 +0300, Anton Shepelev

Post by Anton Shepelev

Post by Anton Shepelev
I believe the sane, simple, and conventional intepretation
is a reference to a decade. It is also the most
formally speaking, a cetury starts with a first year and
ends with an hundredth, e.g. the 18th century comprises
years 1801..1900 . It is therefore logical to apply the
same to decades, making 1990 the last year of the
eighties.

I have reconsidered. When used as the divisions of the
calendar, /decade/, /century/, and /millenium/ refers to the
a range of years 1..10/100/1000, for consistency with the
numbering of single years: a decade comprises ten years,
from 1st (year one) to 10th (year ten); a century comprises
ten decades, from 1st to 10th, &c.
The -ties notation, however, refers to decades with the same
digit in the three highest positions, offset a year behind
the corresponding calendar decade, because this is the
literal and intuitive meaning, e.g. the eighties include
years 1980..1989, whereas the ninth calendar decade includes
years 1981..1990.

Exactly.

The decade of the 2020s runs from 1 Jan 2020 to 31 December 2029

But the third decade of the 21st century runs from 1 Jan 2021 to 31
Dec 2030.