+23

# this is so hilarious...when you celebrate your21st burthday, you have finished 21 years on this planet and start your 22nd year. So if this is year one of the century of 'me', in ten years it will be year ten. that year will end and year 11 will begin and so will the next decade: year 11 to year 20. Can you people count and conceptualise a tranche of ten??? Analogy...a cup of 100 mililitres is a century ( 100 ml ok?) you can't stop at 99 ml and call it a century past We are within the year whatever, just like you are within your own socks... amirite?

The voters have decided that this post is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

Yikes, I got a headache just trying to figure out what you're asking.

I'm going to try to translate so I can understand well enough to answer.

"this is so hilarious...when you celebrate your21st burthday, you have finished 21 years on this planet and start your 22nd year."
It seems your point in mentioning this is that when you celebrate a birthday, it's for the cardinal number of years that have passed for you, not the ordinal number of the year beginning for you. (1)

"So if this is year one of the century of 'me', in ten years it will be year ten."
Actually it will be year eleven.

Think about it, if this is year one of anything, then in one year it will be year two of that same thing. One year later it will be year three. How many years in total have passed since year one at that point? Two: the "one year" I mentioned earlier, and the "one year" I mentioned immediately after that.

Anyway, it seems to me your point in mentioning this is that time passes. I can't glean any other meaning from it. (2)

"that year will end and year 11 will begin and so will the next decade: year 11 to year 20."
Again, I'm forced to conclude your point in mentioning this is that time passes. (2)

"Can you people count and conceptualise a tranche of ten??? Analogy...a cup of 100 mililitres is a century ( 100 ml ok?) you can't stop at 99 ml and call it a century past"
From what I understand, you're saying a century is strictly 100 years, and that 99 years does not qualify. (3)

"We are within the year whatever, just like you are within your own socks... amirite?"
In context with what you've said previously, I think what you're saying here is that even though you celebrate your Nth birthday when you've passed N years on this earth, you've actually entered into your N+1th year, not your Nth year. (4)

So, to summarize your argument as I understand it:
1. When you celebrate your Nth birthday, you've finished N years on this planet and start your N+1th year.
2. The passage of time is inevitable.
3. A century is strictly 100 years. 99 years does not qualify.
4. When you celebrate your Nth birthday, you've finished N years on this planet and start your N+1th year.

Or, to simplify:
1. When you celebrate your Nth birthday, you've finished N years on this planet and start your N+1th year.
2. A century is strictly 100 years. 99 years does not qualify.

Anyway, I don't see the point you're making. I agree with both of the statements I was able to glean that you may have been trying to make, but I don't understand how you're proposing they relate to one another or what conclusion we're supposed to draw from them.

I think you MIGHT be trying to say the following:
When you celebrate your Nth birthday, you're entering your N+1th year. HOWEVER, a century is strictly 100 years, and 99 years does not qualify. THEREFORE, when you enter your 100th year of life, you have NOT yet passed a century, because you are only 99 years old.

But... again, what's the point of saying as much?

It FEELS like you might be trying to make the argument that the practice of numbering our birthdays by how many years have passed instead of which year we're entering is a bad practice. But that doesn't hold up under the reasoning you've submitted. If you were trying to argue we should number our birthdays by which year we're entering, then by mentioning the 100 vs. 99 thing, you've proven the opposite of what you must have wanted to prove. After all, if we numbered our birthdays by which year we're entering, then someone who's 99 years old, and thus has not lived for a full century, would be considered age 100 instead of age 99. (Not age 100 as in 100 years old, but age 100 as in 100th year.)

Who gives a flying fudge-sickle ?