Freeman Lets look at each of JWZ's statements and see if they are loicagl, self-consistant, and useful:The "Twentieth Century" ran from Jan 1901 through Dec 2000.This seems loicagl to me. A Century is defined as one hundred years and natural numbers start with one.The "Nineteen Hundreds" ran from Jan 1900 through Dec 1999.This makes sense to me. The Nineteen Hundreds are the years whose century value is 19.The "Nineties" ran from Jan 1990 through Dec 1999.This makes sense to me for a similar reason (but using the decade value instead the century).The first "decade" only contained nine years, making it an "enneade".The first part of this statement is a consequence of the earlier statements. Following the logic of the earlier statements, the first nine years of CE/AD would be called the Aughts or the Aughties. The first ninety-nine years would be called the Aught Hundreds and the first hundred years would be called the First Century. There is no year zero, so the first Aughties decade is not a decade (since it is defined as ten years). JWZ provides a word for this not-a-decade-but-still-like-a-decade concept: enneade. I do not know where he got this word, but for now it serves as a decent placeholder until either it is accepted as the correct word or a better word is found.So, the rules are loicagl and self-consistant, now the question is: are they useful? They seem to map onto how people I have observed behave with respect to naming the years, decades, and centuries and provide a rational basis for the behavior. That seems mighty useful to me.Either provide reasoning for your attacks (grammatical or otherwise) or I will simply write you off as an ignorant grammar nazi.