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,
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
(
> 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 mo
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 't
Peter Bunclark wrote:
>hang on I thought the numbering start Jan=1 ... Dec=10 and got interrupted
>when Julius Caesar put an extra month in and so did Augustus...
As I understand it...
The original Roman calendar (attributed to Romulus) had only ten months:
March, April, May, June, Quintilis, Sex
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
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 "co
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 mont
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 [
Rob Seaman scripsit:
> 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 (admittedly rare) occasions when
> the issue has come up. Presumably other languages agree in usag
Peter Bunclark said:
> hang on I thought the numbering start Jan=1 ... Dec=10 and got interrupted
> when Julius Caesar put an extra month in and so did Augustus...
No.
Mar = 1, Apr = 2, May = 3, Jun = 4, Quin = 5, Sext = 6, Sept = 7,
Oct = 8, Nov = 9, Dec = 10.
Quintilis was renamed July by Juli
> 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. :)
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
Peter Bunclark wrote:
hang on I thought the numbering start Jan=1 ... Dec=10 and got
interrupted
when Julius Caesar put an extra month in and so did Augustus...
I thought Julius renamed some high value summer month and wanna-be
Augustus did likewise, stealing a day from February to make August
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 v
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, 1
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 (admi
Rob Seaman scripsit:
> Does anyone remember if Earth-Moon dynamics plays a
> role in the story?
It's mentioned, yes. 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 e
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
More entries for the FAQ:
Q: How complicated is timekeeping?
A: Very
Q: How long has it taken us to arrive at today's timekeeping standards?
A: Ages
Q: How wide are the legal implications of changing timekeeping?
A: Pretty wide
Q: Which do the Irish prefer, paying tax or the English?
A: [oh
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.
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.
T
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 religiousl
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"
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 me
25 matches
Mail list logo
