18 ms·

Wow. A linguistical off-by-one bug. I have never noticed that before. Interestingly, Wikipedia contradicts itself here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1600s ht

Wow. A linguistical off-by-one bug. I have never noticed that before. Interestingly, Wikipedia contradicts itself here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1600s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1600s > The period from 1600 to 1699, synonymous with the 17th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century > The 17th century was the century that lasted from January 1, 1601, to December 31, 1700. I think this is going to annoy me until I forget about it.

Leherenn 6y ago
Synonymous does not always mean "exactly the same", some times it's "nearly the same". Most synonyms have subtle nuance differences I would say. In this case, if we are talking about hundred-year spans at once, a shift of 1 year is irrelevant, thus I would say "synonymous" is valid. I hope this soothes your annoyance.
- ponyfleisch 6y ago
  I get your point, but would you say "a 99 year period" is synonymous with "a century"?
  - Leherenn 6y ago
    Generally yes, though it would depend on the exact context. The Spanish monarchy in the 1600s or in the 17th century is the same for me, same if you say "the Spanish monarchy (1600-1699)", unless a specific event happened in 1700 (revolution?).
  - drdec 6y ago
    Both the 1600s and the 17th century are 100 years long.
    - ponyfleisch 6y ago
      Yes, that wasn't my point. I find the term "synonymous" when used for unambiguous numerical values that are off by 1% strange. But i'm not a native english speaker. Roughly 1% of people born in the 17th century were not born in the 1600's.
mcv 6y ago
Never noticed it? This was a big topic around the turn of the millennium. Was the turn of the millennium the same as the turn of the odometer (2000) or was it the actual start of the third millennium AD (2001)?
- ponyfleisch 6y ago
  Yes, I was aware that years not being zero-indexed can create confusion, but I never noticed this particular consequence of that.

Leherenn 6y ago

Synonymous does not always mean "exactly the same", some times it's "nearly the same". Most synonyms have subtle nuance differences I would say. In this case, if we are talking about hundred-year spans at once, a shift of 1 year is irrelevant, thus I would say "synonymous" is valid. I hope this soothes your annoyance.

ponyfleisch 6y ago
I get your point, but would you say "a 99 year period" is synonymous with "a century"?
- Leherenn 6y ago
  Generally yes, though it would depend on the exact context. The Spanish monarchy in the 1600s or in the 17th century is the same for me, same if you say "the Spanish monarchy (1600-1699)", unless a specific event happened in 1700 (revolution?).
- drdec 6y ago
  Both the 1600s and the 17th century are 100 years long.
  - ponyfleisch 6y ago
    Yes, that wasn't my point. I find the term "synonymous" when used for unambiguous numerical values that are off by 1% strange. But i'm not a native english speaker. Roughly 1% of people born in the 17th century were not born in the 1600's.

mcv 6y ago

Never noticed it? This was a big topic around the turn of the millennium. Was the turn of the millennium the same as the turn of the odometer (2000) or was it the actual start of the third millennium AD (2001)?

ponyfleisch 6y ago
Yes, I was aware that years not being zero-indexed can create confusion, but I never noticed this particular consequence of that.