Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread David Malone
I belive this was because the year followed the taxation cycle of the government whereas the day+month followed the religiously inherited tradtion. Indeed. For that matter, the start of the U.K. tax year was left alone when the calendar changed, and is now 6 April (it should be 7 April,

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Rob Seaman said: In the UK in 1750, there were two different Julian calendars in use: the day and month enumeration matched, but year numbers changed at different dates (1st January in Scotland, 25th March in England and Wales). I've heard this said, but what exactly does this mean from the

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Zefram said: Looks a lot like that. They used not to be, though: it seems that the oldest convention was to start the counted year on January 1, where Julius had put (well, left) the start of the calendar year. Um, March was the first month of the year; look at the derivation of September,

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Poul-Henning Kamp said: 22 March 1750 23 March 1750 24 March 1750 25 March 1751 26 March 1751 27 March 1751 I belive this was because the year followed the taxation cycle of the government whereas the day+month followed the religiously inherited

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Ed Davies said: Yes, I think that's right. And, as I understand it, we still keep that change of year in mid-month but now it's on April 5th for the change of tax year. When we switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar the tax year was kept the same length so its date changed. That

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
John Cowan said: References for this? Your explanation makes a lot of sense and I'm prepared to be convinced, but have been skeptical of experimental design as applied to questions of human behavior since participating in studies as a requirement of undergraduate psychology coursework. And

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Zefram
Clive D.W. Feather wrote: So humans will cope until the solar day is about 27 (present) hours long, after which we'll probably start to move to a system of two sleep-wake cycles per day. I doubt our ability to handle a 14-hour sleep-wake cycle. I suspect that (if we're

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Rob Seaman
Clive D.W. Feather wrote: March was the first month of the year; look at the derivation of September, for example. Makes the zero vs. one indexing question of C and FORTRAN programmers look sane. I've pointed people to the whole 7, 8, 9, 10 sequence from September to December on those

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Peter Bunclark
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Rob Seaman wrote: Clive D.W. Feather wrote: March was the first month of the year; look at the derivation of September, for example. Makes the zero vs. one indexing question of C and FORTRAN programmers look sane. I've pointed people to the whole 7, 8, 9, 10 sequence

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Rob Seaman
John Cowan wrote: In the cover story, it was used as a final defense against the Invaders and destroyed by them. In the true story, it was destroyed because it constituted a hazard, but I forget exactly how. Thanks! But not sure true story is the opposite of cover story, here :-) Both

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Peter Bunclark
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, Rob Seaman wrote: I thought Julius renamed some high value summer month and wanna-be Augustus did likewise, stealing a day from February to make August the same length. If they put two extra months in, where were those 62 days originally? Yes of course, and a quick

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Greg Hennessy
Hands up if you wish you had the authority to swing that kind of timekeeping standardization adjustment. It's a lot easier to get consensus if you are willing and able to kill those with opposing viewpoints. :)

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread John Cowan
Rob Seaman scripsit: Of course, any old I, Claudius fan knows that Augustus was originally named Octavius. Mere coincidence that the eighth child would end up naming the eighth month? Almost certainly. The eighth month was Sextilis, as July was originally Quin(c)tilis. -- John Cowan

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Rob Seaman said: I thought Julius renamed some high value summer month and wanna-be Augustus did likewise, stealing a day from February to make August the same length. If they put two extra months in, where were those 62 days originally? Very briefly: - Julius and Augustus renamed months 5

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Clive D.W. Feather
Rob Seaman said: John Cowan wrote: In the cover story, it was used as a final defense against the Invaders and destroyed by them. In the true story, it was destroyed because it constituted a hazard, but I forget exactly how. Thanks! But not sure true story is the opposite of cover story,

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread John Cowan
Clive D.W. Feather scripsit: I don't think John's referring to Against the Fall of Night versus The City and the Stars. Rather, at least in the latter, the official (cover) story of Diaspar (sp?) and the Invaders disagrees in many aspects with the true story as revealed by Vandemar (sp?).

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Cowan writes: Rob Seaman scripsit: Old English had its own set of month names entirely unrelated to the Latin ones: if they had survived, they would have been Afteryule, Solmath 'mud-month', Rethe[math] 'rough-month', Astron [pl. of 'Easter'], Thrimilch

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread David Malone
Quintilis was renamed after Julius Caesar. Later Sextilis was renamed after Augustus Caesar. It is often said that the month lengths were changed at the same time, but at least one version of that story is fabricated and there's a distinct lack of evidence for it. Other emperors had months

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread Rob Seaman
On Jun 8, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote: Rob Seaman said: Thanks! But not sure true story is the opposite of cover story, here :-) I don't think John's referring to Against the Fall of Night versus The City and the Stars. Rather, at least in the latter, the official (cover)

Re: building consensus

2006-06-08 Thread John Cowan
Poul-Henning Kamp scripsit: Old English had its own set of month names entirely unrelated to the Latin ones: if they had survived, they would have been Afteryule, Solmath 'mud-month', Rethe[math] 'rough-month', Astron [pl. of 'Easter'], Thrimilch 'three-milking', Forelithe, Afterlithe,