Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799 or earlier)
362 views
Skip to first unread message
Harrison Hill
Nov 7, 2012, 6:26:02 PM11/7/12
to
The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
or earlier) exists, and I challenge the James Hoggs of you to find
it...
or earlier) exists, and I challenge the James Hoggs of you to find
it...
R H Draney
Nov 8, 2012, 1:13:46 AM11/8/12
to
Harrison Hill filted:
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>or earlier) exists, and I challenge the James Hoggs of you to find
>it...
When was Thomas Mason, aka "I. X. Peck", born?...r
>The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>or earlier) exists, and I challenge the James Hoggs of you to find
>it...
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Harrison Hill
Nov 8, 2012, 2:08:18 AM11/8/12
to
On 8 Nov, 06:14, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Harrison Hill filted:
>
>
>
> >The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
> >or earlier) exists, and I challenge the James Hoggs of you to find
> >it...
>
> When was Thomas Mason, aka "I. X. Peck", born?...r
What make this contest all the more interesting (and off topic) is
> Harrison Hill filted:
>
>
>
> >The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
> >or earlier) exists, and I challenge the James Hoggs of you to find
> >it...
>
> When was Thomas Mason, aka "I. X. Peck", born?...r
that I have forgotten the answer myself (but should be able to find
it, since there is only of them). Off topic because this recording is
not in English.
Harrison Hill
Nov 8, 2012, 3:38:45 AM11/8/12
to
The uniquest group of one item it is possible to singularise.
Andrew B
Nov 8, 2012, 9:08:05 AM11/8/12
to
voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von
Moltke, born in 1800.
Don Phillipson
Nov 8, 2012, 10:03:08 AM11/8/12
to
"Andrew B" <bul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k7gec4$ate$1...@dont-email.me...
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:k7gec4$ate$1...@dont-email.me...
>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>> or earlier) exists . . .
>
> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
> born in 1800.
--Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
> born in 1800.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Don Phillipson
Nov 8, 2012, 10:33:39 AM11/8/12
to
>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>> or earlier) exists . . .
>
> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
> born in 1800.
> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
> born in 1800.
Don Phillipson
Nov 8, 2012, 10:33:39 AM11/8/12
to
>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>> or earlier) exists . . .
>
> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
> born in 1800.
> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
> born in 1800.
Harrison Hill
Nov 8, 2012, 6:16:13 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 3:03 pm, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> "Andrew B" <bull...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
> "Andrew B" <bull...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:k7gec4$ate$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
> >> or earlier) exists . . .
>
> > There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
> > voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
> > born in 1800.
>
> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
> news:k7gec4$ate$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> >> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
> >> or earlier) exists . . .
>
> > There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
> > voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
> > born in 1800.
>
> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
James Hogg
Nov 8, 2012, 6:22:09 PM11/8/12
to
--
James
Message has been deleted
Skitt
Nov 8, 2012, 6:52:41 PM11/8/12
to
Harrison Hill wrote:
> "Don Phillipson" wrote:
Was the first century only 99 years long?
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
> "Don Phillipson" wrote:
>> "Andrew B" wrote:
>>>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>>>> or earlier) exists . . .
>>
>>> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
>>> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
>>> born in 1800.
>>
>> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
>
> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>
Was there a year 0 in the first century?
>>>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>>>> or earlier) exists . . .
>>
>>> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
>>> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
>>> born in 1800.
>>
>> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
>
> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>
Was the first century only 99 years long?
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Harrison Hill
Nov 8, 2012, 7:20:05 PM11/8/12
to
over here in Britain. Are you saying we had to wait a full year before
we could start the new century? (I know a lot of people think like
that, using accurate mathematical calculation, but a lot of other
people think that people who think like that are bonkers).
Skitt
Nov 8, 2012, 7:32:39 PM11/8/12
to
Harrison Hill wrote:
You celebrated the rolling over of the digits to expose a bunch of zeroes.
Here's the skinny:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium
> Are you saying we had to wait a full year before
> we could start the new century? (I know a lot of people think like
> that, using accurate mathematical calculation, but a lot of other
> people think that people who think like that are bonkers).
>
Here's the low-down on the 21st century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century
> James Hogg wrote:
>> Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> "Don Phillipson" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew B" wrote:
>> Harrison Hill wrote:
>>> "Don Phillipson" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew B" wrote:
>>>>>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>>>>>> or earlier) exists . . .
>>>>> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
>>>>> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
>>>>> born in 1800.
>>>> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
>>
>>> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
>>> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
>>> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>>
>> You are assuming that the first century had only 99 years.
>
> We started the new millenium at 12.00 00.01 on the 1st January 2000
> over here in Britain.
Well, see how you are?
>>>>>> or earlier) exists . . .
>>>>> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
>>>>> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
>>>>> born in 1800.
>>>> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
>>
>>> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
>>> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
>>> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>>
>> You are assuming that the first century had only 99 years.
>
> We started the new millenium at 12.00 00.01 on the 1st January 2000
> over here in Britain.
You celebrated the rolling over of the digits to expose a bunch of zeroes.
Here's the skinny:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium
> Are you saying we had to wait a full year before
> we could start the new century? (I know a lot of people think like
> that, using accurate mathematical calculation, but a lot of other
> people think that people who think like that are bonkers).
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century
Message has been deleted
Guy Barry
Nov 9, 2012, 1:25:42 AM11/9/12
to
"Harrison Hill" wrote in message
news:0e70e6f6-c4b9-455f...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
system of numbering years was invented by Dionysius Exiguus in a year that
he decided to number as 525. Nobody knows where he got this number from -
it appears to be arbitrary. Hence any disputes about whether there was a 0
AD, or wasn't, or whether the first century had 100 years, or 99, or
whatever, are completely meaningless because the AD calendar didn't exist at
the time. What we do know for certain is that Dionysius Exiguus got his
calculations wrong, and that AD 525 wasn't 525 years after the birth of
Christ. So the current system of numbering is arbitrary, and if the
generally accepted usage is that the nineteenth century began in 1800, then
that's good enough for me. All the millennium celebrations took place at
the beginning of 2000 (except in Cuba, apparently).
Personally I'm looking forward to 2025 when I shall be celebrating the start
of the sixteenth century AD!
--
Guy Barry
James Hogg
Nov 9, 2012, 1:26:25 AM11/9/12
to
The new millenium started on 1 January 2000.
The new millennium started on 1 January 2001.
I suppose you could say that a millennium is any period of 1,000 years
and that you can start counting wherever you like. The change from 1999
to 2000 was more dramatic than the change from 2000 to 2001, so it's
easy to understand that people chose to celebrate the former.
--
James
Guy Barry
Nov 9, 2012, 2:24:00 AM11/9/12
to
"Harrison Hill" wrote in message
> We started the new millenium at 12.00 00.01 on the 1st January 2000
> over here in Britain.
minute early?
> Are you saying we had to wait a full year before
> we could start the new century?
started on the 25th of March. The whole thing's arbitrary and I really
don't know why it bothers so many people. Of course 2000 was the natural
time for a celebration, because it's a nice round number and all the digits
changed. Do I take it that all the people who claim the millennium started
in 2001 sat there stony-faced in 2000, pretending it wasn't happening?
The smart thing to do, of course, would have been to celebrate the new
millennium twice. Any excuse for a party.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 9, 2012, 2:29:32 AM11/9/12
to
"Skitt" wrote in message news:k7hiv4$f09$6...@news.albasani.net...
And yet Wikipedia also pronounces that "the 2000s was a decade that began on
January 1, 2000 and ended on December 31, 2009".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_%28decade%29
So it had one year in the 20th century and nine years in the 21st? That
doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 9, 2012, 2:51:55 AM11/9/12
to
"James Hogg" wrote in message news:k7i7mj$b32$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> The new millenium started on 1 January 2000.
> The new millennium started on 1 January 2001.
celebrations were only for people who couldn't spell?
--
Guy Barry
Steve Hayes
Nov 9, 2012, 3:32:37 AM11/9/12
to
The current calendar is predicated on Jesus Christ having been circumcised on
1st January AD 1 (which is a moot point). So ten years would have passed at
the END of AD 10, a century would have passed at the END of AD 100, and 18
centuries would have passed at the END of 1800.
Things might have been different if there had been a year 0, but there wasn't.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
Nov 9, 2012, 3:36:52 AM11/9/12
to
a bang, and ended it with a whimper.
Christians were unable to celebrate the 2nd millenium of the birth of Jesus
Christ on 25 December 2000 (or 7 January 2001, if you prefer) because Ariel
Sharon decided to go walkabout.
Steve Hayes
Nov 9, 2012, 3:38:27 AM11/9/12
to
On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 15:52:41 -0800, Skitt <ski...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Harrison Hill wrote:
>> "Don Phillipson" wrote:
>>> "Andrew B" wrote:
>
>>>>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>>>>> or earlier) exists . . .
>>>
>>>> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
>>>> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
>>>> born in 1800.
>>>
>>> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
>>
>> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
>> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
>> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>>
>Was there a year 0 in the first century?
No.
>Harrison Hill wrote:
>> "Don Phillipson" wrote:
>>> "Andrew B" wrote:
>
>>>>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>>>>> or earlier) exists . . .
>>>
>>>> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
>>>> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
>>>> born in 1800.
>>>
>>> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
>>
>> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
>> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
>> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>>
>Was there a year 0 in the first century?
>Was the first century only 99 years long?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nov 9, 2012, 3:41:39 AM11/9/12
to
On 2012-11-09 07:24:00 +0000, Guy Barry said:
> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
> news:8bb620a2-80c6-45d5...@p22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> We started the new millenium at 12.00 00.01 on the 1st January 2000
>> over here in Britain.
>
> I thought it started at midnight. You mean I started celebrating a
> whole minute early?
>
>> Are you saying we had to wait a full year before
>> we could start the new century?
>
> You can start a new century whenever you like. Before 1752, the New
> Year started on the 25th of March. The whole thing's arbitrary and I
> really don't know why it bothers so many people. Of course 2000 was
> the natural time for a celebration, because it's a nice round number
> and all the digits changed. Do I take it that all the people who claim
> the millennium started in 2001 sat there stony-faced in 2000,
> pretending it wasn't happening?
Some did, I think, but most went ahead and celebrated like everyone else.
> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
> news:8bb620a2-80c6-45d5...@p22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> We started the new millenium at 12.00 00.01 on the 1st January 2000
>> over here in Britain.
>
> I thought it started at midnight. You mean I started celebrating a
> whole minute early?
>
>> Are you saying we had to wait a full year before
>> we could start the new century?
>
> You can start a new century whenever you like. Before 1752, the New
> Year started on the 25th of March. The whole thing's arbitrary and I
> really don't know why it bothers so many people. Of course 2000 was
> the natural time for a celebration, because it's a nice round number
> and all the digits changed. Do I take it that all the people who claim
> the millennium started in 2001 sat there stony-faced in 2000,
> pretending it wasn't happening?
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nov 9, 2012, 3:47:37 AM11/9/12
to
On 2012-11-09 08:32:37 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:16:13 -0800 (PST), Harrison Hill
> <harrison...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 8, 3:03�pm, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> "Andrew B" <bull...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:k7gec4$ate$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>>>>> or earlier) exists . . .
>>>
>>>> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
>>>> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
>>>> born in 1800.
>>>
>>> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
>>
>> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
>> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
>> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>
> Yes.
>
> The current calendar is predicated on Jesus Christ having been circumcised on
> 1st January AD 1 (which is a moot point). So ten years would have passed at
> the END of AD 10, a century would have passed at the END of AD 100, and 18
> centuries would have passed at the END of 1800.
>
> Things might have been different if there had been a year 0, but there wasn't.
It would have been simpler if we had 23 October 4004 BC as day 1 of
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:16:13 -0800 (PST), Harrison Hill
> <harrison...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 8, 3:03�pm, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> "Andrew B" <bull...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:k7gec4$ate$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>>>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>>>>> or earlier) exists . . .
>>>
>>>> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
>>>> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
>>>> born in 1800.
>>>
>>> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
>>
>> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
>> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
>> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>
> Yes.
>
> The current calendar is predicated on Jesus Christ having been circumcised on
> 1st January AD 1 (which is a moot point). So ten years would have passed at
> the END of AD 10, a century would have passed at the END of AD 100, and 18
> centuries would have passed at the END of 1800.
>
> Things might have been different if there had been a year 0, but there wasn't.
year 1 and counted forwards from there (after all, only evilutionists
and other wicked people think anything happened before that). On the
other hand it might be inconvenient to have the day beginning at 9 AM.
--
athel
Steve Hayes
Nov 9, 2012, 3:51:52 AM11/9/12
to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:29:32 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>
>"Skitt" wrote in message news:k7hiv4$f09$6...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Here's the low-down on the 21st century:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century
>
>And yet Wikipedia also pronounces that "the 2000s was a decade that began on
>January 1, 2000 and ended on December 31, 2009".
Well yes, that's right, sort of, perhaps maybe.
The decade of the 1960s began on 1 Jan 1960 and ended on 31 Dec 1969
But the 7th decade of the 20th century began on 1 January 1961 and ended on 31
December 1970.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_%28decade%29
>
>So it had one year in the 20th century and nine years in the 21st? That
>doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
Think about it.
wrote:
>
>
>"Skitt" wrote in message news:k7hiv4$f09$6...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Here's the low-down on the 21st century:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century
>
>And yet Wikipedia also pronounces that "the 2000s was a decade that began on
>January 1, 2000 and ended on December 31, 2009".
The decade of the 1960s began on 1 Jan 1960 and ended on 31 Dec 1969
But the 7th decade of the 20th century began on 1 January 1961 and ended on 31
December 1970.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_%28decade%29
>
>So it had one year in the 20th century and nine years in the 21st? That
>doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
Steve Hayes
Nov 9, 2012, 3:52:38 AM11/9/12
to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:51:55 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>
And, more important, couldn't count.
wrote:
>
>
Guy Barry
Nov 9, 2012, 4:25:21 AM11/9/12
to
"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
news:3ngp98t8dnof8l4il...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:29:32 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >And yet Wikipedia also pronounces that "the 2000s was a decade that began
> >on
> >January 1, 2000 and ended on December 31, 2009".
> Well yes, that's right, sort of, perhaps maybe.
> The decade of the 1960s began on 1 Jan 1960 and ended on 31 Dec 1969
> But the 7th decade of the 20th century began on 1 January 1961 and ended
> on 31
> December 1970.
practical purpose, has anyone ever divided up the 20th century into the
periods 1901-1910, 1911-1920, ... 1991-2000?
> >So it had one year in the 20th century and nine years in the 21st? That
> >doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
> Think about it.
terms like "decade" and "century" as a convenient way of grouping years
together for chronological purposes. It makes sense for each decade to fall
fully within one century.
What would make most sense is if we talked about the "eighteen hundreds" and
"nineteen hundreds" rather than the "nineteenth century" and "twentieth
century" - although I'm not entirely sure what we'd call the current one.
But this insistence that the current century began on the 1st January 2001
seems mad to me. As I said in an earlier post, the AD system of numbering
years wasn't invented until (self-styled) AD 525, and we've changed from the
Julian to the Gregorian calendar since then, not to mention changing the
start of the year from 25th March to 1st January. There is absolutely no
significance to the date that we would nowadays consider to be 1st January
in the year AD 1.
--
Guy Barry
jgharston
Nov 9, 2012, 4:59:23 AM11/9/12
to
Harrison Hill wrote:
> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
> or earlier) exists, and I challenge the James Hoggs of you to find
> it...
The 18th century is 1800 or earlier. Here's a hint: what year did the
> it...
1st
century start in? Now add 1800.
abc
Nov 9, 2012, 5:06:38 AM11/9/12
to
Skitt wrote:
> Harrison Hill wrote:
>> "Don Phillipson" wrote:
>>> "Andrew B" wrote:
>
>>>>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>>>>> or earlier) exists . . .
>>>
>>>> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
>>>> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
>>>> born in 1800.
>>>
>>> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
>>
>> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
>> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
>> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>>
> Was there a year 0 in the first century?
There is simply no way to tell.
> Harrison Hill wrote:
>> "Don Phillipson" wrote:
>>> "Andrew B" wrote:
>
>>>>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>>>>> or earlier) exists . . .
>>>
>>>> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
>>>> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
>>>> born in 1800.
>>>
>>> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
>>
>> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
>> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
>> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>>
> Was there a year 0 in the first century?
The answer has been lost in the mists of time. The birth of Christ could
easily be off by a handful of years. There is no reliable way to
determine the zero date with enough precision.
> Was the first century only 99 years long?
forward to ridicule the 2000-camp.
No-one ever claimed the existence of a 99-year century.
The 2000-standpoint is based on there having been a year 0.
An issue that nobody can prove or disprove. But there is endless opinion
around the subject.
abc
abc
Nov 9, 2012, 5:08:57 AM11/9/12
to
Now add 1800 to 0 or 1.
Next one please.
abc
abc
Nov 9, 2012, 5:12:13 AM11/9/12
to
Guy Barry wrote:
> I have thought about it, and it still doesn't make sense. Presumably we
> use terms like "decade" and "century" as a convenient way of grouping
> years together for chronological purposes. It makes sense for each
> decade to fall fully within one century.
>
> What would make most sense is if we talked about the "eighteen hundreds"
> and "nineteen hundreds" rather than the "nineteenth century" and
> "twentieth century" - although I'm not entirely sure what we'd call the
> current one. But this insistence that the current century began on the
> 1st January 2001 seems mad to me. As I said in an earlier post, the AD
> system of numbering years wasn't invented until (self-styled) AD 525,
> and we've changed from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar since then,
> not to mention changing the start of the year from 25th March to 1st
> January. There is absolutely no significance to the date that we would
> nowadays consider to be 1st January in the year AD 1.
Yes, well said.
> I have thought about it, and it still doesn't make sense. Presumably we
> use terms like "decade" and "century" as a convenient way of grouping
> years together for chronological purposes. It makes sense for each
> decade to fall fully within one century.
>
> What would make most sense is if we talked about the "eighteen hundreds"
> and "nineteen hundreds" rather than the "nineteenth century" and
> "twentieth century" - although I'm not entirely sure what we'd call the
> current one. But this insistence that the current century began on the
> 1st January 2001 seems mad to me. As I said in an earlier post, the AD
> system of numbering years wasn't invented until (self-styled) AD 525,
> and we've changed from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar since then,
> not to mention changing the start of the year from 25th March to 1st
> January. There is absolutely no significance to the date that we would
> nowadays consider to be 1st January in the year AD 1.
abc
Peter Young
Nov 9, 2012, 5:16:35 AM11/9/12
to
On 9 Nov 2012 "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> I have thought about it, and it still doesn't make sense. Presumably we use
> terms like "decade" and "century" as a convenient way of grouping years
> together for chronological purposes. It makes sense for each decade to fall
> fully within one century.
> What would make most sense is if we talked about the "eighteen hundreds" and
> "nineteen hundreds" rather than the "nineteenth century" and "twentieth
> century" - although I'm not entirely sure what we'd call the current one.
> But this insistence that the current century began on the 1st January 2001
> seems mad to me.
Just as they do in Italy and Sweden, and probably other places. But
there they don't use the "teens" suffix, and there's a slight
difference in what the terms mean. In Italy, "Settecento" = "Seven
Hundreds", with the "seventeens" understood, is what we would call the
Eighteenth Century. In Swedish, "Ottiotalets" = "Eighties" refers to
the decade of the century. Perhaps it means the century as well, but
it's a long time since I've been in Sweden, and old men forget.
Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
[snip]
> I have thought about it, and it still doesn't make sense. Presumably we use
> terms like "decade" and "century" as a convenient way of grouping years
> together for chronological purposes. It makes sense for each decade to fall
> fully within one century.
> What would make most sense is if we talked about the "eighteen hundreds" and
> "nineteen hundreds" rather than the "nineteenth century" and "twentieth
> century" - although I'm not entirely sure what we'd call the current one.
> But this insistence that the current century began on the 1st January 2001
> seems mad to me.
there they don't use the "teens" suffix, and there's a slight
difference in what the terms mean. In Italy, "Settecento" = "Seven
Hundreds", with the "seventeens" understood, is what we would call the
Eighteenth Century. In Swedish, "Ottiotalets" = "Eighties" refers to
the decade of the century. Perhaps it means the century as well, but
it's a long time since I've been in Sweden, and old men forget.
Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Guy Barry
Nov 9, 2012, 5:40:37 AM11/9/12
to
"abc" wrote in message news:k7ikjc$jfe$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Skitt wrote:
> > Was there a year 0 in the first century?
> There is simply no way to tell.
introduced it to replace the Roman system of numbering years. So the
question of whether there was a year 0 doesn't arise, because he started it
in AD 525.
It was the Venerable Bede in AD 731 who first started counting backwards as
well as forwards from the supposed incarnation of Christ. He didn't include
a year zero. My understanding is that the year 753 after the building of
Rome was regarded as 1 BC, and 754 after the building of Rome as AD 1.
> The answer has been lost in the mists of time. The birth of Christ could
> easily be off by a handful of years. There is no reliable way to determine
> the zero date with enough precision.
no suggestion that it took place in either 1 BC or AD 1.
> The 2000-standpoint is based on there having been a year 0.
fact that it was the obvious time to mark the new century and millennium,
because that's when the digits all changed.
--
Guy Barry
R H Draney
Nov 9, 2012, 5:42:23 AM11/9/12
to
Guy Barry filted:
besides) to make sure we weren't having any Y2K problems....
>The smart thing to do, of course, would have been to celebrate the new
>millennium twice. Any excuse for a party.
Or to make someone pull an out-of-hours weekend shift twice...fuck that, as they
say....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>You can start a new century whenever you like. Before 1752, the New Year
>started on the 25th of March. The whole thing's arbitrary and I really
>don't know why it bothers so many people. Of course 2000 was the natural
>time for a celebration, because it's a nice round number and all the digits
>changed. Do I take it that all the people who claim the millennium started
>in 2001 sat there stony-faced in 2000, pretending it wasn't happening?
Not me...I had to go in to work (hours before my usual time, and on a Saturday
>You can start a new century whenever you like. Before 1752, the New Year
>started on the 25th of March. The whole thing's arbitrary and I really
>don't know why it bothers so many people. Of course 2000 was the natural
>time for a celebration, because it's a nice round number and all the digits
>changed. Do I take it that all the people who claim the millennium started
>in 2001 sat there stony-faced in 2000, pretending it wasn't happening?
besides) to make sure we weren't having any Y2K problems....
>The smart thing to do, of course, would have been to celebrate the new
>millennium twice. Any excuse for a party.
say....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
R H Draney
Nov 9, 2012, 5:44:47 AM11/9/12
to
abc filted:
the folks counting from the birth of Christ didn't have a zero; they used
I-based indexing....r
>
>Skitt wrote:
>
>> Was the first century only 99 years long?
>
>That's a rhetorical nonsense question that the 2001-camp like to put
>forward to ridicule the 2000-camp.
>
>No-one ever claimed the existence of a 99-year century.
>The 2000-standpoint is based on there having been a year 0.
>An issue that nobody can prove or disprove. But there is endless opinion
>around the subject.
The Arabs and the Hindus may have had a year zero...we don't really know...but
>Skitt wrote:
>
>> Was the first century only 99 years long?
>
>That's a rhetorical nonsense question that the 2001-camp like to put
>forward to ridicule the 2000-camp.
>
>No-one ever claimed the existence of a 99-year century.
>The 2000-standpoint is based on there having been a year 0.
>An issue that nobody can prove or disprove. But there is endless opinion
>around the subject.
the folks counting from the birth of Christ didn't have a zero; they used
I-based indexing....r
R H Draney
Nov 9, 2012, 5:45:48 AM11/9/12
to
Steve Hayes filted:
>
>The current calendar is predicated on Jesus Christ having been circumcised on
>1st January AD 1 (which is a moot point).
They cut off the end of his moot?...r
>The current calendar is predicated on Jesus Christ having been circumcised on
>1st January AD 1 (which is a moot point).
Lars Enderin
Nov 9, 2012, 6:08:04 AM11/9/12
to
2012-11-09 11:16, Peter Young skrev:
> On 9 Nov 2012 "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I have thought about it, and it still doesn't make sense. Presumably we use
>> terms like "decade" and "century" as a convenient way of grouping years
>> together for chronological purposes. It makes sense for each decade to fall
>> fully within one century.
>
>> What would make most sense is if we talked about the "eighteen hundreds" and
>> "nineteen hundreds" rather than the "nineteenth century" and "twentieth
>> century" - although I'm not entirely sure what we'd call the current one.
>> But this insistence that the current century began on the 1st January 2001
>> seems mad to me.
>
> Just as they do in Italy and Sweden, and probably other places. But
> there they don't use the "teens" suffix, and there's a slight
> difference in what the terms mean. In Italy, "Settecento" = "Seven
> Hundreds", with the "seventeens" understood, is what we would call the
> Eighteenth Century. In Swedish, "Ottiotalets" = "Eighties" refers to
> the decade of the century. Perhaps it means the century as well, but
> it's a long time since I've been in Sweden, and old men forget.
"�ttiotalet" (no s). It's a singular reference to the years 1980-1989:
> On 9 Nov 2012 "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I have thought about it, and it still doesn't make sense. Presumably we use
>> terms like "decade" and "century" as a convenient way of grouping years
>> together for chronological purposes. It makes sense for each decade to fall
>> fully within one century.
>
>> What would make most sense is if we talked about the "eighteen hundreds" and
>> "nineteen hundreds" rather than the "nineteenth century" and "twentieth
>> century" - although I'm not entirely sure what we'd call the current one.
>> But this insistence that the current century began on the 1st January 2001
>> seems mad to me.
>
> Just as they do in Italy and Sweden, and probably other places. But
> there they don't use the "teens" suffix, and there's a slight
> difference in what the terms mean. In Italy, "Settecento" = "Seven
> Hundreds", with the "seventeens" understood, is what we would call the
> Eighteenth Century. In Swedish, "Ottiotalets" = "Eighties" refers to
> the decade of the century. Perhaps it means the century as well, but
> it's a long time since I've been in Sweden, and old men forget.
(nittonhundra)�ttio-�ttionio (part of nittonhundratalet).
--
Lars Enderin
abc
Nov 9, 2012, 6:22:37 AM11/9/12
to
abc
abc
Nov 9, 2012, 6:41:28 AM11/9/12
to
Guy Barry wrote:
>
> "abc" wrote in message news:k7ikjc$jfe$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Skitt wrote:
>
>> > Was there a year 0 in the first century?
>
>> There is simply no way to tell.
>
> Dionysius Exiguus did not use his calendar to date historical events. He
> introduced it to replace the Roman system of numbering years. So the
> question of whether there was a year 0 doesn't arise, because he started
> it in AD 525.
>
> It was the Venerable Bede in AD 731 who first started counting backwards
> as well as forwards from the supposed incarnation of Christ. He didn't
> include a year zero. My understanding is that the year 753 after the
> building of Rome was regarded as 1 BC, and 754 after the building of
> Rome as AD 1.
>
>> The answer has been lost in the mists of time. The birth of Christ
>> could easily be off by a handful of years. There is no reliable way to
>> determine the zero date with enough precision.
>
> Most scholars seem to think it was some time between 6 BC and 4 BC.
> There's no suggestion that it took place in either 1 BC or AD 1.
>
>> The 2000-standpoint is based on there having been a year 0.
>
> No it's not, because there wasn't one.
Saying "there wasn't one" is just meaningless.
>
> "abc" wrote in message news:k7ikjc$jfe$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Skitt wrote:
>
>> > Was there a year 0 in the first century?
>
>> There is simply no way to tell.
>
> Dionysius Exiguus did not use his calendar to date historical events. He
> introduced it to replace the Roman system of numbering years. So the
> question of whether there was a year 0 doesn't arise, because he started
> it in AD 525.
>
> It was the Venerable Bede in AD 731 who first started counting backwards
> as well as forwards from the supposed incarnation of Christ. He didn't
> include a year zero. My understanding is that the year 753 after the
> building of Rome was regarded as 1 BC, and 754 after the building of
> Rome as AD 1.
>
>> The answer has been lost in the mists of time. The birth of Christ
>> could easily be off by a handful of years. There is no reliable way to
>> determine the zero date with enough precision.
>
> Most scholars seem to think it was some time between 6 BC and 4 BC.
> There's no suggestion that it took place in either 1 BC or AD 1.
>
>> The 2000-standpoint is based on there having been a year 0.
>
> No it's not, because there wasn't one.
If you agree there was a year 1, you have to agree there was a year
preceding your year 1. One school numbers the preceding year year 0, so
there was one, another one has it as -1 and can claim there wasn't one.
The fact that the numbering system wasn't introduced until five
centuries or so later doesn't mean those years didn't happen.
The 2000 standpoint is based on
> the fact that it was the obvious time to mark the new century and
> millennium, because that's when the digits all changed.
anyone who can count to 2000.
abc
Peter Young
Nov 9, 2012, 6:59:28 AM11/9/12
to
On 9 Nov 2012 Lars Enderin <lars.e...@telia.com> wrote:
> 2012-11-09 11:16, Peter Young skrev:
>> On 9 Nov 2012 "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I have thought about it, and it still doesn't make sense. Presumably
>>> we use
>>> terms like "decade" and "century" as a convenient way of grouping years
>>> together for chronological purposes. It makes sense for each decade
>>> to fall
>>> fully within one century.
>>
>>> What would make most sense is if we talked about the "eighteen
>>> hundreds" and
>>> "nineteen hundreds" rather than the "nineteenth century" and "twentieth
>>> century" - although I'm not entirely sure what we'd call the current one.
>>> But this insistence that the current century began on the 1st January 2001
>>> seems mad to me.
>>
>> Just as they do in Italy and Sweden, and probably other places. But
>> there they don't use the "teens" suffix, and there's a slight
>> difference in what the terms mean. In Italy, "Settecento" = "Seven
>> Hundreds", with the "seventeens" understood, is what we would call the
>> Eighteenth Century. In Swedish, "Ottiotalets" = "Eighties" refers to
>> the decade of the century. Perhaps it means the century as well, but
>> it's a long time since I've been in Sweden, and old men forget.
> "Åttiotalet" (no s). It's a singular reference to the years 1980-1989:
> 2012-11-09 11:16, Peter Young skrev:
>> On 9 Nov 2012 "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I have thought about it, and it still doesn't make sense. Presumably
>>> we use
>>> terms like "decade" and "century" as a convenient way of grouping years
>>> together for chronological purposes. It makes sense for each decade
>>> to fall
>>> fully within one century.
>>
>>> What would make most sense is if we talked about the "eighteen
>>> hundreds" and
>>> "nineteen hundreds" rather than the "nineteenth century" and "twentieth
>>> century" - although I'm not entirely sure what we'd call the current one.
>>> But this insistence that the current century began on the 1st January 2001
>>> seems mad to me.
>>
>> Just as they do in Italy and Sweden, and probably other places. But
>> there they don't use the "teens" suffix, and there's a slight
>> difference in what the terms mean. In Italy, "Settecento" = "Seven
>> Hundreds", with the "seventeens" understood, is what we would call the
>> Eighteenth Century. In Swedish, "Ottiotalets" = "Eighties" refers to
>> the decade of the century. Perhaps it means the century as well, but
>> it's a long time since I've been in Sweden, and old men forget.
> (nittonhundra)åttio-åttionio (part of nittonhundratalet).
Many thanks for the correction. As I said, it's years since I was in
Sweden.
Guy Barry
Nov 9, 2012, 8:52:57 AM11/9/12
to
"abc" wrote in message news:k7iq55$vkt$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Guy Barry wrote:
>
> > "abc" wrote in message news:k7ikjc$jfe$1...@news.albasani.net...
> >> The 2000-standpoint is based on there having been a year 0.
>
> > No it's not, because there wasn't one.
> Saying "there wasn't one" is just meaningless.
> If you agree there was a year 1, you have to agree there was a year
> preceding your year 1. One school numbers the preceding year year 0, so
> there was one, another one has it as -1 and can claim there wasn't one.
Wikipedia has an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28year%29 :
>
> > No it's not, because there wasn't one.
> Saying "there wasn't one" is just meaningless.
> If you agree there was a year 1, you have to agree there was a year
> preceding your year 1. One school numbers the preceding year year 0, so
> there was one, another one has it as -1 and can claim there wasn't one.
" Year zero does not exist in the Anno Domini system usually used to number
years in the Gregorian calendar and in its predecessor, the Julian calendar.
In this system, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1. However, there is a year
zero in astronomical year numbering (where it coincides with the Julian year
1 BC) and in ISO 8601:2004 (where it coincides with the Gregorian year 1 BC)
as well as in all Buddhist and Hindu calendars. "
So if you want to go by astronomical year numbering or the ISO system, you
can talk about year 0, but it corresponds to 1 BC. Year -1 corresponds to 2
BC, year -2 corresponds to 3 BC and so on.
> The fact that the numbering system wasn't introduced until five centuries
> or so later doesn't mean those years didn't happen.
That's what I meant when I said there wasn't a year 0 - there's a year
that's generally referred to as 1 BC, which is numbered as 0 in some
systems, but not the one in general use. (Although I was under the
impression that some people here were quite keen on the ISO standard system,
particularly when referring to 24-hour time.)
> > The 2000 standpoint is based on
> > the fact that it was the obvious time to mark the new century and
> > millennium, because that's when the digits all changed.
> That's a convenient side-effect, not what it's based on. At least for
> anyone who can count to 2000.
the 1st January in the year 1 BC that was worth commemorating two thousand
years later?
--
Guy Barry
Steve Hayes
Nov 9, 2012, 11:42:02 AM11/9/12
to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:25:21 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
Well yes, but in that case 1 Jan 2000 had no more significance than any other
date either.
date either.
Steve Hayes
Nov 9, 2012, 11:51:32 AM11/9/12
to
people call them. The Frencgh revolutionary calendar did not mean that the
French lost years, they just called them other things. and in the calendar we
use now, there is no year zero. In the Cambodian Revolutionary Calendar there
was, though.
abc
Nov 9, 2012, 11:53:49 AM11/9/12
to
Guy Barry wrote:
> Wikipedia has an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28year%29 :
>
> " Year zero does not exist in the Anno Domini system usually used to
> number years in the Gregorian calendar and in its predecessor, the
> Julian calendar. In this system, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1.
> However, there is a year zero in astronomical year numbering (where it
> coincides with the Julian year 1 BC) and in ISO 8601:2004 (where it
> coincides with the Gregorian year 1 BC) as well as in all Buddhist and
> Hindu calendars. "
>
> So if you want to go by astronomical year numbering or the ISO system,
> you can talk about year 0, but it corresponds to 1 BC. Year -1
> corresponds to 2 BC, year -2 corresponds to 3 BC and so on.
That was my point. There are different schools of thought and you are
> Wikipedia has an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28year%29 :
>
> " Year zero does not exist in the Anno Domini system usually used to
> number years in the Gregorian calendar and in its predecessor, the
> Julian calendar. In this system, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1.
> However, there is a year zero in astronomical year numbering (where it
> coincides with the Julian year 1 BC) and in ISO 8601:2004 (where it
> coincides with the Gregorian year 1 BC) as well as in all Buddhist and
> Hindu calendars. "
>
> So if you want to go by astronomical year numbering or the ISO system,
> you can talk about year 0, but it corresponds to 1 BC. Year -1
> corresponds to 2 BC, year -2 corresponds to 3 BC and so on.
free to pitch your tent in whichever camp you feel most at home.
>> The fact that the numbering system wasn't introduced until five
>> centuries or so later doesn't mean those years didn't happen.
>
> Well they clearly happened, but no one talked about "year 0" at the
> time. That's what I meant when I said there wasn't a year 0
the way up to 500 odd or whenever it was when the numbering was first
adopted.
- there's a
> year that's generally referred to as 1 BC, which is numbered as 0 in
> some systems, but not the one in general use. (Although I was under the
> impression that some people here were quite keen on the ISO standard
> system, particularly when referring to 24-hour time.)
merely saying that it's not the only choice available.
And in these technology and science-enlightened ISO-ridden times we
probably shouldn't accept being held back and weighed down by
inconsistencies that were a product of less enlightened minds in their
heyday many centuries in the past.
Come to that, I'm not sure this western "general use" crowd can actually
compete in numbers against the Buddhists and Hindus combined.
>> > The 2000 standpoint is based on
>> > the fact that it was the obvious time to mark the new century and
>> > millennium, because that's when the digits all changed.
>
>> That's a convenient side-effect, not what it's based on. At least for
>> anyone who can count to 2000.
>
> That's not a side-effect - that's what were celebrating. What happened
> on the 1st January in the year 1 BC that was worth commemorating two
> thousand years later?
a year 0 is what underpins the logic of the 2000 idea. It wouldn't make
sense without it.
According to established tradition what's being celebrated is of course
the "supposed" birth of Christ on the 1st of January in the year 0
(substitute 1 or some other number depending on which school you confess
to). The fact that the actual birth took place at some other point in
time is not especially relevant. Traditions once established are usually
stronger than little trifles such as facts.
abc
Guy Barry
Nov 9, 2012, 11:55:37 AM11/9/12
to
"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
What is more worthy of celebration: a date when there's a memorable change
in the calendar, or a date that's the two thousandth anniversary of another
date with no significance?
--
Guy Barry
Steve Hayes
Nov 9, 2012, 12:00:24 PM11/9/12
to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:47:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr>
wrote:
Why not noon on 25 November 4714 BC?
That seems to be one that is actually in use. Though that system does seem to
have base 0.
Or we could say that the year 7521 began on 14 September last.
wrote:
That seems to be one that is actually in use. Though that system does seem to
have base 0.
Or we could say that the year 7521 began on 14 September last.
Steve Hayes
Nov 9, 2012, 12:08:46 PM11/9/12
to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:55:37 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
thanks to shortsighted programmers. But that called for cursing rather than
celebration.
wrote:
>
>
>"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>news:7ccq98ho0ee1g1drf...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:25:21 -0000, "Guy Barry"
>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>> > There is absolutely no
>> > significance to the date that we would nowadays consider to be 1st
>> > January
>> > in the year AD 1.
>
>> Well yes, but in that case 1 Jan 2000 had no more significance than any
>> other
>> date either.
>
>Yes it did. It was the date when the digits all rolled over.
>
>What is more worthy of celebration: a date when there's a memorable change
>in the calendar, or a date that's the two thousandth anniversary of another
>date with no significance?
Well, 1 Jan 2000 was memorable because some software stopped working properly,
>
>
>"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>news:7ccq98ho0ee1g1drf...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:25:21 -0000, "Guy Barry"
>> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
>> > There is absolutely no
>> > significance to the date that we would nowadays consider to be 1st
>> > January
>> > in the year AD 1.
>
>> Well yes, but in that case 1 Jan 2000 had no more significance than any
>> other
>> date either.
>
>Yes it did. It was the date when the digits all rolled over.
>
>What is more worthy of celebration: a date when there's a memorable change
>in the calendar, or a date that's the two thousandth anniversary of another
>date with no significance?
thanks to shortsighted programmers. But that called for cursing rather than
celebration.
Guy Barry
Nov 9, 2012, 12:18:51 PM11/9/12
to
"abc" wrote in message news:k7jceq$9l2$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Guy Barry wrote:
>> "abc" wrote:
> >> The fact that the numbering system wasn't introduced until five
> >> centuries or so later doesn't mean those years didn't happen.
>
> > Well they clearly happened, but no one talked about "year 0" at the
> > time. That's what I meant when I said there wasn't a year 0
> Sure, but with that logic there wasn't a year 1 either, or 2 or 3 all the
> way up to 500 odd or whenever it was when the numbering was first adopted.
development - probably not until the 8th or 9th century. As I said earlier,
Dionysius Exiguus only used his calendar to number current years, not as a
method of historical chronology.
> And in these technology and science-enlightened ISO-ridden times we
> probably shouldn't accept being held back and weighed down by
> inconsistencies that were a product of less enlightened minds in their
> heyday many centuries in the past.
of the population can't start counting from there.
> Come to that, I'm not sure this western "general use" crowd can actually
> compete in numbers against the Buddhists and Hindus combined.
this discussion.
> > That's not a side-effect - that's what were celebrating. What happened
> > on the 1st January in the year 1 BC that was worth commemorating two
> > thousand years later?
> The reasons for celebration can vary individually, but the existence of a
> year 0 is what underpins the logic of the 2000 idea. It wouldn't make
> sense without it.
itself? It was the first time ever that all four digits of the year had
changed.
> According to established tradition what's being celebrated is of course
> the "supposed" birth of Christ on the 1st of January in the year 0
> (substitute 1 or some other number depending on which school you confess
> to).
year. All sorts of dates and years have been suggested, but the date that's
traditionally celebrated is 25th December (which hardly needs pointing out).
I've seen it suggested that Dionysius Exiguus was working on the basis that
Christ was born on the 25th December in the year 1 BC, making AD 1 the first
"year of our Lord". If that were the case, then the 2000th anniversary
would have been on 25th December 2000, and I don't remember anyone marking
that date as the millennium. (Although there would then have been a strong
case for celebrating AD 2000 as millennium year, since it would have
contained the 2000th anniversary of Christ's birth.)
> The fact that the actual birth took place at some other point in time is
> not especially relevant. Traditions once established are usually stronger
> than little trifles such as facts.
arbitrary. On that basis, 1st January 2000 seems as good a date to mark the
new millennium as any.
--
Guy Barry
GordonD
Nov 9, 2012, 2:46:47 PM11/9/12
to
"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XVans.327260$Bz2....@fx11.am4...
The calendar might be arbitrary but we're stuck with it until something else
comes along.
It's a fact, not opinion, that there was no year zero. Historical events
which took place the year before AD 1 occurred in 1 BC (even though they
weren't called that until five hundred years later). For this reason the
first century and millennium started on 1 January in the year AD 1. The last
year of the first century was AD 100 - if you class that as the first year
of the *second* century then the first only had 99 years..
If you had a large number of items that you wanted to pack (and sell) in
boxes of ten, would you put the first nine in Box #1 then start a new box
with the tenth, because that's when the numbers rolled over? It would be
tough luck on the customer who bought that first box - but that's what
you're arguing when you say that the year 2000 was the first of the new
millennium.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
news:XVans.327260$Bz2....@fx11.am4...
comes along.
It's a fact, not opinion, that there was no year zero. Historical events
which took place the year before AD 1 occurred in 1 BC (even though they
weren't called that until five hundred years later). For this reason the
first century and millennium started on 1 January in the year AD 1. The last
year of the first century was AD 100 - if you class that as the first year
of the *second* century then the first only had 99 years..
If you had a large number of items that you wanted to pack (and sell) in
boxes of ten, would you put the first nine in Box #1 then start a new box
with the tenth, because that's when the numbers rolled over? It would be
tough luck on the customer who bought that first box - but that's what
you're arguing when you say that the year 2000 was the first of the new
millennium.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
Andrew B
Nov 9, 2012, 2:48:41 PM11/9/12
to
established as the New Year to collaborate it with his coronation and
with circumcision of Jesus (on the eight day from His birth on December
25)."
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
abc
Nov 9, 2012, 3:13:33 PM11/9/12
to
Guy Barry wrote:
>
> "abc" wrote in message news:k7jceq$9l2$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> > That's not a side-effect - that's what were celebrating. What happened
>> > on the 1st January in the year 1 BC that was worth commemorating two
>> > thousand years later?
>
>> The reasons for celebration can vary individually, but the existence
>> of a year 0 is what underpins the logic of the 2000 idea. It wouldn't
>> make sense without it.
>
> I don't think so. Wasn't the change from 1999 to 2000 worth celebrating
> in itself? It was the first time ever that all four digits of the year
> had changed.
Sure, that too is worth celebrating, I don't think I said it wasn't.
>> According to established tradition what's being celebrated is of
>> course the "supposed" birth of Christ on the 1st of January in the
>> year 0 (substitute 1 or some other number depending on which school
>> you confess to).
>
> I have never seen anyone claim that Christ was born on 1st January in
> any year. All sorts of dates and years have been suggested, but the date
> that's traditionally celebrated is 25th December (which hardly needs
My mistake. I was mixing things there. Still, the idea is to connect his
birth to that year, if not the exact date.
abc
>
> "abc" wrote in message news:k7jceq$9l2$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> And in these technology and science-enlightened ISO-ridden times we
>> probably shouldn't accept being held back and weighed down by
>> inconsistencies that were a product of less enlightened minds in their
>> heyday many centuries in the past.
>
> I agree. If ISO is happy to have a year 0 I don't really see why the
> rest of the population can't start counting from there.
>
>> Come to that, I'm not sure this western "general use" crowd can
>> actually compete in numbers against the Buddhists and Hindus combined.
>
> Yes, but their year 0 was a different year, so it's not really relevant
> to this discussion.
Ah, agreed in that case.
>> And in these technology and science-enlightened ISO-ridden times we
>> probably shouldn't accept being held back and weighed down by
>> inconsistencies that were a product of less enlightened minds in their
>> heyday many centuries in the past.
>
> I agree. If ISO is happy to have a year 0 I don't really see why the
> rest of the population can't start counting from there.
>
>> Come to that, I'm not sure this western "general use" crowd can
>> actually compete in numbers against the Buddhists and Hindus combined.
>
> Yes, but their year 0 was a different year, so it's not really relevant
> to this discussion.
>> > That's not a side-effect - that's what were celebrating. What happened
>> > on the 1st January in the year 1 BC that was worth commemorating two
>> > thousand years later?
>
>> The reasons for celebration can vary individually, but the existence
>> of a year 0 is what underpins the logic of the 2000 idea. It wouldn't
>> make sense without it.
>
> I don't think so. Wasn't the change from 1999 to 2000 worth celebrating
> in itself? It was the first time ever that all four digits of the year
> had changed.
>> According to established tradition what's being celebrated is of
>> course the "supposed" birth of Christ on the 1st of January in the
>> year 0 (substitute 1 or some other number depending on which school
>> you confess to).
>
> I have never seen anyone claim that Christ was born on 1st January in
> any year. All sorts of dates and years have been suggested, but the date
> that's traditionally celebrated is 25th December (which hardly needs
birth to that year, if not the exact date.
abc
Whiskers
Nov 9, 2012, 3:38:10 PM11/9/12
to
On 2012-11-09, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
> news:0e70e6f6-c4b9-455f...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> system of numbering years was invented by Dionysius Exiguus in a year that
> he decided to number as 525. Nobody knows where he got this number from -
> it appears to be arbitrary. Hence any disputes about whether there was a 0
> AD, or wasn't, or whether the first century had 100 years, or 99, or
> whatever, are completely meaningless because the AD calendar didn't exist at
> the time. What we do know for certain is that Dionysius Exiguus got his
> calculations wrong, and that AD 525 wasn't 525 years after the birth of
> Christ.
He was not trying to pinpoint the birth of Jesus; he was trying to prepare
tables of the dates of Easter. I expect he found the number 525 convenient
as a starting point for some reason. Bear in mind that he had no concept
of zero as a number, and would have been using Roman or Greek notation for
writing numbers, so it must have been pretty tricky to do the arithmetic.
Other people took to using the year number from his tables instead of the
multitude of different methods used in different countries; it must have
reduced confusion in international transactions. I don't think he ever
intended anyone to think that 'Jesus was born in year 1 of this table'.
> So the current system of numbering is arbitrary, and if the
> generally accepted usage is that the nineteenth century began in 1800, then
> that's good enough for me. All the millennium celebrations took place at
> the beginning of 2000 (except in Cuba, apparently).
Ethiopia's calendar starts counting a few years after the international
one.
> Personally I'm looking forward to 2025 when I shall be celebrating the start
> of the sixteenth century AD!
Delayed reaction?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
> news:0e70e6f6-c4b9-455f...@s14g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
>> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
>> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
>> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>
> Cue endless disputes. I used to care about this, but no longer do. The AD
>> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
>> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
>> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>
> system of numbering years was invented by Dionysius Exiguus in a year that
> he decided to number as 525. Nobody knows where he got this number from -
> it appears to be arbitrary. Hence any disputes about whether there was a 0
> AD, or wasn't, or whether the first century had 100 years, or 99, or
> whatever, are completely meaningless because the AD calendar didn't exist at
> the time. What we do know for certain is that Dionysius Exiguus got his
> calculations wrong, and that AD 525 wasn't 525 years after the birth of
> Christ.
He was not trying to pinpoint the birth of Jesus; he was trying to prepare
tables of the dates of Easter. I expect he found the number 525 convenient
as a starting point for some reason. Bear in mind that he had no concept
of zero as a number, and would have been using Roman or Greek notation for
writing numbers, so it must have been pretty tricky to do the arithmetic.
Other people took to using the year number from his tables instead of the
multitude of different methods used in different countries; it must have
reduced confusion in international transactions. I don't think he ever
intended anyone to think that 'Jesus was born in year 1 of this table'.
> So the current system of numbering is arbitrary, and if the
> generally accepted usage is that the nineteenth century began in 1800, then
> that's good enough for me. All the millennium celebrations took place at
> the beginning of 2000 (except in Cuba, apparently).
Ethiopia's calendar starts counting a few years after the international
one.
> Personally I'm looking forward to 2025 when I shall be celebrating the start
> of the sixteenth century AD!
Delayed reaction?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Harrison Hill
Nov 9, 2012, 5:17:17 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 7:23 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
>
> news:8bb620a2-80c6-45d5...@p22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
>
>
> > We started the new millenium at 12.00 00.01 on the 1st January 2000
> > over here in Britain.
>
> I thought it started at midnight. You mean I started celebrating a whole
> minute early?
>
> > Are you saying we had to wait a full year before
> > we could start the new century?
>
> You can start a new century whenever you like. Before 1752, the New Year
> started on the 25th of March.
He he he! Then how come the UK "Tax Year" starts on the 5th April and
> You can start a new century whenever you like. Before 1752, the New Year
> started on the 25th of March.
not the 25th March?
Mike L
Nov 9, 2012, 5:17:23 PM11/9/12
to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 20:03:37 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <k7iknm$jfe$2...@news.albasani.net>
> abc <a...@abc.net> wrote:
>> jgharston wrote:
>>>> it...
>>>
>>> The 18th century is 1800 or earlier. Here's a hint: what year did the
>>> 1st
>>> century start in? Now add 1800.
>
>> It started in year 0 according to some,
>
>No, sorry. Still wrong.
>
>In our (Western civilization) calendar system there is not now, nor ever
>has been, a year zero.
>
>Now, perhaps someday in the future we may adopt a new calendar and
>perhaps then we will call that first year '0' but that is not the case
>now.
>
>(I suggest that either 1945 or 1969 be 'year 0' in this future calendar,
>but I doubt I will be around to care).
It's _ages_ in our culture that are cardinal. Our dates, though, are
ordinal: this includes days and months (and weeks in some diaries) as
well as years. That some minorities find it useful for their own
purposes to recognise a Year 0 is up to them, but it's irrelevant for
most other people, and I'll be interested to know if their Year Zero
also has Day Zero of Month Zero.
But people can have a party whenever they like.
--
Mike.
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <k7iknm$jfe$2...@news.albasani.net>
> abc <a...@abc.net> wrote:
>> jgharston wrote:
>>> Harrison Hill wrote:
>>>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>>>> or earlier) exists, and I challenge the James Hoggs of you to find
>>>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>>>> it...
>>>
>>> The 18th century is 1800 or earlier. Here's a hint: what year did the
>>> 1st
>>> century start in? Now add 1800.
>
>> It started in year 0 according to some,
>
>No, sorry. Still wrong.
>
>In our (Western civilization) calendar system there is not now, nor ever
>has been, a year zero.
>
>Now, perhaps someday in the future we may adopt a new calendar and
>perhaps then we will call that first year '0' but that is not the case
>now.
>
>(I suggest that either 1945 or 1969 be 'year 0' in this future calendar,
>but I doubt I will be around to care).
It's _ages_ in our culture that are cardinal. Our dates, though, are
ordinal: this includes days and months (and weeks in some diaries) as
well as years. That some minorities find it useful for their own
purposes to recognise a Year 0 is up to them, but it's irrelevant for
most other people, and I'll be interested to know if their Year Zero
also has Day Zero of Month Zero.
But people can have a party whenever they like.
--
Mike.
Peter Young
Nov 9, 2012, 5:38:23 PM11/9/12
to
myth.
Robert Bannister
Nov 9, 2012, 5:57:46 PM11/9/12
to
On 9/11/12 3:29 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>
> "Skitt" wrote in message news:k7hiv4$f09$6...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Here's the low-down on the 21st century:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century
started with 1 instead of 0 if you like, but you can't suddenly change
it so the 21st century begins with a 0 instead of 1. On the whole, for
most of us, it works better to talk about the 1800s rather than the 19th
century because then we know what we're talking about.
--
Robert Bannister
>
>
> "Skitt" wrote in message news:k7hiv4$f09$6...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Here's the low-down on the 21st century:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century
>
> And yet Wikipedia also pronounces that "the 2000s was a decade that
> began on January 1, 2000 and ended on December 31, 2009".
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_%28decade%29
> And yet Wikipedia also pronounces that "the 2000s was a decade that
> began on January 1, 2000 and ended on December 31, 2009".
>
>
> So it had one year in the 20th century and nine years in the 21st? That
> doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
>
But that's how it works. Blame the people who invented a calender that
> So it had one year in the 20th century and nine years in the 21st? That
> doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
>
started with 1 instead of 0 if you like, but you can't suddenly change
it so the 21st century begins with a 0 instead of 1. On the whole, for
most of us, it works better to talk about the 1800s rather than the 19th
century because then we know what we're talking about.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Nov 9, 2012, 6:00:25 PM11/9/12
to
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Nov 9, 2012, 6:05:46 PM11/9/12
to
On 9/11/12 4:41 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> really don't know why it bothers so many people. Of course 2000 was
>> the natural time for a celebration, because it's a nice round number
>> and all the digits changed. Do I take it that all the people who
>> claim the millennium started in 2001 sat there stony-faced in 2000,
>> pretending it wasn't happening?
>
> Some did, I think, but most went ahead and celebrated like everyone else.
>
>
Since New Year's Day or the evening prior are purely arbitrary dates as
Guy keeps telling us, I have not celebrated either of them for at least
the last forty years. I could not see that either 2000 or 2001 deserved
any more consideration. I am happy enough with celebrating Christmas
because that is at least close to the solstice which is a real event.
--
Robert Bannister
> On 2012-11-09 07:24:00 +0000, Guy Barry said:
>
>> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
>> news:8bb620a2-80c6-45d5...@p22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> We started the new millenium at 12.00 00.01 on the 1st January 2000
>>> over here in Britain.
>>
>> I thought it started at midnight. You mean I started celebrating a
>> whole minute early?
>>
>>> Are you saying we had to wait a full year before
>>> we could start the new century?
>>
>> You can start a new century whenever you like. Before 1752, the New
>> Year started on the 25th of March. The whole thing's arbitrary and I
>
>> "Harrison Hill" wrote in message
>> news:8bb620a2-80c6-45d5...@p22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> We started the new millenium at 12.00 00.01 on the 1st January 2000
>>> over here in Britain.
>>
>> I thought it started at midnight. You mean I started celebrating a
>> whole minute early?
>>
>>> Are you saying we had to wait a full year before
>>> we could start the new century?
>>
>> You can start a new century whenever you like. Before 1752, the New
>> really don't know why it bothers so many people. Of course 2000 was
>> the natural time for a celebration, because it's a nice round number
>> and all the digits changed. Do I take it that all the people who
>> claim the millennium started in 2001 sat there stony-faced in 2000,
>> pretending it wasn't happening?
>
> Some did, I think, but most went ahead and celebrated like everyone else.
>
>
Since New Year's Day or the evening prior are purely arbitrary dates as
Guy keeps telling us, I have not celebrated either of them for at least
the last forty years. I could not see that either 2000 or 2001 deserved
any more consideration. I am happy enough with celebrating Christmas
because that is at least close to the solstice which is a real event.
--
Robert Bannister
Steve Hayes
Nov 9, 2012, 8:02:29 PM11/9/12
to
Steve Hayes
Nov 9, 2012, 8:09:11 PM11/9/12
to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:18:51 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>I don't think so. Wasn't the change from 1999 to 2000 worth celebrating in
>itself? It was the first time ever that all four digits of the year had
>changed.
In which case, there would have been far more reason to celebrate 1961.
The next time there'll be a year like that will be 6009, thoguh if there's
still anyone around to celebrate it they'll probably be using a different
calendar, perhaps based on After Ford.
wrote:
>I don't think so. Wasn't the change from 1999 to 2000 worth celebrating in
>itself? It was the first time ever that all four digits of the year had
>changed.
The next time there'll be a year like that will be 6009, thoguh if there's
still anyone around to celebrate it they'll probably be using a different
calendar, perhaps based on After Ford.
Guy Barry
Nov 9, 2012, 9:39:26 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 10, 1:03 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:17:17 -0800 (PST), Harrison Hill
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:17:17 -0800 (PST), Harrison Hill
> >He he he! Then how come the UK "Tax Year" starts on the 5th April and
> >not the 25th March?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/a528umx
What was the point of providing that link? All it does is take me to
> >not the 25th March?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/a528umx
the results of a Google search - the first being the Guardian's "Notes
and Queries" column, which is notoriously inaccurate. There are a lot
of misapprehensions about this issue. Here's a page with the right
answer:
http://www.ebs.ltd.uk/why-does-the-uk-tax-year-end-on-april-5th/
First of all, Harrison's statement is wrong. The UK tax year starts
on the 6th April, not the 5th.
The change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar resulted in the
loss of eleven days in 1752, as others have pointed out.
"Until 1752 the tax year in Great Britain started on 25th March, old
New Year’s Day. In order to ensure no loss of tax revenue, the
Treasury decided that the taxation year which started on 25th March
1752 would be of the usual length (365 days) and therefore it would
end on 4th April, the following tax year beginning on 5th April.
The next difficulty was that 1800 was not a leap year in the new
Gregorian calendar but would have been in the old Julian system.
Therefore the Treasury moved the year start again from 5th to 6th of
April, and this date has remained unchanged ever since."
A similar change was not made in 1900, the next time the Julian and
Gregorian calendars diverged by a day. I presume that either people
had forgotten about the issue by then or it was deemed to be too
confusing to bother with. There has been no further divergence
between the calendars since then (2000 was a leap year in both
systems).
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 9, 2012, 10:05:39 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 7:46 pm, "GordonD" <g.da...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> It's a fact, not opinion, that there was no year zero.
It's also a fact, not an opinion, that there was no year AD 1, 2, 3,
> It's a fact, not opinion, that there was no year zero.
4, ... . All these things are artefacts of a system developed several
centuries later. Hence I don't see much point in arguing about
whether they happened or not, because people didn't count the years
like that at the time.
> Historical events
> which took place the year before AD 1 occurred in 1 BC (even though they
> weren't called that until five hundred years later).
his calendar to number current years, not to date historical events.
Bede in 731 used the term "ante vero incarnationis dominicae
tempus" ("the time before the Lord's true incarnation") to denote
years that occurred before the beginning of Dionysius's AD system.
The term "BC" wasn't used until much later. I haven't managed to find
a precise reference, but it looks as though "ante Christum" may date
from as late as the 17th century.
> For this reason the
> first century and millennium started on 1 January in the year AD 1.
started then? I don't know when people first started marking the
passage of time by centuries and millennia, but I would imagine it was
some time in the Middle Ages. The chronology of much of the
intervening period is uncertain anyway. There's a lot we don't know
about the period AD 600-900 in particular. Some people have claimed
that the chronology is out by many years - there are even people who
claim the Early Middle Ages didn't exist at all. It seems bizarre to
be arguing about a single year when there's so much doubt about the
passage of centuries.
> The last
> year of the first century was AD 100 - if you class that as the first year
> of the *second* century then the first only had 99 years..
100 at the time.
> If you had a large number of items that you wanted to pack (and sell) in
> boxes of ten, would you put the first nine in Box #1 then start a new box
> with the tenth, because that's when the numbers rolled over? It would be
> tough luck on the customer who bought that first box - but that's what
> you're arguing when you say that the year 2000 was the first of the new
> millennium.
artefact of a much later era, and so it really doesn't matter when AD
1 was presumed to be or when the end of the first century was. What's
important is how we count the years *now*. We talk about the 1980s,
1990s and so on because it's natural to think of a new decade starting
when the final digit changes to zero. Why suddenly throw that rule
out of the window when it comes to centuries and millennia?
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 9, 2012, 10:21:04 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 10:57 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> But that's how it works. Blame the people who invented a calender that
> started with 1 instead of 0 if you like, but you can't suddenly change
> it so the 21st century begins with a 0 instead of 1.
Why not? People have historically mucked around with the calendar in
> But that's how it works. Blame the people who invented a calender that
> started with 1 instead of 0 if you like, but you can't suddenly change
> it so the 21st century begins with a 0 instead of 1.
all sorts of ways. It's not as though anything important is measured
in terms of centuries. What practical difference did it make whether
the 21st century started in 2000 or 2001? It's simply an arbitrary
way of talking about periods in history, and if people find it more
convenient to talk about the centuries as starting at the round years,
then I don't see why they should be prevented from doing so.
> On the whole, for
> most of us, it works better to talk about the 1800s rather than the 19th
> century because then we know what we're talking about.
best solution - although I'm still not sure what we'd call the current
century. "The two thousands" sounds as though it might refer to the
entire millennium. "The twenty hundreds"?
--
Guy Barry
Steve Hayes
Nov 9, 2012, 11:08:04 PM11/9/12
to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:39:26 -0800 (PST), Guy Barry
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On Nov 10, 1:03�am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:17:17 -0800 (PST), Harrison Hill
>
>> >He he he! Then how come the UK "Tax Year" starts on the 5th April and
>> >not the 25th March?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/a528umx
>
>What was the point of providing that link? All it does is take me to
>the results of a Google search - the first being the Guardian's "Notes
>and Queries" column, which is notoriously inaccurate. There are a lot
>of misapprehensions about this issue. Here's a page with the right
>answer:
The point is that the answers to such questions can usually be found on theb
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On Nov 10, 1:03�am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:17:17 -0800 (PST), Harrison Hill
>
>> >He he he! Then how come the UK "Tax Year" starts on the 5th April and
>> >not the 25th March?
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/a528umx
>
>What was the point of providing that link? All it does is take me to
>the results of a Google search - the first being the Guardian's "Notes
>and Queries" column, which is notoriously inaccurate. There are a lot
>of misapprehensions about this issue. Here's a page with the right
>answer:
web by means of search engines.
>
>http://www.ebs.ltd.uk/why-does-the-uk-tax-year-end-on-april-5th/
>
>First of all, Harrison's statement is wrong. The UK tax year starts
>on the 6th April, not the 5th.
>
>The change from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar resulted in the
>loss of eleven days in 1752, as others have pointed out.
>
>"Until 1752 the tax year in Great Britain started on 25th March, old
>New Year�s Day. In order to ensure no loss of tax revenue, the
>Treasury decided that the taxation year which started on 25th March
>1752 would be of the usual length (365 days) and therefore it would
>end on 4th April, the following tax year beginning on 5th April.
>
>The next difficulty was that 1800 was not a leap year in the new
>Gregorian calendar but would have been in the old Julian system.
>Therefore the Treasury moved the year start again from 5th to 6th of
>April, and this date has remained unchanged ever since."
>
>A similar change was not made in 1900, the next time the Julian and
>Gregorian calendars diverged by a day. I presume that either people
>had forgotten about the issue by then or it was deemed to be too
>confusing to bother with. There has been no further divergence
>between the calendars since then (2000 was a leap year in both
>systems).
the UK tax year remains to be seen.
Steve Hayes
Nov 9, 2012, 11:16:40 PM11/9/12
to
then? In the same way that the Middle Ages, which didn't exist at the time,
started whenever they did.
It's a bit like the story of the ancient Roman coin that was dated 10 BC.
>> The last
>> year of the first century was AD 100 - if you class that as the first year
>> of the *second* century then the first only had 99 years..
>
>Again, a meaningless statement since no one was around to call it AD
>100 at the time.
was around to call them the Middle Ages at the time. The Middle Ages simply
did not exist (by your reasoning above, anyway).
But modern historians find both the concept of the 1st century and that of
"the Middle Ages" useful for describing past events, even though you may think
that they are deluded in doing so.
Peter Moylan
Nov 10, 2012, 1:00:22 AM11/10/12
to
On 09/11/12 11:20, Harrison Hill wrote:
> We started the new millenium at 12.00 00.01 on the 1st January 2000
> over here in Britain.
A lot of people did that so that they could have two parties: one at the
> We started the new millenium at 12.00 00.01 on the 1st January 2000
> over here in Britain.
beginning of 2000, and another a year later when the new millennium started.
An alternative theory is that the new millenium started in 2000, and the
new millennium started in 2001. It's interesting to see that the first
spelling is so common that Google doesn't even ask "Did you mean ...".
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Guy Barry
Nov 10, 2012, 2:11:04 AM11/10/12
to
"Andrew B" wrote in message news:k7jmmo$ce4$1...@dont-email.me...
the New Year in England until 1752 when the calendar was changed. Am I
wrong? The Scottish New Year on January 1st is certainly a well-established
custom.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 10, 2012, 2:13:29 AM11/10/12
to
"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk9qngu....@mbp55.local...
> And it's senseless. LEt's just look at it this way, if the years of the
> 19th century are 1800-1899, then why is it the NINETEENTH century?
Strictly, it isn't. It's the 1800s rather than the nineteenth century AD.
If we stuck to that nomenclature there might be less confusion.
It's still a century, though.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 10, 2012, 2:17:10 AM11/10/12
to
"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk9qo04....@mbp55.local...
> In message <k7iq55$vkt$1...@news.albasani.net>
> abc <a...@abc.net> wrote:
> > If you agree there was a year 1, you have to agree there was a year
> > preceding your year 1. One school numbers the preceding year year 0, so
> > there was one, another one has it as -1 and can claim there wasn't one.
> You are completely, totally, unequivocally wrong.
No he's not. I've already pointed out that both astronomical year numbering
and ISO standard year numbering have a year 0, which corresponds to 1 BC.
Year -1 corresponds to 2 BC and so on.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 10, 2012, 2:40:15 AM11/10/12
to
"Whiskers" wrote in message
news:slrnk9qqdi.1...@ID-107770.user.individual.net...
> On 2012-11-09, Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > What we do know for certain is that Dionysius Exiguus got his
> > calculations wrong, and that AD 525 wasn't 525 years after the birth of
> > Christ.
> He was not trying to pinpoint the birth of Jesus; he was trying to prepare
> tables of the dates of Easter. I expect he found the number 525
> convenient
> as a starting point for some reason.
Diocletian era numbering, because Diocletian was a persecutor of Christians.
> Other people took to using the year number from his tables instead of the
> multitude of different methods used in different countries; it must have
> reduced confusion in international transactions. I don't think he ever
> intended anyone to think that 'Jesus was born in year 1 of this table'.
1 is misguided; it's a date of no real significance.
> > So the current system of numbering is arbitrary, and if the
> > generally accepted usage is that the nineteenth century began in 1800,
> > then
> > that's good enough for me. All the millennium celebrations took place
> > at
> > the beginning of 2000 (except in Cuba, apparently).
> Ethiopia's calendar starts counting a few years after the international
> one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1379981/Castro-hosts-party-for-the-true-Millennium.html
Clearly Havana was the place to be for all chronological pedants that night!
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 10, 2012, 2:55:54 AM11/10/12
to
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message news:ag5g3d...@mid.individual.net...
> Blame the people who invented a calender that started with 1 instead of 0
> if you like,
It was later extrapolated backwards, so presumably you can start it whenever
you like.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 10, 2012, 2:57:56 AM11/10/12
to
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message news:ag5g89...@mid.individual.net...
years.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 10, 2012, 3:07:15 AM11/10/12
to
"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:18:51 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >I don't think so. Wasn't the change from 1999 to 2000 worth celebrating
> >in
> >itself? It was the first time ever that all four digits of the year had
> >changed.
> In which case, there would have been far more reason to celebrate 1961.
happened as recently as 1881.
--
Guy Barry
Snidely
Nov 10, 2012, 3:13:07 AM11/10/12
to
Guy Barry was thinking very hard :
>
> "abc" wrote in message news:k7iq55$vkt$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Guy Barry wrote:
>>
>> > "abc" wrote in message news:k7ikjc$jfe$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> >> The 2000-standpoint is based on there having been a year 0.
>>
>> > No it's not, because there wasn't one.
>
>> Saying "there wasn't one" is just meaningless.
>
> " Year zero does not exist in the Anno Domini system usually used to number
> years in the Gregorian calendar and in its predecessor, the Julian calendar.
> In this system, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1. However, there is a year
> zero in astronomical year numbering (where it coincides with the Julian year
> 1 BC) and in ISO 8601:2004 (where it coincides with the Gregorian year 1 BC)
> as well as in all Buddhist and Hindu calendars. "
>
> So if you want to go by astronomical year numbering or the ISO system, you
> can talk about year 0, but it corresponds to 1 BC. Year -1 corresponds to 2
> BC, year -2 corresponds to 3 BC and so on.
>
>> The fact that the numbering system wasn't introduced until five centuries
>> or so later doesn't mean those years didn't happen.
>
> Well they clearly happened, but no one talked about "year 0" at the time.
> That's what I meant when I said there wasn't a year 0 - there's a year that's
> generally referred to as 1 BC, which is numbered as 0 in some systems, but
> not the one in general use. (Although I was under the impression that some
> people here were quite keen on the ISO standard system, particularly when
> referring to 24-hour time.)
>
>> > The 2000 standpoint is based on
>> > the fact that it was the obvious time to mark the new century and
>> > millennium, because that's when the digits all changed.
>
>> That's a convenient side-effect, not what it's based on. At least for
>> anyone who can count to 2000.
kind) was accepted in European circles? ISTR it was nearly the time of
Columbus, and coinciding with adoption of a related Hindu invention,
Arabic numerals.
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
>
> "abc" wrote in message news:k7iq55$vkt$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> Guy Barry wrote:
>>
>> > "abc" wrote in message news:k7ikjc$jfe$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> >> The 2000-standpoint is based on there having been a year 0.
>>
>> > No it's not, because there wasn't one.
>
>> Saying "there wasn't one" is just meaningless.
>
>> If you agree there was a year 1, you have to agree there was a year
>> preceding your year 1. One school numbers the preceding year year 0, so
>> there was one, another one has it as -1 and can claim there wasn't one.
>
> Wikipedia has an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28year%29 :
>> If you agree there was a year 1, you have to agree there was a year
>> preceding your year 1. One school numbers the preceding year year 0, so
>> there was one, another one has it as -1 and can claim there wasn't one.
>
>
> " Year zero does not exist in the Anno Domini system usually used to number
> years in the Gregorian calendar and in its predecessor, the Julian calendar.
> In this system, the year 1 BC is followed by AD 1. However, there is a year
> zero in astronomical year numbering (where it coincides with the Julian year
> 1 BC) and in ISO 8601:2004 (where it coincides with the Gregorian year 1 BC)
> as well as in all Buddhist and Hindu calendars. "
>
> So if you want to go by astronomical year numbering or the ISO system, you
> can talk about year 0, but it corresponds to 1 BC. Year -1 corresponds to 2
> BC, year -2 corresponds to 3 BC and so on.
>
>> The fact that the numbering system wasn't introduced until five centuries
>> or so later doesn't mean those years didn't happen.
>
> Well they clearly happened, but no one talked about "year 0" at the time.
> That's what I meant when I said there wasn't a year 0 - there's a year that's
> generally referred to as 1 BC, which is numbered as 0 in some systems, but
> not the one in general use. (Although I was under the impression that some
> people here were quite keen on the ISO standard system, particularly when
> referring to 24-hour time.)
>
>> > The 2000 standpoint is based on
>> > the fact that it was the obvious time to mark the new century and
>> > millennium, because that's when the digits all changed.
>
>> That's a convenient side-effect, not what it's based on. At least for
>> anyone who can count to 2000.
>
> That's not a side-effect - that's what were celebrating. What happened on
> the 1st January in the year 1 BC that was worth commemorating two thousand
> years later?
Wasn't it a long time later that idea of "zero" as a number (of any
> That's not a side-effect - that's what were celebrating. What happened on
> the 1st January in the year 1 BC that was worth commemorating two thousand
> years later?
kind) was accepted in European circles? ISTR it was nearly the time of
Columbus, and coinciding with adoption of a related Hindu invention,
Arabic numerals.
/dps
--
Who, me? And what lacuna?
Guy Barry
Nov 10, 2012, 3:21:22 AM11/10/12
to
"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:39:26 -0800 (PST), Guy Barry
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Nov 10, 1:03 am, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:17:17 -0800 (PST), Harrison Hill
>
> >> >He he he! Then how come the UK "Tax Year" starts on the 5th April and
> >> >not the 25th March?
>>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/a528umx
>
> >What was the point of providing that link? All it does is take me to
> >the results of a Google search - the first being the Guardian's "Notes
> >and Queries" column, which is notoriously inaccurate. There are a lot
> >of misapprehensions about this issue. Here's a page with the right
> >answer:
> The point is that the answers to such questions can usually be found on
> theb
> web by means of search engines.
answers followed by the right one and then one saying "for no good reason".
The second hit had the wrong answer. The third hit was a list of responses
on a blog, most of which were wrong or irrelevant, although the right answer
was buried in there somewhere. The fourth hit (Wikipedia) did contain the
right answer if you went down far enough, but it wasn't obvious. If I
hadn't already known the correct answer, the results of that Google search
would have been useless.
If you're going to provide a link in a post, please provide one to a site
containing useful information. Everyone knows that you can use Google to
look things up - it doesn't mean that the answers are necessarily the right
ones.
> >A similar change was not made in 1900, the next time the Julian and
> >Gregorian calendars diverged by a day. I presume that either people
> >had forgotten about the issue by then or it was deemed to be too
> >confusing to bother with. There has been no further divergence
> >between the calendars since then (2000 was a leap year in both
> >systems).
> The difference will increase to 14 days in 2100, but whether it will
> affect
> the UK tax year remains to be seen.
they'll make it in 2100. I imagine that the start of the tax year is now
fixed at April 6th indefinitely.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 10, 2012, 3:32:21 AM11/10/12
to
"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
> If the AD calendar didn't exist at the time, how can anything have started
> then? In the same way that the Middle Ages, which didn't exist at the
> time,
> started whenever they did.
Middle Ages.
> In the same way that "the Middle Ages" is a meaningless phrase, since no
> one
> was around to call them the Middle Ages at the time. The Middle Ages
> simply
> did not exist (by your reasoning above, anyway).
Nobody woke up one morning and said "bloody hell, the Middle Ages have
started!"
> But modern historians find both the concept of the 1st century and that of
> "the Middle Ages" useful for describing past events, even though you may
> think
> that they are deluded in doing so.
relevance in talking about modern-day chronology. Why should the start of
the new millennium be determined by the method that the Venerable Bede used
to count backwards from the start of the AD period, which he had himself
extrapolated from Dionysius' calendar? Had negative numbers been in general
use in those days, he might very well have gone back from 1 and counted
0, -1, -2,... . But people didn't count like that then.
--
Guy Barry
R H Draney
Nov 10, 2012, 3:49:48 AM11/10/12
to
Guy Barry filted:
2002....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>
>
>"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>news:l4ar985qk448a1egh...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>news:l4ar985qk448a1egh...@4ax.com...
>
>> In which case, there would have been far more reason to celebrate 1961.
>
>That wasn't the first time the date was the same upside-down. It had
>happened as recently as 1881.
If you're using a seven-segment display, it happened again as recently as
>
>That wasn't the first time the date was the same upside-down. It had
>happened as recently as 1881.
2002....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Guy Barry
Nov 10, 2012, 3:52:23 AM11/10/12
to
"Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.4d8a7dcbf4e6b390.127094@snitoo...
> Wasn't it a long time later that idea of "zero" as a number (of any kind)
> was accepted in European circles? ISTR it was nearly the time of
> Columbus, and coinciding with adoption of a related Hindu invention,
> Arabic numerals.
" Another zero was used in tables alongside Roman numerals by 525 (first
known use by Dionysius Exiguus), but as a word, nulla meaning "nothing", not
as a symbol. When division produced zero as a remainder, nihil, also meaning
"nothing", was used. These medieval zeros were used by all future medieval
computists (calculators of Easter). The initial "N" was used as a zero
symbol in a table of Roman numerals by Bede or his colleague around 725. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29#Greeks_and_Romans
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 10, 2012, 4:51:05 AM11/10/12
to
Just to show how absurd and inconsistent this whole system of chronology is,
Wikipedia claims that the AD era started with a "decade" that was only nine
years long:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0s
--
Guy Barry
Wikipedia claims that the AD era started with a "decade" that was only nine
years long:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0s
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Nov 10, 2012, 5:17:24 AM11/10/12
to
"Guy Barry" wrote in message news:76nns.369975$vW7.1...@fx19.am4...
> "Andrew B" wrote in message news:k7jmmo$ce4$1...@dont-email.me...
> > According to Wikipedia, William the Conqueror "ordered January 1 to be
> > established as the New Year to collaborate it with his coronation and
> > with circumcision of Jesus (on the eight day from His birth on December
> > 25)."
> I thought that March 25th (the Feast of the Annunciation) was celebrated
> as the New Year in England until 1752 when the calendar was changed. Am I
> wrong? The Scottish New Year on January 1st is certainly a
> well-established custom.
This site appears to have the answer:
> > established as the New Year to collaborate it with his coronation and
> > with circumcision of Jesus (on the eight day from His birth on December
> > 25)."
> I thought that March 25th (the Feast of the Annunciation) was celebrated
> as the New Year in England until 1752 when the calendar was changed. Am I
> wrong? The Scottish New Year on January 1st is certainly a
> well-established custom.
" The date at which the year commenced varied at different periods and in
different countries. When Julius Caesar reformed the calendar (45 B.C.) he
fixed 1 January as New Year's Day, a character which it seems never quite to
have lost, even among those who for civil and legal purposes chose another
starting point. The most common of such starting points were 25 March (Feast
of the Annunciation, 'Style of the Incarnation') and 25 December (Christmas
Day, 'Style of the Nativity'). In England before the Norman Conquest (1066)
the year began either on 25 March or 25 December; from 1087 to 1155 on 1
January; and from 1155 till the reform of the calendar in 1752 on 25 March,
so that 24 March was the last day of one year, and 25 March the first day of
the next. But though the legal year was thus reckoned, it is clear that 1
January was commonly spoken of as New Year's Day. In Scotland, from 1
January, 1600, the beginning of the year was reckoned from that day. "
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03738a.htm#beginning
--
Guy Barry
Steve Hayes
Nov 10, 2012, 5:20:00 AM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 08:32:21 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>
The Middle Ages were invented by Renaissance historians who felt superior to
their predecessors.
In the same way, nobody lived in the Byzantine Empire, because it never
existed.
>> But modern historians find both the concept of the 1st century and that of
>> "the Middle Ages" useful for describing past events, even though you may
>> think
>> that they are deluded in doing so.
>
>I don't think that at all. I'm simply saying that it's of very little
>relevance in talking about modern-day chronology. Why should the start of
>the new millennium be determined by the method that the Venerable Bede used
>to count backwards from the start of the AD period, which he had himself
>extrapolated from Dionysius' calendar? Had negative numbers been in general
>use in those days, he might very well have gone back from 1 and counted
>0, -1, -2,... . But people didn't count like that then.
Poor old Bede has a lot to answer for, though he never realised it at the time
-- not only did he erase a year, quite unaware what controversies he would
cause on Usenet, but he invented a pagan goddess so that Christians could
steal her festival. For a long time people blamed him for Easter, but now
you're blaming him for Christmas and New year as well!
wrote:
>
>
>"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>news:uskr989niltr60l0d...@4ax.com...
>
>> If the AD calendar didn't exist at the time, how can anything have started
>> then? In the same way that the Middle Ages, which didn't exist at the
>> time,
>> started whenever they did.
>
>I don't think anyone has ever given a definite date for the start of the
>Middle Ages.
>
>> In the same way that "the Middle Ages" is a meaningless phrase, since no
>> one
>> was around to call them the Middle Ages at the time. The Middle Ages
>> simply
>> did not exist (by your reasoning above, anyway).
>
>In a sense, they didn't. It's a label that's been given to them afterwards.
>Nobody woke up one morning and said "bloody hell, the Middle Ages have
>started!"
Quite.
>news:uskr989niltr60l0d...@4ax.com...
>
>> If the AD calendar didn't exist at the time, how can anything have started
>> then? In the same way that the Middle Ages, which didn't exist at the
>> time,
>> started whenever they did.
>
>I don't think anyone has ever given a definite date for the start of the
>Middle Ages.
>
>> In the same way that "the Middle Ages" is a meaningless phrase, since no
>> one
>> was around to call them the Middle Ages at the time. The Middle Ages
>> simply
>> did not exist (by your reasoning above, anyway).
>
>In a sense, they didn't. It's a label that's been given to them afterwards.
>Nobody woke up one morning and said "bloody hell, the Middle Ages have
>started!"
The Middle Ages were invented by Renaissance historians who felt superior to
their predecessors.
In the same way, nobody lived in the Byzantine Empire, because it never
existed.
>> But modern historians find both the concept of the 1st century and that of
>> "the Middle Ages" useful for describing past events, even though you may
>> think
>> that they are deluded in doing so.
>
>I don't think that at all. I'm simply saying that it's of very little
>relevance in talking about modern-day chronology. Why should the start of
>the new millennium be determined by the method that the Venerable Bede used
>to count backwards from the start of the AD period, which he had himself
>extrapolated from Dionysius' calendar? Had negative numbers been in general
>use in those days, he might very well have gone back from 1 and counted
>0, -1, -2,... . But people didn't count like that then.
-- not only did he erase a year, quite unaware what controversies he would
cause on Usenet, but he invented a pagan goddess so that Christians could
steal her festival. For a long time people blamed him for Easter, but now
you're blaming him for Christmas and New year as well!
Steve Hayes
Nov 10, 2012, 5:21:49 AM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:11:04 -0000, "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>
It wasn't always regarded as New Year in England, though I'm not sure when
they started doing so. As you have pointed out already in several posts,
calendars are fickle things, and keep changing.
wrote:
>
>
they started doing so. As you have pointed out already in several posts,
calendars are fickle things, and keep changing.
Steve Hayes
Nov 10, 2012, 5:25:05 AM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:13:07 -0800, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Wasn't it a long time later that idea of "zero" as a number (of any
>kind) was accepted in European circles? ISTR it was nearly the time of
>Columbus, and coinciding with adoption of a related Hindu invention,
>Arabic numerals.
Something like that -- how do you represent a zero in Roman numerals?
>Wasn't it a long time later that idea of "zero" as a number (of any
>kind) was accepted in European circles? ISTR it was nearly the time of
>Columbus, and coinciding with adoption of a related Hindu invention,
>Arabic numerals.
I wonder if people got as excited about the year M as they did about the year
MM?
Guy Barry
Nov 10, 2012, 5:32:22 AM11/10/12
to
"Steve Hayes" wrote in message
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:11:04 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >I thought that March 25th (the Feast of the Annunciation) was celebrated
> >as
> >the New Year in England until 1752 when the calendar was changed. Am I
> >wrong? The Scottish New Year on January 1st is certainly a
> >well-established
> >custom.
> It wasn't always regarded as New Year in England, though I'm not sure when
> they started doing so.
> As you have pointed out already in several posts,
> calendars are fickle things, and keep changing.
start of the new millennium would make sense if a new calendar had been
introduced by general agreement on 1st January in the year AD 1, and we'd
all stuck to it consistently for two thousand years. But that's not
remotely the case.
--
Guy Barry
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nov 10, 2012, 5:57:13 AM11/10/12
to
On 2012-11-09 17:00:24 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:47:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-11-09 08:32:37 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:16:13 -0800 (PST), Harrison Hill
>>> <harrison...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 8, 3:03�pm, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew B" <bull...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:k7gec4$ate$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>>>>>>> or earlier) exists . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
>>>>>> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
>>>>>> born in 1800.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
>>>>
>>>> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
>>>> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
>>>> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> The current calendar is predicated on Jesus Christ having been circumcised on
>>> 1st January AD 1 (which is a moot point). So ten years would have passed at
>>> the END of AD 10, a century would have passed at the END of AD 100, and 18
>>> centuries would have passed at the END of 1800.
>>>
>>> Things might have been different if there had been a year 0, but there wasn't.
>>
>> It would have been simpler if we had 23 October 4004 BC as day 1 of
>> year 1 and counted forwards from there (after all, only evilutionists
>> and other wicked people think anything happened before that). On the
>> other hand it might be inconvenient to have the day beginning at 9 AM.
>
> Why not noon on 25 November 4714 BC?
I'm getting 23 October 4004 from Bishop Ussher, and 9 AM from
Lightfoot. Where does your date come from? I don't remember seeing it
before.
>
> That seems to be one that is actually in use.
By whom?
> Though that system does seem to
> have base 0.
>
> Or we could say that the year 7521 began on 14 September last.
Why 14 September?
--
athel
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 09:47:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-11-09 08:32:37 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:16:13 -0800 (PST), Harrison Hill
>>> <harrison...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Nov 8, 3:03�pm, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>>> "Andrew B" <bull...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:k7gec4$ate$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The recorded voice of someone who was alive in the 18th century (1799
>>>>>>> or earlier) exists . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are various websites which claim the earliest-born person whose
>>>>>> voice was recorded (and the recording still exists) is Helmuth von Moltke,
>>>>>> born in 1800.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Which is fortunately still in the 18th century (viz. 1701-1800, not 1799.)
>>>>
>>>> 1800 is in the Eighteenth Century? I have always understood that the
>>>> Nineteenth Century began during the first moment of 1800, and that the
>>>> Eighteenth Century is 1700-1799. Do I stand to be corrected yet again?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> The current calendar is predicated on Jesus Christ having been circumcised on
>>> 1st January AD 1 (which is a moot point). So ten years would have passed at
>>> the END of AD 10, a century would have passed at the END of AD 100, and 18
>>> centuries would have passed at the END of 1800.
>>>
>>> Things might have been different if there had been a year 0, but there wasn't.
>>
>> It would have been simpler if we had 23 October 4004 BC as day 1 of
>> year 1 and counted forwards from there (after all, only evilutionists
>> and other wicked people think anything happened before that). On the
>> other hand it might be inconvenient to have the day beginning at 9 AM.
>
> Why not noon on 25 November 4714 BC?
I'm getting 23 October 4004 from Bishop Ussher, and 9 AM from
Lightfoot. Where does your date come from? I don't remember seeing it
before.
>
> That seems to be one that is actually in use.
By whom?
> Though that system does seem to
> have base 0.
>
> Or we could say that the year 7521 began on 14 September last.
Why 14 September?
--
athel
Lanarcam
Nov 10, 2012, 6:00:33 AM11/10/12
to
Le 10/11/2012 11:25, Steve Hayes a écrit :
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:13:07 -0800, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wasn't it a long time later that idea of "zero" as a number (of any
>> kind) was accepted in European circles? ISTR it was nearly the time of
>> Columbus, and coinciding with adoption of a related Hindu invention,
>> Arabic numerals.
>
> Something like that -- how do you represent a zero in Roman numerals?
>
> I wonder if people got as excited about the year M as they did about the year
> MM?
>
A first answer here: The "Millenial Panic" of 1000 A.D. That Never Was
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:13:07 -0800, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wasn't it a long time later that idea of "zero" as a number (of any
>> kind) was accepted in European circles? ISTR it was nearly the time of
>> Columbus, and coinciding with adoption of a related Hindu invention,
>> Arabic numerals.
>
> Something like that -- how do you represent a zero in Roman numerals?
>
> I wonder if people got as excited about the year M as they did about the year
> MM?
>
Long before 2012, more than a thousand years ago, people were bracing
themselves for the impending end of the world in the year 1000 A.D. Or
were they?"
http://suite101.com/article/the-millenial-panic-of-1000-ad-that-never-was-a411011
Cite:
"Why does this myth remain so popular with history-loving
folks?
Partly, its popularity could be attributed to inertia: to a lack of
proper individual research, which has - ironically - become pandemic
since the advent of the internet.
On the other hand, it is undeniably comforting to see how "wrong" our
ancestors were in their fears - because it offers hope that, perhaps, we
are likewise wrong in our own fears today."
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nov 10, 2012, 6:05:45 AM11/10/12
to
On 2012-11-10 10:57:13 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
> On 2012-11-09 17:00:24 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
>
>> [ … ]
> On 2012-11-09 17:00:24 +0000, Steve Hayes said:
>
>> Why not noon on 25 November 4714 BC?
>
> I'm getting 23 October 4004 from Bishop Ussher, and 9 AM from
> Lightfoot. Where does your date come from? I don't remember seeing it
> before.
the proleptic Gregorian calendar (a term I haven't met before).
No doubt if I searched further I'd learn why that date was chosen, but
for the moment it just looks arbitrary.
--
athel
GordonD
Nov 10, 2012, 6:52:20 AM11/10/12
to
"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d807bb49-4637-4a56...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
that!) then last year must have been 2011, and the one before that was
2010...so if you count back far enough you will eventually get to the year
AD 1. The year before that is currently called 1 BC and no historian claims
anything else. So somebody born on a day which we now identify as 1st
January 1 BC would celebrate his first birthday on 1st January AD 1. His one
hundredth birthday would be on 1/1/100. However his younger brother, born on
1st January AD 1 wouldn't celebrate his hundredth until 1st Jan 101 - just
like the century.
> Hence I don't see much point in arguing about
> whether they happened or not, because people didn't count the years
> like that at the time.
That's like saying that nobody lived in America before Columbus because it
wasn't called that at the time.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
news:d807bb49-4637-4a56...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 9, 7:46 pm, "GordonD" <g.da...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a fact, not opinion, that there was no year zero.
>
> It's also a fact, not an opinion, that there was no year AD 1, 2, 3,
> 4, ... . All these things are artefacts of a system developed several
> centuries later.
Agreed. But if you call this year "2012" (I hope you're not going to dispute
>
>> It's a fact, not opinion, that there was no year zero.
>
> It's also a fact, not an opinion, that there was no year AD 1, 2, 3,
> 4, ... . All these things are artefacts of a system developed several
> centuries later.
that!) then last year must have been 2011, and the one before that was
2010...so if you count back far enough you will eventually get to the year
AD 1. The year before that is currently called 1 BC and no historian claims
anything else. So somebody born on a day which we now identify as 1st
January 1 BC would celebrate his first birthday on 1st January AD 1. His one
hundredth birthday would be on 1/1/100. However his younger brother, born on
1st January AD 1 wouldn't celebrate his hundredth until 1st Jan 101 - just
like the century.
> Hence I don't see much point in arguing about
> whether they happened or not, because people didn't count the years
That's like saying that nobody lived in America before Columbus because it
wasn't called that at the time.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
GordonD
Nov 10, 2012, 6:57:49 AM11/10/12
to
Did we ever get the answer to the original question?
Peter Brooks
Nov 10, 2012, 7:56:01 AM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 10:07 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>
> news:l4ar985qk448a1egh...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:18:51 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> > <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> "Steve Hayes" wrote in message
>
> news:l4ar985qk448a1egh...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:18:51 -0000, "Guy Barry"
> > wrote:
> > >I don't think so. Wasn't the change from 1999 to 2000 worth celebrating
> > >in
> > >itself? It was the first time ever that all four digits of the year had
> > >changed.
> > In which case, there would have been far more reason to celebrate 1961.
>
> That wasn't the first time the date was the same upside-down. It had
> happened as recently as 1881.
>
The year might have been the same, but I doubt that the date was. If
> > >I don't think so. Wasn't the change from 1999 to 2000 worth celebrating
> > >in
> > >itself? It was the first time ever that all four digits of the year had
> > >changed.
> > In which case, there would have been far more reason to celebrate 1961.
>
> That wasn't the first time the date was the same upside-down. It had
> happened as recently as 1881.
>
there were 188 days in January, the 188/1/1881 would have been, but
most Januaries are much shorter than that.
Peter Brooks
Nov 10, 2012, 7:58:13 AM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 12:25 pm, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:13:07 -0800, Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Wasn't it a long time later that idea of "zero" as a number (of any
> >kind) was accepted in European circles? ISTR it was nearly the time of
> >Columbus, and coinciding with adoption of a related Hindu invention,
> >Arabic numerals.
>
> Something like that -- how do you represent a zero in Roman numerals?
>
MMCXLIIX - MMCXLIIX
> >Wasn't it a long time later that idea of "zero" as a number (of any
> >kind) was accepted in European circles? ISTR it was nearly the time of
> >Columbus, and coinciding with adoption of a related Hindu invention,
> >Arabic numerals.
>
> Something like that -- how do you represent a zero in Roman numerals?
>
Peter Brooks
Nov 10, 2012, 8:03:46 AM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 1:52 pm, "GordonD" <g.da...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
February.
> "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:d807bb49-4637-4a56...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 9, 7:46 pm, "GordonD" <g.da...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >> It's a fact, not opinion, that there was no year zero.
>
> > It's also a fact, not an opinion, that there was no year AD 1, 2, 3,
> > 4, ... . All these things are artefacts of a system developed several
> > centuries later.
>
> Agreed. But if you call this year "2012" (I hope you're not going to dispute
> that!) then last year must have been 2011, and the one before that was
> 2010...so if you count back far enough you will eventually get to the year
> AD 1. The year before that is currently called 1 BC and no historian claims
> anything else. So somebody born on a day which we now identify as 1st
> January 1 BC would celebrate his first birthday on 1st January AD 1. His one
> hundredth birthday would be on 1/1/100. However his younger brother, born on
> 1st January AD 1 wouldn't celebrate his hundredth until 1st Jan 101 - just
> like the century.
>
So the year nought was as event-filled as three out of four 29th's of
> news:d807bb49-4637-4a56...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 9, 7:46 pm, "GordonD" <g.da...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >> It's a fact, not opinion, that there was no year zero.
>
> > It's also a fact, not an opinion, that there was no year AD 1, 2, 3,
> > 4, ... . All these things are artefacts of a system developed several
> > centuries later.
>
> Agreed. But if you call this year "2012" (I hope you're not going to dispute
> that!) then last year must have been 2011, and the one before that was
> 2010...so if you count back far enough you will eventually get to the year
> AD 1. The year before that is currently called 1 BC and no historian claims
> anything else. So somebody born on a day which we now identify as 1st
> January 1 BC would celebrate his first birthday on 1st January AD 1. His one
> hundredth birthday would be on 1/1/100. However his younger brother, born on
> 1st January AD 1 wouldn't celebrate his hundredth until 1st Jan 101 - just
> like the century.
>
February.
John Holmes
Nov 10, 2012, 8:34:57 AM11/10/12
to
the beginning of the year 1 BC. Logically, it would be more sensible to
celebrate the anniversaries of the beginning of 1 AD, since AD is what we
are in.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Steve Hayes
Nov 10, 2012, 8:49:40 AM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:57:49 -0000, "GordonD" <g.d...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Did we ever get the answer to the original question?
Von Moltke, if I recall correctly.
>Did we ever get the answer to the original question?
Steve Hayes
Nov 10, 2012, 9:08:46 AM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:57:13 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
It was the beginning of Julian Day 1 in our current Gregorian Calendat
calculated back to then. In the Julian Calendar it would have been noon on 2
January (Julian Days use base 0, so Julian Day 0 started at noon on 1 Jan 4713
BC in the Julian Calendar). Of course neither the Julian Calendar nor the
Gregorian Calendar was in use back then.
>>
>> That seems to be one that is actually in use.
>
>By whom?
Astronomers, so I've been told.
And computer programmers, though not most spreadsheets.
>> Though that system does seem to
>> have base 0.
>>
>> Or we could say that the year 7521 began on 14 September last.
>
>Why 14 September?
It was the Julian Calendar used in the late Roman Empire, from 988 to 1453,
after which, presumably they began numbering the years AH.
It was also used in Russia until 1700.
New Year's Day was 1 September, which is, of course, 14 September Gregorian,
and it seems quite appropriate, because in popular custom that date is
regarded as the beginning of spring, at least in this neck of the woods.
calculated back to then. In the Julian Calendar it would have been noon on 2
January (Julian Days use base 0, so Julian Day 0 started at noon on 1 Jan 4713
BC in the Julian Calendar). Of course neither the Julian Calendar nor the
Gregorian Calendar was in use back then.
>>
>> That seems to be one that is actually in use.
>
>By whom?
And computer programmers, though not most spreadsheets.
>> Though that system does seem to
>> have base 0.
>>
>> Or we could say that the year 7521 began on 14 September last.
>
>Why 14 September?
after which, presumably they began numbering the years AH.
It was also used in Russia until 1700.
New Year's Day was 1 September, which is, of course, 14 September Gregorian,
and it seems quite appropriate, because in popular custom that date is
regarded as the beginning of spring, at least in this neck of the woods.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages