BS: Numbering the Years...

Subject: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 12:23 PM

From Wiki: "As Rome grew from a small city-state in central Italy into a regional power, the Carthaginians took a pragmatic approach, encouraging trade and signing a series of treaties that set out their separate zones of influence, first in 509 BCE, then in 348 and again in 278."

Seeing those dates made me realize the convenience we enjoy in modern times. Can you imagine what we went through so long ago?

We said, Oh, it must have been Year 15- that is when the young king took the throne.

Or possibly it was just Year 3- that was when little Bobby was born.

Or Year 43- that is when the little wife and I were married.

Yikes!

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 12:31 PM

Must have been a sonuvabitch to write, too.

.oot ,etirw ot nugavunos a neeb evah tsuM

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 12:33 PM

.daer enola teL

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Musket
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 12:41 PM

retaw seye ruoy edam evah tsum noihsaf yggod

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: gnu
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 01:25 PM

Hahahaa.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 01:32 PM

.laugnil-itlum os erew uoy wonk t'ndid I

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 01:34 PM

Few people had - or needed - a long historical perspective. Only rich and sophisticated merchants needed to think in cycles much longer than a couple of years. For politics, in most places everything was reset anyway when the king changed, so regnal years were quite enough. For farmers, the planting and the harvest dominated everything, and the horizon was the year. For most city dwellers, the margin above bare survival was so slight that the horizon was the next bread dole (for lucky Romans) or even next meal, not the next year.

Pagan time was cyclical, based on festivals and games with their accompanying sacrifices, and it was only when the idea of an end time became imprinted through the millenarial religions, that a continuous time became desirable. Although the Romans had their AUC (ab Urbe condita- from the city's foundation) based on somewhere about 750BC, it was never used for much, and it was after the failure of the Second Coming to arrive as soon as expected, that the desire to count the years since the Nativity led Little Dennis (Dionysius Exiguus) to create our present linear and continuous dating in the 6th century.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 03:59 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/9693576/Jesus-was-born-years-earlier-than-thought-claims-Pope.html

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Mr Red
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 04:37 PM

methinks this thread is numbing the years

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 05:12 PM

Guest#, that's an interesting link. The then-pope asserted in his book that Jesus was born several years before what is commonly accepted today was based on an error by the historian Dennis, the Small. However the pope doesn't go so far as to pin down the exact year. :)

I like this: "He (Dennis the Small) drew up the new system in part to distance it from the calendar in use at the time, which was based on the years since the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian."

That makes sense to me, that the old 'new' calendar was based on a known event, the years since the reign of a known leader. The new calendar being based on Jesus' birth doesn't make quite as much sense since no one seems to have written it down. :)

"Numbing", Mr. Red? Idle moments produce idle thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 05:26 PM

Ebbie, I recall the argument many decades ago and 4 BC seems the best date to mark Jesus' birth. There have been other calendar changes over the centuries that affect the calendar we use today.

"September 2, 1752, was a great day in the history of sleep.

That Wednesday evening, millions of British subjects in England and the colonies went peacefully to sleep and did not wake up until twelve days later. Behind this feat of narcoleptic prowess was not some revolutionary hypnotic technique or miraculous pharmaceutical discovered in the West Indies. It was, rather, the British Calendar Act of 1751, which declared the day after Wednesday the second to be Thursday the fourteenth."

Read more: The Gregorian Calendar—History http://www.infoplease.com/spot/gregorian1.html#ixzz3XJxaVG9I

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 06:15 PM

I personally number the years since the so-called "Big Bang" and the creation of the Universe. I call those years "ABB". I don't know anything about BBB.

We learned about the possible revised date of the birth of Yeshua of Nazareth back in high school. Benny 16 didn't say anything new there. Of course, the chances are excellent that the birth was in the Spring -- April or May -- as well. The early Christians were adept at transforming things like the Saturnalia. And look what they did to poor Bridget in Ireland!

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 08:52 PM

Dating events which are **asserted** to have actually happened back then involves counting forward and/or backward, based on SWAGs* from a set of known dates and cross-comparing best guesses with the SWAGs of others. Then dates must be translated from different languages and counting systems.

In all these things we have to be careful what assumptions we introduce as supposed facts. When religious claims are mixed with historical dates, a few years variation is common. And when claims about artifacts & specific locations connected with religious claims are added in, 'scholars bicker'.

All this might seem like nit-picking the obvious, but supposed 'studies' of these things are often as political & biased as you might guess.


*sophisticated wild-ass guesses

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Rapparee
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 09:23 PM

The learned Bishop Ussher knew that the Earth, and hence all of creation everywhere, was created at 6:00 p.m., Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC. John Lightfoot said that is was about that time and date but in 3929 BC, Johannes Kepler said that it was in 3992 BC, and Isaac Newton thought it was around 4000 BC. Interestingly, Ussher originally agreed with Newton but moved the date back four years to accommodate the error caused by Dennis the Small.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Apr 15 - 11:46 PM

Rap, I learn so much from you. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 15 Apr 15 - 01:22 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

Rap, quote your source.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 15 - 01:58 AM

Diocletian years were used mainly by Christians as a convenient way of calculating Easter. Wee D's recalculation based on the birth of Christ was involved with his project to rebase the Easter calculation. AD's use as a historiographic sequence marker was developed by Bede of Jarrow later in the 6th century.

The recalculation had a profound and unexpected effect on the history of the British Isles. When Rome lost direct contact with Britain, there had been considerable turmoil in the Church concerning the heresy of the British- born Pelagius, who preached justification by deeds. While Britain and more particularly Ireland were isolated, Dennis's changes meant that the date of Easter changed. And when Rome regained contact with Augustine's mission, they found an island already partly Christianised, but with a different Easter. This apparent confirmation of heterodoxy combined with their suspicion of the native clergy and their own desire to preach to the rulers rather than the ruled, and led tem to dismiss native Christianity to the point that it's still written out of the history books. See Bede's gloating over the slaughter of Christians at the Battle of Chester.

You'll still see it claimed that the native church failed because it "failed to evangelise the Saxons". Indeed it did, at least as far as the upper classes were concerned, but that was because it was a less patrician (and more Patrician) belief system. They conceived their mission as mainly to the poor- I wonder where they could have got that idea from?

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Apr 15 - 02:24 AM

I always thought Gregorian was a game of chants

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Apr 15 - 04:01 AM

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Musket
Date: 15 Apr 15 - 07:43 AM

I am comfortable with compromise. You have to number something so starting it from an approximation of the birth of an amalgamation of possible historical and fictional characters that came together to form the fable of Jesus is as good as any.

A bit like Celsius starting zero at the melting point of water rather than absolute zero. It just works for us. If we dated from the known age of the planet we'd be altering it all the time as knowledge is taken from scientific discovery and Apple would have to come up with a new app to synchronise calendars...

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Apr 15 - 10:54 AM

I didn't consult Wikipedia. I used what I knew or could find out from books I have here.

Another point of controversy between Rome and the Briton/Celtic churches was the matter of the tonsure. The B/C tonsure was shaving the head from the ears forward and letting the rest grow (a Christian mullet, I guess) and the Roman was to shave the middle of the head and leave a fringe on the sides.

Of such petty things great controversies grow....

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Apr 15 - 12:43 PM

One thing I have pondered occasionally is the relationship between ways of abbreviating times and dates (e.g. 'on the 15th', or 'on March 1st') and usage. When you abbreviate the general assumption is that the most interesting information comes first and things that are less interesting - typically because they change less - are left to the end.

So to put it another way is the difference between American M/D/Y date order and European D/M/Y related to the sorts of dates people needed to talk about most?

I have no idea, to be honest, but it would be interesting to trace when the alternative orders became established and why.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Apr 15 - 01:41 PM

""Year  (MDCCCLXXXVIII) was a leap year starting on Sunday on the Gregorian calendar and a leap year. In Germany, 1888 is known as the Year of the Three Emperors. ""



1888-now that was a year to remember, not:) 

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 15 Apr 15 - 03:06 PM

"American M/D/Y date order and European D/M/Y"

I always had a heckuva time with the numerical dates. Subsequently I don't use just numbers. 12/11/2015 confuses me no end. I don't know how to interpret that. Is it December 11, 2015 or November 12, 2015? Therefore, I write it out so there's no mistake. I have come to appreciate forms that have faded DD MM YYYY symbols. Then I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 15 Apr 15 - 03:29 PM

The year numbering system was supposed to have been reset to "Year One" at the moment of my birth, but someone didn't get the memo.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Apr 15 - 03:39 PM

"American M/D/Y date order and European D/M/Y"

Canadian a mixture of both- even more confusing.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: gnu
Date: 15 Apr 15 - 06:08 PM

From: Mr Red - PM Date: 15 Apr 15 - 02:24 AM Hahahahahaaa!

Now... the deal on dates is SI*... year.month.day. 2015.04.15. Anybody who does it otherwise is a... you know. I also call this moment 2015.04.15.19.05.

* International System of Units (SI), French Système Internationale d'Unités, international decimal system of weights and measures derived from and extending the metric system of units. Adopted by the 11th General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1960, it is abbreviated SI in all languages.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Apr 15 - 06:56 PM

I prefer YYYY MM DD HH MM SS, etc. because it's a logical progress (or regression).

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Apr 15 - 02:10 AM

Year-month-day=hour-minute-second-fraction a standard, and logical, but one few use. When British Railways changed to the 24 hour clock for timetabling, there was a certain amount of confusion over trains departing around ten past ten at night. If the train departed at 22:10, 22:11 or 22:12, someone calling timetable enquiries might hear that as "twenty to ten" etc. and so turn up half an hour early for the first, but half an hour late for the other two.

The difference in Roman usage of time and ours is illustrated by the following. The 750th anniversary of Rome's foundation was celebrated in the twnty-fifth year of the reogn of Augustus Caesar (r whatever). Elizabeth II celebrated 60 years as Queen in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Musket
Date: 16 Apr 15 - 02:45 AM

Day month year.

Unless you are a foreigner.

Then we make allowances occasionally.

Tell you what, those adverts for new films coming out. "In cinemas May Twenty Four!" No, you illiterate buffoon. It's Twenty fourth of May.

I used to make a point of not employing people who went up at the end of sentences in the interview. Not knowing dating convention was on my shit list too.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Apr 15 - 09:34 AM

WARNING! Thread drift! Identifying the day of the month.

ROMAN NONES AND IDES

The Roman calender used "reverse-count" dates, each date being termed as so many days before the Calends, then the Nones, then the Ides of a month.

The start of a month was known as the CALENDS and mid-month the IDES (or "division"), meant to coincide with full moon. The 2nd of Ides of a month was one day before the Ides of a month, and the NONES (Lat."nonus", ninth of) was the eighth day before (or ninth day before-&-including) the Ides. For a mnemonic of their forward-dates for certain months:

" March, July, October, May
Have Nones the 7th, Ides the 15th, day. "

In all other (longer) months they were set 2 days earlier (ie. on the 5th and 13th). The reason for being two days (rather than one) earlier was to avoid the 6th and 14th, because even-numbered days (such as the 14th) were regarded as unlucky for religious festivals, and therefore avoided as much as possible!

Here's another mnemonic rhyme on the subject, written by E. Cobham Brewer:

On March the 7th, May, July,
October too, the Nones you spy;
Except in these, those Nones appear
On the 5th day through all the year.
If to the NONE you add an 8
Of every IDE you'll find the date.
-----
Always glad to be of service!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 16 Apr 15 - 09:37 AM

Dave, where the heck is your humo(u)r thread? I have a good one for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Apr 15 - 12:47 PM

GUEST,#:

The First Joke Thread for 2015 seems to have been lost in Max's computer disaster, but someone put up a thread called New Joke Thread for 2015 (or something like that) to serve the same purpose. I've just added a joke post to it, to bring it to the top.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Apr 15 - 01:54 PM

Ebbie:

In the 19th (and I think the early 20th) Century,
in some parts of the US it was common to hear such
statements as "In the year three, I was hired by
the railroad." Which is pretty much what you said
up-thread. I don't know what would have been
done to render the "three" in numerals, 3 or
'3 or '03.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Apr 15 - 06:50 PM

Almost any date writing conventions, spelling, use of commas, pronunciation of 'foreign' words, euphemisms for body parts & functions and what counts as an insult are a result of habits, culture, family and odd historical accidents.
If it were all changed to be rational, 77.629% of the world would panic, protest and be unable to adjust & cope.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 04:51 AM

According to my computer, it is now 1429346902 seconds from the Unix Epoch (1 Januaary 1970).

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 07:16 AM

It's not bad enough that we have a year numbering system based on the unverifiable birthdate of a rabbi/carpenter who may or may not have actually existed, but we also have five of seven days of the weeks named after mythical deities who definitely never existed, five months named after similarly nonexistent deities, two months named for long dead Roman emperors, one month named for a defunct Roman purification ceremony, and four months named for numbers, but those numbers don't reflect where those months fall in the calendar year. Of the nineteen names assigned to our days and months, only Sunday and Monday, named for the sun and moon, make sense. The rest of them need to be tossed out and replaced with more relevant names. Since we have two days named for things in nature (the sun and moon), let's name the other five after similar things like "Waterday". Then, let's rename the months after abstractions like love, courage, kindness, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 08:52 AM

It was on the 12th of Compassion, I remember well--either a Windday or am Earthday, not sure which, but I remember the date all right because it was the day we elected BWL as Calendar Czar.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 09:28 AM

So armed rebellion and active overthrow of the Czar are the only options?

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 10:04 AM

I advocate overthrowing the Tsar instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 10:57 AM

The tyrant will not live to see another Fireday!

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 10:58 AM

I advocate considering very carefully before we do anything.................


Robert Frost
A Semi-Revolution

"I advocate a semi-revolution.
The trouble with a total revolution
(Ask any reputable Rosicrucian)
Is that it brings the same class up on top.
Executives of skillful execution
Will therefore plan to go halfway and stop.
Yes, revolutions are the only salves,
But they're the one thing that should be done by halves."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Total Revolution (An answer for Robert Frost)
Oscar Williams (1900 - 1964)

I advocate a total revolution.
The trouble with a semi-revolution,
it's likely to be slow as evolution.
Who wants to spend the ages in collusion
with Compromise, Complacence and Confusion?
As for the same class coming up on top
that's wholecloth from the propaganda shop;
the old saw says there's loads of room on top.
That's where the poor should really plan to stop.
And speaking of those people called the "haves."
Who own the whole cow and must have the calves
(and plant the wounds so they can sell the salves),
they won't be stopped by doing things by halves.
I say that for a permanent solution
there's nothing like a total revolution!

P.S. And may I add by way of a conclusion
I wouldn't dream to ask a Rosicrucian.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 12:44 PM

I don't think one can be elected Czar. My impression is that it's more a matter of being dope-slapped by the hand of God and hearing a loud voice say, "Hey! You're the Czar! Get off your ass and do some Czar stuff! Oppress the poor! Impale a few enemies! Wear ermine!"

And anyway, if I were Calendar Czar I'd name what's currently known as Friday after myself, just so I could hear people say. "Thank God it's Bruceday!" Then I'd name the other days and months after eighteen of my closest imaginary friends. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that rot.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 01:28 PM

My German professor in college was explaining the names of the days of the week in German, and commented about Saturday (Samstag) that "I don't think there were any Teutonic gods named Sam."

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 01:30 PM

I like BWL's comments and suggestions on (re)naming our days and months. How do we get started??

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 01:44 PM

Samstag follows Frodotag, doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 01:47 PM

First, we need to know what day, month, year, century and millennium it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 01:50 PM

Does Solartag follow Samtag?

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: wysiwyg
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 04:30 PM

UncDaveO, that would be AUGHT three, as yer aughter knows.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 04:37 PM

where abouts of your known children? 

The above old TV public announcement reminds me of an old joke
Canada/USA:
It's 11 o'clock, do you know where your children are?... 
France:
It's 11 o'clock, do you know where your wife is?... 
Greece:
It's 11 o'clock, do you know where your husband is?... 
Poland:
It's 11 o'clock, do you know what time it is?...

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 05:51 PM

Not to forget the months of Revolutionary France: Boozy, Misty, Frosty, Snowy, Rainy, Windy, Sprouty, Flowery, Grassy, Corny, Sweaty and Fruity.

Or: Brumaire, Frimaire, Nivôse, Pluviôse, Ventôse, Germinal, Floréal, Prairial, Messidor, Thermidor, and Fructidor.

Only Thermidor is remembered now, as the end of the Jacobin Terror and the start of a different one.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 06:04 PM

And then only because some chef named a way of cooking lobster after it...

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST,#
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 07:14 PM

Name the days of the week after the seven dwarfs. It would be helpful to those of us who can only ever remember six.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Monique
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 07:42 PM

Guest, you forgot Vendémiaire. What will we drink if grapes aren't harvested!

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 10:32 PM

To get us started:

Sunday
Monday
Earthday
Humpday
?
?
?



Sunmonth
Moonmonth
Mercury month
Venus
Earth
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Uranus
Neptune
Pluto

OK- what is the name of the remaining month?

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Thompson
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 03:27 AM

That 'BCE/CE' (Before Common Era/Common Era) thing really annoys me. It's a pure anti-Christian push by academics wishing not to offend anyone who might not want to date their time from the supposed date of the birth of Christ - and yet using the birth of Christ without admitting it. I can't see the point of this pretence, or of shedding a two-thousand-year-old dating tradition. And I couldn't call myself a Christian.

What I could call myself is a researcher, and I've discovered that my normal way of writing the date - April 19, 2015 - is absolutely useless for research purposes. If I'm looking, say, for a letter written in, say, June 1915, I have to search through all letters written by my subjects in 1912, because I can't find them though a search for "June 1912". I am attempting to switch the habit of years and start writing the date instead as 19 April 2015.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Musket
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 03:47 AM

Welcome to the sane world of The UK. We remain bemused that we leave you to your own devices for a measly 250 years and you forget how to write dates...

The AD/BC stuff is interesting. The BCE etc may well be technically more fitting but most of us aren't offended by tradition. The idiots pushing technically correct terminology seem to be the sort who say "I mass 100Kg" as technically you "weigh" 9.81KN.

AD/BC is purely perpetuating a tradition rather than a reality. No problem with that per se. As western religion is falling and dying out, it becomes important to keep at least some quaint heritage aspects of our past. However absurd they seem to rational people.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 08:41 AM

I think it's the 'Domini' bit that bothers most people (religious and not), rather than the supposed time of a supposed event.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Musket
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 09:04 AM

It doesn't bother me any more than any other myth, fantasy or fairy story. In years to come we might consider it quaint in a similar way that Gibbet Lane may be a lovely country lane with cows in the fields and children riding their bikes, but let's not dwell on where the name came from eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 09:17 AM

"Everything happens to everybody sooner or later if there is time enough."
~ George Bernard Shaw

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 04:39 AM

Ebbie, it would be more rational to name the days in a simply numerical fashion, though whether we begin with one or zero is a matter of taste and debate. Probably better one as we wouldn't have to argue over whether to call it Zeroday, Noughtday, Nullday, Zilchday, Sodallday etc. etc. This scheme carries an immense advantage in that all those jobs you never got round to, will get done Oneday.

As for the months, I think Unumber, Duumber, Triumber, Quadrember, Quinquember, Sexember, etc. has a certain appeal, though New Year would have to be at the end of February if we are to keep the existing months.

We could also avoid religious offence by renumbering our years according to some non- emotional standard. The Gregorian year is a pretty good approximation to the true solar year, so we'll keep that, perhaps wuth Sir John Herschel's modification. I would propose that adding 50000 to our Gregorian year (with a one- year fiddle for BC dates) would bring all human dates historical and archaeologically determined by radiocarbon dating onto a common positive scale. It also allows us to date Neanderthals if we are so inclined.

So today could be Oneday, 20th of Duumber 52015.

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 06:02 AM

Hebrew names for the days of the week in fact translate as First Day (=Sunday), Second Day (=Monday), &c; ending on Shabat [= Sabbath, based on the Hebrew for #7], which is Saturday. We could all do that without too much trouble, in our own languages, couldn't we?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Gda Music
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 05:29 PM

Some would puzzle that in the life insurance world the question always asked is "what`s your next birthday?"

GJ

Subject: RE: BS: Numbering the Years...
From: Thompson
Date: 21 Apr 15 - 04:06 AM

GUEST, the Quakers so named the days and months. Mary Leadbeater, the Quaker postmistress of Ballitore in Kildare, writes about sending a letter to Naas to give a good character to a neighbour, Pat Lyons, who was likely to be lynched by Captain Chenery's yeomen:

'When it was perceived that the note came from a female, it was treated with contempt "Women did not care what they said, and it was from a woman." On further inspection they observed the date; "Quakers tell truth, and it was from a Quaker" — and accordingly Pat was liberated.'

The reason 'observing the date' made the difference was that Mary Leadbeater had written it in the Quaker style, eg 'First day, fourth month, 1798'.