Is every 28 days (4 weeks) considered as monthly?

[Ant]

Hello.

Months can have 29-31 days? If it is not considered monthly, then is
there a proper word/term for it?

Thank you in advance. :)
--
Quote of the Week: "The ants are back Ted!" --Dougal from Father Ted telly/TV/tevision show.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. If crediting,
( ) then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

[Mark Brader]

> Subject: Is every 28 days (4 weeks) considered as monthly?

I think some people might say it as an informal usage, but they'd
know they were speaking loosely.

> If it is not considered monthly, then is there a proper word/term
> for it?

"Every 4 weeks" or "every 28 days".
--
Mark Brader "If cars were designed the same way as software is
Toronto today, they'd all have buggy-whip holders..."
m...@vex.net -- Marcus J. Ranum

[Whiskers]

On 2012-07-09, Ant <ANT...@zimage.com> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Months can have 29-31 days? If it is not considered monthly, then is
> there a proper word/term for it?
>
> Thank you in advance. :)

In a contract or agreement, you could define "month" to mean "28 days".

As there are many different sorts of month, it's not a bad idea to
specify what sort of month is envisaged; if the contract also specifies
which jurisdiction shall apply, that may automatically tell you what a
month is. <http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar.html>

But I think that if what you mean is "every 28 days" then that is what
you should say.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Ant]

Thanks. Or maybe say "about/almost every month"?

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:09:44 -0500, ANT...@zimage.com (Ant) wrote:

>Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-07-09, Ant <ANT...@zimage.com> wrote:
>> > Hello.
>> >
>> > Months can have 29-31 days? If it is not considered monthly, then is
>> > there a proper word/term for it?
>> >
>> > Thank you in advance. :)
>
>> In a contract or agreement, you could define "month" to mean "28 days".
>
>> As there are many different sorts of month, it's not a bad idea to
>> specify what sort of month is envisaged; if the contract also specifies
>> which jurisdiction shall apply, that may automatically tell you what a
>> month is. <http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar.html>
>
>> But I think that if what you mean is "every 28 days" then that is what
>> you should say.
>
>Thanks. Or maybe say "about/almost every month"?

I would use "periodic" because whatever it is that takes place, takes
place at a periodic interval not otherwise defined.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[R H Draney]

Whiskers filted:

>
>On 2012-07-09, Ant <ANT...@zimage.com> wrote:
>>
>> Months can have 29-31 days? If it is not considered monthly, then is
>> there a proper word/term for it?
>

>In a contract or agreement, you could define "month" to mean "28 days".

Leading to forced acceptance of a "year" with thirteen months....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Cheryl]

On 09/07/2012 4:56 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Subject: Is every 28 days (4 weeks) considered as monthly?
>
> I think some people might say it as an informal usage, but they'd
> know they were speaking loosely.
>
>> If it is not considered monthly, then is there a proper word/term
>> for it?
>
> "Every 4 weeks" or "every 28 days".
>

Having dealt more than I'd really like with a schedule based on four
week periods, we loosely call it 'a month', but if we're talking to
anyone outside the system, we'd have to say 'four weeks' or '28 days'.

(And the fun really starts when this has to be combined with schedules
based on calendar months.)

--
Cheryl

[John Dean]

"Ant" <ANT...@zimage.com> wrote in message
news:T9SdnUpZ272Su2bS...@earthlink.com...

> Hello.
>
> Months can have 29-31 days?

28-31

> If it is not considered monthly, then is
> there a proper word/term for it?
>

28 days is very close to being a lunar month

--
John Dean

[Mark Brader]

John Dean:

> 28 days is very close to being a lunar month

No, not very.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Mark is probably right about something,
m...@vex.net | but I forget what" -- Rayan Zachariassen

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 7/9/2012 4:47 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> I would use "periodic" because whatever it is that takes place, takes
> place at a periodic interval not otherwise defined.

I was going to suggest that one as a not-so-sly double entendre.

ŹR

[Robert Bannister]

My first meeting with this problem of calendar months was one of the
flats (call it "bed-sit") that I took as a student. The land-lady
explained carefully to me how £130 a month did not mean £10 a week
because a "quarter" was officially 90 days long and so £130/90 times 7
came to £10 2s 3d a week. I always felt I had been cheated in some way.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

One of the things I like in Australia is the way most people are paid
fortnightly and a large number of bills paid the same way. In fact, with
fortnightly pay and monthly bills, it's even better because every now
and then, you get in front for a while. My last flat in England - the
really nice one that fronted onto Wimbledon Common - I had to pay
quarterly. This was a huge sum of money for me back in those days. I was
also paid by the calendar month, which meant we all loved February and
lived on bread and water during the five-week months.

--
Robert Bannister

[fabzorba]

You know, you are the first legal expert in business contracts I have
met who has chosen the sobriquet "whiskas" for his pro bono work.

myles [not that a fabzorba would have too much to say about it...]
paulsen

[fabzorba]

Of course women have their "periods" once a month...

myles [did you mean that, or was this happy accident discovered by
me?] paulsen

[Dr Nick]

I'm still paid monthly, by the calendar. But - like you describe but
may not be obvious - I'm not paid for the month's work. I'm paid 1/12
of my annual salary every month. And my annual salary wasn't 1/365th
more this year either.

[Peter Moylan]

Mark Brader wrote:
>> Subject: Is every 28 days (4 weeks) considered as monthly?

Thanks, Mark. I didn't understand the question until you added this.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Whiskers]

I know I've already demonstrated my arithmetical incompetence, but I'm
pretty sure something's gone badly astray in that calculation.

[Whiskers]

IANAL (nor a tin of cat-food!).

[Mark Brader]

Robert Bannister:

> My first meeting with this problem of calendar months was one of the
> flats (call it "bed-sit") that I took as a student. The land-lady
> explained carefully to me how £130 a month did not mean £10 a week

Er, you were expecting the *months* to be 13 weeks long?

> because a "quarter" was officially 90 days long...

This must be some new "official" meaning of "quarter" that I had not
previously encountered.

Anyway, even using real calendar quarters, £130 a quarter does not mean
£10 a week. The Gregorian calendar correction only introduces a factor
of 146,097/146,100, so we can safely ignore that and treat the 4-year
leap-year cycle as fixed. Then in one cycle (16 quarters) there are
1,461 days; and so if they want to collect the rent weekly, the actual
amount should be £130×16×7/1,461 = £9 19s 3¾d. In practice it'd be
simpler to collect £10 and give a free day or two at the end of the
quarter by shifting the day of the week when rent was collected.

And simpler yet to collect by the month, the way I expect it here, even
if that does space the payments unevenly.
--
Mark Brader | "The occasional accidents had been much overemphasized,
Toronto | and later investigations ... revealed that nearly 90%
m...@vex.net | ... could have been prevented." --Wiley Post, 1931

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Mark Brader]

Peter Moylan:

> Mark Brader wrote:
>>> Subject: Is every 28 days (4 weeks) considered as monthly?

> Thanks, Mark. I didn't understand the question until you added this.

I didn't add it, just quoted it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "I'm pleased to have my own pothole number..."
m...@vex.net | --Claudia Bloom

[John Dean]

"Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
news:58idnQ5u1NKZxWbS...@vex.net...

> John Dean:
>> 28 days is very close to being a lunar month
>
> No, not very.

Sure it is

--
John Dean

[John Dean]

"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnjvovb1....@mbp55.local...
> In message <a6350a...@mid.individual.net>

> Depends on if you consider 29.53 to be "close" to 28. I'd say it's
> close, but not very close.

Barely 5% in it.
But clearly you have a predilection for the synodic month. Fair play to you.
But don't ignore the draconic, tropical, sidereal and even anomalistic.
--
John Dean

[Robert Bannister]

£10.1111111 is quite close to what I wrote and good enough for
landladies. The whole point is that you can work these things different
ways and get different answers. If you multiply the number by 13, which
is what I did back then, it is clearly more than £130 and thus unfair,
but if you multiply by 90 and then divide by 7, you get a different
result because 90/7 is not 13.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 11/07/12 12:37 AM, Mark Brader wrote:
> Robert Bannister:
>> My first meeting with this problem of calendar months was one of the
>> flats (call it "bed-sit") that I took as a student. The land-lady
>> explained carefully to me how �130 a month did not mean �10 a week
>
> Er, you were expecting the *months* to be 13 weeks long?

Whoops! �130 a quarter.

>
>> because a "quarter" was officially 90 days long...
>
> This must be some new "official" meaning of "quarter" that I had not
> previously encountered.
>
> Anyway, even using real calendar quarters, �130 a quarter does not mean
> �10 a week. The Gregorian calendar correction only introduces a factor
> of 146,097/146,100, so we can safely ignore that and treat the 4-year
> leap-year cycle as fixed. Then in one cycle (16 quarters) there are
> 1,461 days; and so if they want to collect the rent weekly, the actual
> amount should be �130�16�7/1,461 = �9 19s 3�d. In practice it'd be
> simpler to collect �10 and give a free day or two at the end of the
> quarter by shifting the day of the week when rent was collected.
>
> And simpler yet to collect by the month, the way I expect it here, even
> if that does space the payments unevenly.
>

It was weekly payments so it could be weekly notice by either party. The
90 day quarter was apparently quite official. I couldn't say whether it
still is.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

The Western Australia Education Department goes one better. They
consider that teachers may be asked to do some supervisory duties on
Saturdays, but they cannot be paid for Sundays. Thus, every fortnight we
received 14/313ths of our annual, quoted salary - 313 being the number
of days in a standard year less 52 Sundays. This was a great source of
confusion amongst new teachers who would look at their first pay check
and wonder why they hadn't been given 1/26th of their salary. Leap years
or seconds were, of course, not taken into consideration at all.

--
Robert Bannister

[R H Draney]

Robert Bannister filted:

>
>The Western Australia Education Department goes one better. They
>consider that teachers may be asked to do some supervisory duties on
>Saturdays, but they cannot be paid for Sundays. Thus, every fortnight we
>received 14/313ths of our annual, quoted salary - 313 being the number
>of days in a standard year less 52 Sundays. This was a great source of
>confusion amongst new teachers who would look at their first pay check
>and wonder why they hadn't been given 1/26th of their salary. Leap years
>or seconds were, of course, not taken into consideration at all.

Did they go so far as to account for the fact that some years have 53
Sundays?...r

[Guy Barry]

On Jul 11, 4:42 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> It was weekly payments so it could be weekly notice by either party. The
> 90 day quarter was apparently quite official. I couldn't say whether it
> still is.

Presumably, then, there were five days of the year when no rent was
due?

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

On Jul 9, 7:42 pm, ANT...@zimage.com (Ant) wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Months can have 29-31 days? If it is not considered monthly, then is
> there a proper word/term for it?

To answer the original question, "four-weekly" is the term that I
would use, as opposed to "calendar monthly". "Monthly" on its own is
probably best avoided in contexts where there's any danger of
ambiguity.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

On Jul 11, 4:48 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> The Western Australia Education Department goes one better. They
> consider that teachers may be asked to do some supervisory duties on
> Saturdays, but they cannot be paid for Sundays. Thus, every fortnight we
> received 14/313ths of our annual, quoted salary - 313 being the number
> of days in a standard year less 52 Sundays. This was a great source of
> confusion amongst new teachers who would look at their first pay check
> and wonder why they hadn't been given 1/26th of their salary. Leap years
> or seconds were, of course, not taken into consideration at all.

I don't get this. If teachers aren't paid for Sundays, then surely
they should get 12 days' pay per fortnight, not 14 - i.e.12/313ths of
their salary. The figure you've quoted suggests that they would get
364/313ths of their salary over the course of a 52-week year, which I
don't suppose many people would complain about!

--
Guy Barry

[Iain Archer]

Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote on Tue, 10 Jul 2012 at
12:15:31:

>My last flat in England - the really nice one that fronted onto
>Wimbledon Common - I had to pay quarterly. This was a huge sum of money
>for me back in those days.

Cor, which side? My first bedsitter, at age 18, was a few minutes walk
from the common, at the village end of Ridgway, and remarkably
affordable on my supply teacher salary. But no view.
--
Iain Archer

[Whiskers]

It's the 90-day months that are worrying me ...

[Robert Bannister]

No. As I said, and almost explained before my quarters turned into
months, the rent was based on a quarterly amount. There are
unsurprisingly four quarters in a year with no five days left over. A
quarter, for financial purposes was deemed to be 90 days long, however
long it really was.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

No. There much whingeing about this, but an Education Department
official once explained to me that some years had more than 26 payments
so it evened out.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Maybe it was. It's been twelve years since I was a teacher and the whole
thing was so mind-boggling that I may well have the figures wrong - look
at my botch-up of quarterly rents.


--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On Parkside. The flats were called "Chivelston" very close to the tower
block council flats. We used to get two free tickets to the tennis every
year; we also had to pay a special rate for the upkeep of the Common.

--
Robert Bannister

[Guy Barry]

On Jul 12, 5:59 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 11/07/12 1:52 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
>
> > On Jul 11, 4:42 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >> It was weekly payments so it could be weekly notice by either party. The
> >> 90 day quarter was apparently quite official. I couldn't say whether it
> >> still is.
>
> > Presumably, then, there were five days of the year when no rent was
> > due?
>
> No. As I said, and almost explained before my quarters turned into
> months, the rent was based on a quarterly amount. There are
> unsurprisingly four quarters in a year with no five days left over.

My rent is based on a 48-week year. The annual amount is divided by
48 to give a weekly payment, and there are four weeks of the year when
no rent is due. So I thought your arrangement might have been
something similar.

> A quarter, for financial purposes was deemed to be 90 days long, however
> long it really was.

So you were being charged rent on the basis of a 360-day year, but
paying it for 365 days a year? It sounds as though you were being
ripped off. Did you ask them why you had to pay rent for those five
extra days?

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Moylan]

I can't see why there should have been any whingeing at all. According
to your explanation, each year you received 365/313 of your annual
salary -- an overpayment of more than 16%. If that had happened to me I
would have kept quiet about it. I presume that the mathematics teachers
did keep quiet about it.

On the other hand, I have reservations about an Education Department
that appears to be a little deficient in arithmetic.

[Cheryl]

Ours never got through to the public that teachers weren't being paid
for doing nothing in the summer; their annual salary, which was earned
through the school year, was paid out over 12 months. It was paid in 26
equal payments, so there was no fuss about leap year or Saturdays or
Sundays.

Every so often you got three payments in a calendar month, but it never
seemed to be 'extra' money.

--
Cheryl

[Robert Bannister]

I queried it, but was told by the indomitable* Dutch lady who owned the
building that that was the normal way. The flat, in Beaufort St,
Chelsea, London, was not all that great, but it was very convenient as I
was teaching in Battersea and could walk to work. It had a bedroom and a
sitting room. The "kitchen" was the standard Baby Belling at the top of
the stairs; the bathroom was downstairs and shared. Just over ten pounds
a week was a lot of money back then - my salary was £51 a month, but
London flats were always overpriced - but there were plenty of one-room
bed-sits going for the same amount or more.

* I mistyped and spelling check rather liked "abominable", but she
wasn't that bad.
--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

I just tried google maps. Chivelston is still there unchanged as far as
I can tell. Our flat was on the top floor and we had access onto that
flat roof.

--
Robert Bannister