Are we able to stop copying Julius Caesar?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Are we able to stop copying Julius Caesar?

Michael Ossipoff

Even if calendar-reform is impossible, maybe the _mention_ of it can bring attention to the notion of change. In fact, maybe that’s why calendar-reform is so unpopular, if it makes people uncomfortable for that reason.

.

Elizabeth Achellis said similar things, but it seems to me that she was emphasizing benefit of _adoption_ rather than mere mention (…which is almost surely what we must settle for).

.

I’m not saying that there’d be any practical benefit, such as eventual societal improvement (…which I claim is quite impossible). But pointing out unnecessary conservatism could just be something that a person do just because they like to.  That seems the only reason to talk to people about alternative calendars—to point out an obvious and clear-cut instance of conservatism.

.

There’s nothing wrong with our current civil calendar. It’s plenty accurate enough seasonally, and its month-lengths aren’t without regularity as some have implied. And nearly everyone is quite satisfied with it.

.

But, though its 2000-year-old month-system can be called a precious ancient artifact and museum-piece, it can also be called an example of embarrassing and dismaying conservatism and inability to co-operate.

.

From anecdotal evidence  :D the most popularly-acceptable  alternative calendars evidently are ISO WeekDate and 30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday. But they’re both conservative. 

.

30,30,31 is particularly conservative because it stays near the Roman-Gregorian starting-day, and keeps the month names of Roman-Gregorian. (…as do all or most 454 proposals, The World Calendar, and International-Fixed, and many others). 

.

ISO WeekDate is conservative in keeping near Roman-Gregorian’s starting-day. Of course ISO WeekDate is used for its convenience, and is kept near Roman-Gregorian’s starting-day for familiarity and for compatibility with the civil-calendar. 

.

But demonstrating how things could be done differently is a different goal, and those reasons for staying near Roman-Gregorian’s starting-day are, not just irrelevant, but detrimental, to demonstrating the possibility of change.

.

So, with an agreed-recognition that there won’t be calendar-reform, and that the mention of alternative calendars is merely a way of talking about change, the similarity and familiarity that could help adoption if it were possible, are undesirable, given the actual nature of the value of mentioning alternative calendars.

.

Because there can’t be calendar-reform, of course that makes it less important that all mention of alternative calendars be about the same one. But it might still be desirable, because consensus is convincing and gets attention.  So, which alternative calendar would that be? 

.

Maybe it would be good to start with the least, the most minimal, things that calendar-reform advocates can agree on (…as if they could really agree on anything :D ). No agreement on month-systems yet? Then don’t start with a month-system.  That points to the choice of WeekDate as a first collective proposal.

.

What should its starting day and year-start rule be?

.

Year-Start:

.

People, both north and south of the equator, are used to starting the year in mid-winter. Though keeping the Gregorian year-start ecliptic-longitude is too conservative, keeping a mid-winter year-start isn’t conservative, because one time of year is as good as another, and minimal-change isn’t always conservative.

.

Because mid-winter year-start is what everyone is used to, then, the Winter-Solstice suggests itself as the best year-start solar ecliptic-longitude.

.

Year-Start Rule:

.

No other leapweek year-start rule matches the definition-brevity and the obvious and natural motivation and justification of the general Nearest-Monday class of year-start rules.

.

Such as:

.

The year starts on the Monday that starts on the midnight that’s closest to the South Solstice.

.

Or:

.

The year starts on the Monday that starts on the midnight that’s closest to the end of the latest of a succession of Y-day intervals, of which the first of those Y-day intervals starts at some specified instance of South Solstice.

.

…where Y is the length of the chosen reference-tropical-year (RTY).   …such as the 365.2422 day length of the mean-tropical-year.

--------------------------

Alternatively, instead of saying “The Monday that starts on the midnighst that’s closest to…”

.

…it would be briefer (but not quite as seasonally-accurate) to say:

.

“The Monday that’s closest to the day that contains…”

.

(The French Republican Calendar uses that sort of brief wording, when it says “…the day that contains the Autumnal Equinox”)

--------------------------

.

Of course it goes without saying that proposing a different week-length, or a different year-numbering-system, or the use of blank days would be an unnecessary, pointless, and distinctly counterproductive religious statement.

-------------------------------

As for month-systems, that’s a different topic. Right now I’m suggesting a WeekDate proposal as a minimal preliminary consensus, because there’s no prospect of any agreement on a month-system. 

.

A lot of people here seem to like 454, in versions with its unrecognizable months named (for some reason) after the Roman months, and with the calendar-year (for some reason) starting near the Gregorian start-date.

.

…a mixture of unrecognizability with conservatism…the worst of both worlds.

.

If there’s to be a consensus proposal with months, then it should be one with months that are a complete stand-alone, self-justified, system that doesn’t try to copy the idiosyncratic arbitrary details of the Roman month system or year-start.   

.

…and one that has some sort of value of its own. Some degree of seasonal relevance suggests itself as a goal for a month-system. That’s the goal of the 28&14 month-system that I suggested.

-----------------------------

Of course, separately, there could be a more modest proposal intended for easier acceptance for actual enactment.  ISO WeekDate, and 30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday (based on Gregorian January 1st) seem the most familiar &/or accepted of such proposals.

.

But the value of such a proposal is questionable, given that calendar-reform enactment is fantasy.

.

Still, polling would be interesting, but of course no one here is willing to do any polling—evidently preferring anecdotal-evidence :D    ….or proposals based on and justified by no evidence whatsoever.

-----------------------------

Michael Ossipoff

 

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Week & Month Calendar Re: Are we able to stop copying Julius Caesar?

k.palmen@btinternet.com
Dear Michael and Calendar People

The Week and Month calendar is conservative in that it
(a) uses the 7-day week, with same day of week names
(b) uses the the Julian-Gregorian month names and places these months close to their Gregorian counterparts
(c) uses the ISO week date year (nearest Monday to Gregorian new year)

But is it radical in removing the day of month number (which was not used in Roman times) and replaces it with a week of month name used alongside the day of week name. Michael has found such a feature convenient.

See https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/wkmth.htm for more details, including a month display.

To answer the question in the original subject of the E-mail; The answer is yes, but why make things difficult by not copying at all?

Karl

Tuesday Beta December 2018

----Original message----
From : [hidden email]
Date : 10/12/2018 - 17:08 (GMT)
To : [hidden email]
Subject : Are we able to stop copying Julius Caesar?

Even if calendar-reform is impossible, maybe the _mention_ of it can bring attention to the notion of change. In fact, maybe that’s why calendar-reform is so unpopular, if it makes people uncomfortable for that reason.

.

Elizabeth Achellis said similar things, but it seems to me that she was emphasizing benefit of _adoption_ rather than mere mention (…which is almost surely what we must settle for).

.

I’m not saying that there’d be any practical benefit, such as eventual societal improvement (…which I claim is quite impossible). But pointing out unnecessary conservatism could just be something that a person do just because they like to.  That seems the only reason to talk to people about alternative calendars—to point out an obvious and clear-cut instance of conservatism.

.

There’s nothing wrong with our current civil calendar. It’s plenty accurate enough seasonally, and its month-lengths aren’t without regularity as some have implied. And nearly everyone is quite satisfied with it.

.

But, though its 2000-year-old month-system can be called a precious ancient artifact and museum-piece, it can also be called an example of embarrassing and dismaying conservatism and inability to co-operate.

.

From anecdotal evidence  :D the most popularly-acceptable  alternative calendars evidently are ISO WeekDate and 30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday. But they’re both conservative. 

.

30,30,31 is particularly conservative because it stays near the Roman-Gregorian starting-day, and keeps the month names of Roman-Gregorian. (…as do all or most 454 proposals, The World Calendar, and International-Fixed, and many others). 

.

ISO WeekDate is conservative in keeping near Roman-Gregorian’s starting-day. Of course ISO WeekDate is used for its convenience, and is kept near Roman-Gregorian’s starting-day for familiarity and for compatibility with the civil-calendar. 

.

But demonstrating how things could be done differently is a different goal, and those reasons for staying near Roman-Gregorian’s starting-day are, not just irrelevant, but detrimental, to demonstrating the possibility of change.

.

So, with an agreed-recognition that there won’t be calendar-reform, and that the mention of alternative calendars is merely a way of talking about change, the similarity and familiarity that could help adoption if it were possible, are undesirable, given the actual nature of the value of mentioning alternative calendars.

.

Because there can’t be calendar-reform, of course that makes it less important that all mention of alternative calendars be about the same one. But it might still be desirable, because consensus is convincing and gets attention.  So, which alternative calendar would that be? 

.

Maybe it would be good to start with the least, the most minimal, things that calendar-reform advocates can agree on (…as if they could really agree on anything :D ). No agreement on month-systems yet? Then don’t start with a month-system.  That points to the choice of WeekDate as a first collective proposal.

.

What should its starting day and year-start rule be?

.

Year-Start:

.

People, both north and south of the equator, are used to starting the year in mid-winter. Though keeping the Gregorian year-start ecliptic-longitude is too conservative, keeping a mid-winter year-start isn’t conservative, because one time of year is as good as another, and minimal-change isn’t always conservative.

.

Because mid-winter year-start is what everyone is used to, then, the Winter-Solstice suggests itself as the best year-start solar ecliptic-longitude.

.

Year-Start Rule:

.

No other leapweek year-start rule matches the definition-brevity and the obvious and natural motivation and justification of the general Nearest-Monday class of year-start rules.

.

Such as:

.

The year starts on the Monday that starts on the midnight that’s closest to the South Solstice.

.

Or:

.

The year starts on the Monday that starts on the midnight that’s closest to the end of the latest of a succession of Y-day intervals, of which the first of those Y-day intervals starts at some specified instance of South Solstice.

.

…where Y is the length of the chosen reference-tropical-year (RTY).   …such as the 365.2422 day length of the mean-tropical-year.

--------------------------

Alternatively, instead of saying “The Monday that starts on the midnighst that’s closest to…”

.

…it would be briefer (but not quite as seasonally-accurate) to say:

.

“The Monday that’s closest to the day that contains…”

.

(The French Republican Calendar uses that sort of brief wording, when it says “…the day that contains the Autumnal Equinox”)

--------------------------

.

Of course it goes without saying that proposing a different week-length, or a different year-numbering-system, or the use of blank days would be an unnecessary, pointless, and distinctly counterproductive religious statement.

-------------------------------

As for month-systems, that’s a different topic. Right now I’m suggesting a WeekDate proposal as a minimal preliminary consensus, because there’s no prospect of any agreement on a month-system. 

.

A lot of people here seem to like 454, in versions with its unrecognizable months named (for some reason) after the Roman months, and with the calendar-year (for some reason) starting near the Gregorian start-date.

.

…a mixture of unrecognizability with conservatism…the worst of both worlds.

.

If there’s to be a consensus proposal with months, then it should be one with months that are a complete stand-alone, self-justified, system that doesn’t try to copy the idiosyncratic arbitrary details of the Roman month system or year-start.   

.

…and one that has some sort of value of its own. Some degree of seasonal relevance suggests itself as a goal for a month-system. That’s the goal of the 28&14 month-system that I suggested.

-----------------------------

Of course, separately, there could be a more modest proposal intended for easier acceptance for actual enactment.  ISO WeekDate, and 30,30,31 with Nearest-Monday (based on Gregorian January 1st) seem the most familiar &/or accepted of such proposals.

.

But the value of such a proposal is questionable, given that calendar-reform enactment is fantasy.

.

Still, polling would be interesting, but of course no one here is willing to do any polling—evidently preferring anecdotal-evidence :D    ….or proposals based on and justified by no evidence whatsoever.

-----------------------------

Michael Ossipoff

 

 

 



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Week & Month Calendar Re: Are we able to stop copying Julius Caesar?

Michael Ossipoff

Carl writes:

.

[quote]

The Week and Month calendar is conservative in that it

.

(a) uses the 7-day week, with same day of week names

.

I don’t call that conservative, because, for many people, it’s a religious requirement. One week-length is as good as another. Unlike starting-ecliptic-longitudes or month-names, there are no special week-lengths.

.

[quote]

(b) uses the the Julian-Gregorian month names

[/quote]

.

Yes.

.

[quote]

 and places these months close to their Gregorian counterparts

[/quote]

.

I’d say “no” on that one. The 454 months aren’t conservative or close to the Roman months.

.

My objection to 454 is that it wouldn’t satisfy a calendrical conservative or radical..

[quote]

(c) uses the ISO week date year (nearest Monday to Gregorian new year)

[/quote]

.

Yes, staying close to the Gregorian year-start date is conservative.  That year-start solar-ecliptic-longitude is entirely arabitrary, a result of Roman happenstance.

[quote]

But is it radical in removing the day of month number (which was not used in Roman times) and replaces it with a week of month name used alongside the day of week name.

[/quote]

.

Yes.

.

[quote]

Michael has found such a feature convenient.

[/quote]

.

Quite so.

.

And yes, it’s of interest to mention that the Romans weren’t using day-of-month number.

.

[quote]

To answer the question in the original subject of the E-mail; The answer is yes, but why make things difficult by not copying at all?

[/quote]

.

I was just saying that “difficult” isn’t the word for calendar-reform-enactment. “Impossible” is the right word.

.

So, if something is already impossible, then there’s no concern about making it difficult.

.

Two goals:

.

1. Enactability

.

2. Demonstrating that things can be done drastically more cleanly, simply and elegantly. Using an alternative calendar to reveal an instance of conservatism, with our current civil calendar as the example of conservatism.

.

#1 is a lost-cause.

.

So I was suggesting putting all the emphasis on #2, and only talking to people about complete and radical departures that are simple and convenient.

.

But maybe that’s counterproductive , if people don’t want to hear about it. In my (anecdotally-reported) experience, they don’t.

.

As I’ve said, the only calendar-reform proposal that I’ve gotten an immediate positive response to has been 30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday (…to Gregorian January 1st).  Maybe, probably, talking about a drastic departure, however elegant it might be, is unhelpful if it just puts people off.   …even for the modest goal of just showing people that the status-quo is unnecessarily conservative, and that there’s such a thing as doing things differently.

.

I posted a poll at a polling-website, and with something like 20 or so votes cast,  30,30,31 was reported as outpolling WeekDate  2 to 1.  …consistent with my anecdotes about my conversations.

.

So maybe I should retract the whole emphasis of my previous post.

.

If Hanke-Henry is what sounds good to people, then maybe, conservative though it be, it’s the best calendrical way to get people to hear that there’s such as thing as doing things more cleanly and elegantly. (…even if only by a little.)

.

December 12th, 2018  (Hanke-Henry)

.

December 11th, 2018 (Roman-Gregorian)

.

2018-W50-2  (ISO WeekDate)

.

2018-W51-2  (December-Solstice WeekDate)

.

2018 Southward3  Week 3  Tuesday  (28&14)

.

Michael Ossipoff

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Week & Month Calendar Re: Are we able to stop copying Julius Caesar?

Michael Ossipoff
Karl--

1. Oops! I've just noticed that I  mis-spelled your name.

2. Admittedly there's no need to keep the traditional names for the 7 days. Sabatarians could easily observe the Sabath no matter what the 7 days are called. So yes, the use of the traditional 7 day-names can be said to be conservative.

Michael Ossipoff

December 12th (Hanke-Henry)


On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:02 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Carl writes:

.

[quote]

The Week and Month calendar is conservative in that it

.

(a) uses the 7-day week, with same day of week names

.

I don’t call that conservative, because, for many people, it’s a religious requirement. One week-length is as good as another. Unlike starting-ecliptic-longitudes or month-names, there are no special week-lengths.

.

[quote]

(b) uses the the Julian-Gregorian month names

[/quote]

.

Yes.

.

[quote]

 and places these months close to their Gregorian counterparts

[/quote]

.

I’d say “no” on that one. The 454 months aren’t conservative or close to the Roman months.

.

My objection to 454 is that it wouldn’t satisfy a calendrical conservative or radical..

[quote]

(c) uses the ISO week date year (nearest Monday to Gregorian new year)

[/quote]

.

Yes, staying close to the Gregorian year-start date is conservative.  That year-start solar-ecliptic-longitude is entirely arabitrary, a result of Roman happenstance.

[quote]

But is it radical in removing the day of month number (which was not used in Roman times) and replaces it with a week of month name used alongside the day of week name.

[/quote]

.

Yes.

.

[quote]

Michael has found such a feature convenient.

[/quote]

.

Quite so.

.

And yes, it’s of interest to mention that the Romans weren’t using day-of-month number.

.

[quote]

To answer the question in the original subject of the E-mail; The answer is yes, but why make things difficult by not copying at all?

[/quote]

.

I was just saying that “difficult” isn’t the word for calendar-reform-enactment. “Impossible” is the right word.

.

So, if something is already impossible, then there’s no concern about making it difficult.

.

Two goals:

.

1. Enactability

.

2. Demonstrating that things can be done drastically more cleanly, simply and elegantly. Using an alternative calendar to reveal an instance of conservatism, with our current civil calendar as the example of conservatism.

.

#1 is a lost-cause.

.

So I was suggesting putting all the emphasis on #2, and only talking to people about complete and radical departures that are simple and convenient.

.

But maybe that’s counterproductive , if people don’t want to hear about it. In my (anecdotally-reported) experience, they don’t.

.

As I’ve said, the only calendar-reform proposal that I’ve gotten an immediate positive response to has been 30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday (…to Gregorian January 1st).  Maybe, probably, talking about a drastic departure, however elegant it might be, is unhelpful if it just puts people off.   …even for the modest goal of just showing people that the status-quo is unnecessarily conservative, and that there’s such a thing as doing things differently.

.

I posted a poll at a polling-website, and with something like 20 or so votes cast,  30,30,31 was reported as outpolling WeekDate  2 to 1.  …consistent with my anecdotes about my conversations.

.

So maybe I should retract the whole emphasis of my previous post.

.

If Hanke-Henry is what sounds good to people, then maybe, conservative though it be, it’s the best calendrical way to get people to hear that there’s such as thing as doing things more cleanly and elegantly. (…even if only by a little.)

.

December 12th, 2018  (Hanke-Henry)

.

December 11th, 2018 (Roman-Gregorian)

.

2018-W50-2  (ISO WeekDate)

.

2018-W51-2  (December-Solstice WeekDate)

.

2018 Southward3  Week 3  Tuesday  (28&14)

.

Michael Ossipoff

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Week & Month Calendar Re: Are we able to stop copying Julius Caesar?

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by k.palmen@btinternet.com

Dear Michael et al

I believe that originally the Hebrews merely numbered the days of the week that weren't sabbaths The Romans started the practice of naming the days of the week after planets or gods

Walter Ziobro




On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Karl--

1. Oops! I've just noticed that I  mis-spelled your name.

2. Admittedly there's no need to keep the traditional names for the 7 days. Sabatarians could easily observe the Sabath no matter what the 7 days are called. So yes, the use of the traditional 7 day-names can be said to be conservative.

Michael Ossipoff

December 12th (Hanke-Henry)


On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:02 AM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

Carl writes:

.

[quote]

The Week and Month calendar is conservative in that it

.

(a) uses the 7-day week, with same day of week names

.

I don’t call that conservative, because, for many people, it’s a religious requirement. One week-length is as good as another. Unlike starting-ecliptic-longitudes or month-names, there are no special week-lengths.

.

[quote]

(b) uses the the Julian-Gregorian month names

[/quote]

.

Yes.

.

[quote]

 and places these months close to their Gregorian counterparts

[/quote]

.

I’d say “no” on that one. The 454 months aren’t conservative or close to the Roman months.

.

My objection to 454 is that it wouldn’t satisfy a calendrical conservative or radical..

[quote]

(c) uses the ISO week date year (nearest Monday to Gregorian new year)

[/quote]

.

Yes, staying close to the Gregorian year-start date is conservative.  That year-start solar-ecliptic-longitude is entirely arabitrary, a result of Roman happenstance.

[quote]

But is it radical in removing the day of month number (which was not used in Roman times) and replaces it with a week of month name used alongside the day of week name.

[/quote]

.

Yes.

.

[quote]

Michael has found such a feature convenient.

[/quote]

.

Quite so.

.

And yes, it’s of interest to mention that the Romans weren’t using day-of-month number.

.

[quote]

To answer the question in the original subject of the E-mail; The answer is yes, but why make things difficult by not copying at all?

[/quote]

.

I was just saying that “difficult” isn’t the word for calendar-reform-enactment. “Impossible” is the right word.

.

So, if something is already impossible, then there’s no concern about making it difficult.

.

Two goals:

.

1. Enactability

.

2. Demonstrating that things can be done drastically more cleanly, simply and elegantly. Using an alternative calendar to reveal an instance of conservatism, with our current civil calendar as the example of conservatism.

.

#1 is a lost-cause.

.

So I was suggesting putting all the emphasis on #2, and only talking to people about complete and radical departures that are simple and convenient.

.

But maybe that’s counterproductive , if people don’t want to hear about it. In my (anecdotally-reported) experience, they don’t.

.

As I’ve said, the only calendar-reform proposal that I’ve gotten an immediate positive response to has been 30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday (…to Gregorian January 1st).  Maybe, probably, talking about a drastic departure, however elegant it might be, is unhelpful if it just puts people off.   …even for the modest goal of just showing people that the status-quo is unnecessarily conservative, and that there’s such a thing as doing things differently.

.

I posted a poll at a polling-website, and with something like 20 or so votes cast,  30,30,31 was reported as outpolling WeekDate  2 to 1.  …consistent with my anecdotes about my conversations.

.

So maybe I should retract the whole emphasis of my previous post.

.

If Hanke-Henry is what sounds good to people, then maybe, conservative though it be, it’s the best calendrical way to get people to hear that there’s such as thing as doing things more cleanly and elegantly. (…even if only by a little.)

.

December 12th, 2018  (Hanke-Henry)

.

December 11th, 2018 (Roman-Gregorian)

.

2018-W50-2  (ISO WeekDate)

.

2018-W51-2  (December-Solstice WeekDate)

.

2018 Southward3  Week 3  Tuesday  (28&14)

.

Michael Ossipoff

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Week & Month Calendar Re: Are we able to stop copying Julius Caesar?

k.palmen@btinternet.com
In reply to this post by Michael Ossipoff
Dear Michael and Calendar People

I stand by my original statement, which I quote again below. I do not accept that being a religious requirement and being conservative are mutually exclusive. Also I never stated that the months were conservative, only that their names and approximate scheduling are conservative.

-----------------------

The Week and Month calendar is conservative in that it
(a) uses the 7-day week, with same day of week names
(b) uses the the Julian-Gregorian month names and places these months close to their Gregorian counterparts
(c) uses the ISO week date year (nearest Monday to Gregorian new year)

But is it radical in removing the day of month number (which was not used in Roman times) and replaces it with a week of month name used alongside the day of week name. Michael has found such a feature convenient.

See https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/wkmth.htm for more details, including a month display.

Karl

Wednesday Beta December 2018


----Original message----
From : [hidden email]
Date : 11/12/2018 - 16:02 (GMT)
To : [hidden email]
Subject : Re: Week & Month Calendar Re: Are we able to stop copying Julius Caesar?

Karl writes:

.

[quote]

The Week and Month calendar is conservative in that it

.

(a) uses the 7-day week, with same day of week names

.

I don’t call that conservative, because, for many people, it’s a religious requirement. One week-length is as good as another. Unlike starting-ecliptic-longitudes or month-names, there are no special week-lengths.

.

[quote]

(b) uses the the Julian-Gregorian month names

[/quote]

.

Yes.

.

[quote]

 and places these months close to their Gregorian counterparts

[/quote]

.

I’d say “no” on that one. The 454 months aren’t conservative or close to the Roman months.

.

My objection to 454 is that it wouldn’t satisfy a calendrical conservative or radical..

[quote]

(c) uses the ISO week date year (nearest Monday to Gregorian new year)

[/quote]

.

Yes, staying close to the Gregorian year-start date is conservative.  That year-start solar-ecliptic-longitude is entirely arabitrary, a result of Roman happenstance.

[quote]

But is it radical in removing the day of month number (which was not used in Roman times) and replaces it with a week of month name used alongside the day of week name.

[/quote]

.

Yes.

.

[quote]

Michael has found such a feature convenient.

[/quote]

.

Quite so.

.

And yes, it’s of interest to mention that the Romans weren’t using day-of-month number.

.

[quote]

To answer the question in the original subject of the E-mail; The answer is yes, but why make things difficult by not copying at all?

[/quote]

.

I was just saying that “difficult” isn’t the word for calendar-reform-enactment. “Impossible” is the right word.

.

So, if something is already impossible, then there’s no concern about making it difficult.

.

Two goals:

.

1. Enactability

.

2. Demonstrating that things can be done drastically more cleanly, simply and elegantly. Using an alternative calendar to reveal an instance of conservatism, with our current civil calendar as the example of conservatism.

.

#1 is a lost-cause.

.

So I was suggesting putting all the emphasis on #2, and only talking to people about complete and radical departures that are simple and convenient.

.

But maybe that’s counterproductive , if people don’t want to hear about it. In my (anecdotally-reported) experience, they don’t.

.

As I’ve said, the only calendar-reform proposal that I’ve gotten an immediate positive response to has been 30,30,31 with the Nearest-Monday (…to Gregorian January 1st).  Maybe, probably, talking about a drastic departure, however elegant it might be, is unhelpful if it just puts people off.   …even for the modest goal of just showing people that the status-quo is unnecessarily conservative, and that there’s such a thing as doing things differently.

.

I posted a poll at a polling-website, and with something like 20 or so votes cast,  30,30,31 was reported as outpolling WeekDate  2 to 1.  …consistent with my anecdotes about my conversations.

.

So maybe I should retract the whole emphasis of my previous post.

.

If Hanke-Henry is what sounds good to people, then maybe, conservative though it be, it’s the best calendrical way to get people to hear that there’s such as thing as doing things more cleanly and elegantly. (…even if only by a little.)

.

December 12th, 2018  (Hanke-Henry)

.

December 11th, 2018 (Roman-Gregorian)

.

2018-W50-2  (ISO WeekDate)

.

2018-W51-2  (December-Solstice WeekDate)

.

2018 Southward3  Week 3  Tuesday  (28&14)

.

Michael Ossipoff

 

 



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Week & Month Calendar Re: Are we able to stop copying Julius Caesar?

Michael Ossipoff

Karl—

.

You said:

.

[quote]

I stand by my original statement, which I quote again below. I do not accept that being a religious requirement and being conservative are mutually exclusive.

[/quote]

.

Sure, but, by “conservative”, I meant “unnecessarily conservative”.  Keeping 7 days, not having blank-days, and keeping the current year-numbering are religious requirements. Replacing the Roman month-names isn’t a religious requirement, and keeping them is unnecessarily conservative.

.

[quote]

Also I never stated that the months were conservative, only that their names and approximate scheduling are conservative.

[/quote]

.

I didn’t mean to imply that you said otherwise. Of course non-Roman months aren’t conservative. And keeping the names and start-date of the Roman month-system is conservative.

----------------------

The 454 proposals that people here propose keep the Gregorian year-start date and the Roman month-names, and yes, that’s conservative.

.

But they drastically change the lengths of all the months, and drastically increase the difference and ratio between the lengths of the shortest and longest months. That isn’t conservative.

.

So the 454 versions proposed here are, in some regards, not conservative enough to be liked by people who don’t like change (That’s nearly everyone), but would be too conservative if people wanted something different. Why would it be necessary to keep the Roman month-names and the arbitrary Roman and Gregorian year-start ecliptic-longitude if people wanted change? Explain that one.

.

So the 454 proposals here wouldn’t satisfy people who don’t want change, and wouldn’t satisfy people who do want change.

.

And this isn’t about enactment.  It’s just that if you like showing people an uncontroversial way in which things could be done more efficiently, simply, and more elegantly, it needs to be something that they won’t emotionally reject—Otherwise you won’t be making your point to them. If they don’t like it, then they won’t appreciate the better efficiency, simplicity and elegance. 

.

Months of 28 and 35 days aren’t accepted by people (…in my anecdotal reports of my conversations).  Just for one thing, as a currently-relevant practical matter, it would make for awkward pay-periods, interest-calculations, and monthly-statistics-interpretation, though some here have unsuccessfully tried to rationalize around that.

.

Why call those 28 and 35 day months January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December if their lengths are so drastically different from the Roman months that the months’ starting times are drastically different too?  In what sense are those months anything like the Roman months that they’re named after?

.

ISO WeekDate provides an obvious uniform pay-period, by choosing week-numbers divisible by 4. 

.

If months have a value other than the following three, I haven’t heard of it:

.

1. Pay periods

.

2. People are used to them

.

3. Naming parts of the year for seasonal-relevance

.

The 454 months fail on all counts.

.

The 30,30,31 months are close enough to the Roman months that they keep the seasonal meaning of the Roman months.  

.

30,30,31 passes on all counts.

.

454 is always immediately-rejected in my anecdotally-reported conversations.

.

As for polling about how people like 454, no one has responded to any of my polls that included month-systems as far afield as 454.  But that nonparticipation, itself, is an answer that should be listened-to.

.

I re-emphasize that my 28&14 proposal is only for a hypothetical time when people want a complete break with the past (…to the extent possible within religious requirements).

 .

Michael Ossipoff

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Names used by Calendar Reforms in Different Languages Re: Week & Month Calendar Re: ...

k.palmen@btinternet.com
In reply to this post by Walter J Ziobro
Dear Walter, Michael and Other Calendar People

I realised one advantage of the Week and Month Calendar and also Michael's 28&14 Calendar is that existing names or words are used in the calendar dates, so making translation into different languages a relatively simple matter.

This would not apply to Walter's suggestions with new month names, one would have to decide what these names would be in different languages and this would need to involve speakers of these languages.

This would also not fully apply to my Week & Month Calendar, because some languages such as Portuguese and Hebrew use day of week names that are normally numbered from Sunday. This could cause confusion in the Week and Month Calendar. It would be up to the speakers of the language to decide how to resolve it.
One possibility could be to differentiate between calendar weeks (which begin Monday) and day number weeks (which begin Sunday).

Karl

Thursday Beta December 2018

torstai beeta joulukuu 2018 (Finnish)

PS: The capitalisation of week names follows that of the month names.
----Original message----
From : [hidden email]
Date : 11/12/2018 - 19:06 (GMT)
To : [hidden email]
Subject : Re: Week & Month Calendar Re: Are we able to stop copying Julius Caesar?

Dear Michael et al

I believe that originally the Hebrews merely numbered the days of the week that weren't sabbaths The Romans started the practice of naming the days of the week after planets or gods

Walter Ziobro