Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Michael Ossipoff
Karl--

When I say "WeekDate Calendar", I'm only referring to a year-division system, which could be used with any leap-year rule, including Mininum-Displacement.

Yes of course Nearest-Monday isn't free-standing. That's why it's so briefly-explained, in one simple sentence.   ...because it isn't necessary to define a leap-year system.

When I say "Nearest-Monday", I'm only referring to its use with Roman-Gregorian.

The new calendar's year starts on the Monday that is nearest to Roman-Gregorian's January 1st.

There's no other year-start or leapyear system that's as briefly-defined as Nearest-Monday, because, you can define Nearest-Monday to someone in one brief and simple sentence, because it isn't necessary to define a leap-year rule

I suggest that if people really want calendar reform, then it's obvious that all calendar-reform advocates should be advocating the same reform.  And that reform should be the most simple, convenient, un-arbitrary year-division system, with the most briefly-explained year-start system.


That calendar-proposal should be ISO WeekDate.

That's obvious.

...a calendar that has the great advantage of already being in wide use in business and government, internationally.

Michael Ossipoff
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Thank you Michael for clarifying things.

 

What exactly does Michael mean by Roman-Gregorian?

 

Karl

 

17(03(19

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 29 March 2018 17:53
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

 

Karl--

When I say "WeekDate Calendar", I'm only referring to a year-division system, which could be used with any leap-year rule, including Mininum-Displacement.

Yes of course Nearest-Monday isn't free-standing. That's why it's so briefly-explained, in one simple sentence.   ...because it isn't necessary to define a leap-year system.

When I say "Nearest-Monday", I'm only referring to its use with Roman-Gregorian.

The new calendar's year starts on the Monday that is nearest to Roman-Gregorian's January 1st.

There's no other year-start or leapyear system that's as briefly-defined as Nearest-Monday, because, you can define Nearest-Monday to someone in one brief and simple sentence, because it isn't necessary to define a leap-year rule

 

I suggest that if people really want calendar reform, then it's obvious that all calendar-reform advocates should be advocating the same reform.  And that reform should be the most simple, convenient, un-arbitrary year-division system, with the most briefly-explained year-start system.


That calendar-proposal should be ISO WeekDate.

That's obvious.

 

...a calendar that has the great advantage of already being in wide use in business and government, internationally.

Michael Ossipoff

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Michael Ossipoff


On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Thank you Michael for clarifying things.

 

What exactly does Michael mean by Roman-Gregorian?

 

Karl



I can't believe you're asking that. But, if you are, I don't want to spoil it for you by explaining it. I'd rather leave it as a homework assignment.
Also, I respect you too much to believe that you need an explanation.

Alright, if, after 3 days, you say that you don't have the answer to that puzzle of what "Roman-Gregorian" could refer to, then i'll reveal the answer.at that time. But I don't want to insult you by explaining it now.

By the way, in reply to something that you said to Brij:

.

There’s good reason for choosing the Mean Tropical Year’s length as the average calendar year-length:

.

1. Though I like the suggestion to use the length of the June Solstice year, there’s also the practical argument that the MTY would result in a calendar relatively consistent at all times of year, not favoring any time of year.

.

2. It’s the natural default choice, because, whenever we read about the length of the year, the length of the MTY is what’s given.

.

But, aside from that, who says that we have to choose fine-tuning parameters such as that? Arguing those issues, and, especially, taking them to the public, is the best way to make calendar reform seem too complicated and involved. And continuing to argue them, and all the many proposals,  is an excellent way to ensure that we keep on postponing reform while we endlessly argue minutiae.

.

There’s already a perfectly good fixed-calendar reform leapyear system (year-start system, actually) already in wide use: Nearest-Monday.

.

In fact, there’s already a fixed calendar that’s in wide use, and it’s the simplest and most convenient one:

.

ISO WeekDate.

Do you want calendar reform in order to gain simplicity, convenience and efficiency? ISO WeekDate.  Then where’s the debate issue?

.

So, what calendarists need to decide (if they haven’t already) is whether they want to endlessly argue fine-points and fine-tunings of innumerable alternatives, or whether they would rather support the simplest and most convenient proposal, a calendar that’s already in wide use in business and government—ISO WeekDate.

.

Michael Ossipoff

 

 

 

 

 

 

17(03(19

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 29 March 2018 17:53
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

 

Karl--

When I say "WeekDate Calendar", I'm only referring to a year-division system, which could be used with any leap-year rule, including Mininum-Displacement.

Yes of course Nearest-Monday isn't free-standing. That's why it's so briefly-explained, in one simple sentence.   ...because it isn't necessary to define a leap-year system.

When I say "Nearest-Monday", I'm only referring to its use with Roman-Gregorian.

The new calendar's year starts on the Monday that is nearest to Roman-Gregorian's January 1st.

There's no other year-start or leapyear system that's as briefly-defined as Nearest-Monday, because, you can define Nearest-Monday to someone in one brief and simple sentence, because it isn't necessary to define a leap-year rule

 

I suggest that if people really want calendar reform, then it's obvious that all calendar-reform advocates should be advocating the same reform.  And that reform should be the most simple, convenient, un-arbitrary year-division system, with the most briefly-explained year-start system.


That calendar-proposal should be ISO WeekDate.

That's obvious.

 

...a calendar that has the great advantage of already being in wide use in business and government, internationally.

Michael Ossipoff


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Michael Ossipoff
Karl--

Oh alright, I'll give you two clues:

1. When I've mentioned "Roman-Gregorian", I've at least usually referred to it as "Our current Roman-Gregorian Calendar", or at least "Our current Roman-Gregorian."

2. A hint: A calendar can be defined, designated, &/or named by stating its year-division system and its leapyear system.

Michael Ossipoff



On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Thank you Michael for clarifying things.

 

What exactly does Michael mean by Roman-Gregorian?

 

Karl



I can't believe you're asking that. But, if you are, I don't want to spoil it for you by explaining it. I'd rather leave it as a homework assignment.
Also, I respect you too much to believe that you need an explanation.

Alright, if, after 3 days, you say that you don't have the answer to that puzzle of what "Roman-Gregorian" could refer to, then i'll reveal the answer.at that time. But I don't want to insult you by explaining it now.

By the way, in reply to something that you said to Brij:

.

There’s good reason for choosing the Mean Tropical Year’s length as the average calendar year-length:

.

1. Though I like the suggestion to use the length of the June Solstice year, there’s also the practical argument that the MTY would result in a calendar relatively consistent at all times of year, not favoring any time of year.

.

2. It’s the natural default choice, because, whenever we read about the length of the year, the length of the MTY is what’s given.

.

But, aside from that, who says that we have to choose fine-tuning parameters such as that? Arguing those issues, and, especially, taking them to the public, is the best way to make calendar reform seem too complicated and involved. And continuing to argue them, and all the many proposals,  is an excellent way to ensure that we keep on postponing reform while we endlessly argue minutiae.

.

There’s already a perfectly good fixed-calendar reform leapyear system (year-start system, actually) already in wide use: Nearest-Monday.

.

In fact, there’s already a fixed calendar that’s in wide use, and it’s the simplest and most convenient one:

.

ISO WeekDate.

Do you want calendar reform in order to gain simplicity, convenience and efficiency? ISO WeekDate.  Then where’s the debate issue?

.

So, what calendarists need to decide (if they haven’t already) is whether they want to endlessly argue fine-points and fine-tunings of innumerable alternatives, or whether they would rather support the simplest and most convenient proposal, a calendar that’s already in wide use in business and government—ISO WeekDate.

.

Michael Ossipoff

 

 

 

 

 

 

17(03(19

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 29 March 2018 17:53
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

 

Karl--

When I say "WeekDate Calendar", I'm only referring to a year-division system, which could be used with any leap-year rule, including Mininum-Displacement.

Yes of course Nearest-Monday isn't free-standing. That's why it's so briefly-explained, in one simple sentence.   ...because it isn't necessary to define a leap-year system.

When I say "Nearest-Monday", I'm only referring to its use with Roman-Gregorian.

The new calendar's year starts on the Monday that is nearest to Roman-Gregorian's January 1st.

There's no other year-start or leapyear system that's as briefly-defined as Nearest-Monday, because, you can define Nearest-Monday to someone in one brief and simple sentence, because it isn't necessary to define a leap-year rule

 

I suggest that if people really want calendar reform, then it's obvious that all calendar-reform advocates should be advocating the same reform.  And that reform should be the most simple, convenient, un-arbitrary year-division system, with the most briefly-explained year-start system.


That calendar-proposal should be ISO WeekDate.

That's obvious.

 

...a calendar that has the great advantage of already being in wide use in business and government, internationally.

Michael Ossipoff



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

If I have to play guessing games with what Michael means, I won’t consider his work explained well enough for me to comment on it.

 

I haven’t seen the term Roman-Gregorian used by anyone but Michael Ossipoff,  therefore I take to be original terminology of Michael.

If this term is not original please show us a work that uses it with exactly the same meaning as Michael uses it.

 

If Michael is not willing to give the definitions of his original terminology (again and again) then his work does not merit consideration.

 

I too use original terminology such as ‘yerm’ and if any asks what I mean by it I’ll explain.

 

Also the hint is incorrect:  A calendar also needs an epoch or the day of one date defined. This is particularly important in the context of Nearest Monday. It was a very important issue in determining the definition of the Maya calendar (issue referred to as correlation).

 

Karl

 

17(03(20

 

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 05 April 2018 07:45
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

 

Karl--

Oh alright, I'll give you two clues:

1. When I've mentioned "Roman-Gregorian", I've at least usually referred to it as "Our current Roman-Gregorian Calendar", or at least "Our current Roman-Gregorian."

2. A hint: A calendar can be defined, designated, &/or named by stating its year-division system and its leapyear system.

Michael Ossipoff

 

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

 

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Thank you Michael for clarifying things.

 

What exactly does Michael mean by Roman-Gregorian?

 

Karl

 

I can't believe you're asking that. But, if you are, I don't want to spoil it for you by explaining it. I'd rather leave it as a homework assignment.

Also, I respect you too much to believe that you need an explanation.

Alright, if, after 3 days, you say that you don't have the answer to that puzzle of what "Roman-Gregorian" could refer to, then i'll reveal the answer.at that time. But I don't want to insult you by explaining it now.

 

By the way, in reply to something that you said to Brij:

.

There’s good reason for choosing the Mean Tropical Year’s length as the average calendar year-length:

.

1. Though I like the suggestion to use the length of the June Solstice year, there’s also the practical argument that the MTY would result in a calendar relatively consistent at all times of year, not favoring any time of year.

.

2. It’s the natural default choice, because, whenever we read about the length of the year, the length of the MTY is what’s given.

.

But, aside from that, who says that we have to choose fine-tuning parameters such as that? Arguing those issues, and, especially, taking them to the public, is the best way to make calendar reform seem too complicated and involved. And continuing to argue them, and all the many proposals,  is an excellent way to ensure that we keep on postponing reform while we endlessly argue minutiae.

.

There’s already a perfectly good fixed-calendar reform leapyear system (year-start system, actually) already in wide use: Nearest-Monday.

.

In fact, there’s already a fixed calendar that’s in wide use, and it’s the simplest and most convenient one:

.

ISO WeekDate.

Do you want calendar reform in order to gain simplicity, convenience and efficiency? ISO WeekDate.  Then where’s the debate issue?

.

So, what calendarists need to decide (if they haven’t already) is whether they want to endlessly argue fine-points and fine-tunings of innumerable alternatives, or whether they would rather support the simplest and most convenient proposal, a calendar that’s already in wide use in business and government—ISO WeekDate.

.

Michael Ossipoff

 

 

 

 

 

 

17(03(19

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 29 March 2018 17:53
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

 

Karl--

When I say "WeekDate Calendar", I'm only referring to a year-division system, which could be used with any leap-year rule, including Mininum-Displacement.

Yes of course Nearest-Monday isn't free-standing. That's why it's so briefly-explained, in one simple sentence.   ...because it isn't necessary to define a leap-year system.

When I say "Nearest-Monday", I'm only referring to its use with Roman-Gregorian.

The new calendar's year starts on the Monday that is nearest to Roman-Gregorian's January 1st.

There's no other year-start or leapyear system that's as briefly-defined as Nearest-Monday, because, you can define Nearest-Monday to someone in one brief and simple sentence, because it isn't necessary to define a leap-year rule

 

I suggest that if people really want calendar reform, then it's obvious that all calendar-reform advocates should be advocating the same reform.  And that reform should be the most simple, convenient, un-arbitrary year-division system, with the most briefly-explained year-start system.


That calendar-proposal should be ISO WeekDate.

That's obvious.

 

...a calendar that has the great advantage of already being in wide use in business and government, internationally.

Michael Ossipoff

 

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Michael Ossipoff
As I said, I didn't want to insult Karl by explaining the obvious to him. But if he wants to be insulted, then I'll walk him through it:

First, I'll explain to Karl the two clues that I gave him. Then I'll answer him inline.

1. When mentioning "Roman-Gregorian", I at least usually referred to it as "Our current Roman-Gregorian Calendar", or at least "Our current Roman-Gregorian".

How many calendars can be called "our current calendar"?. Yes, there are various religious calendars in use, and various fixed calendars used in business and government, but none of those could be called "our [one] current calendar". There's only calendar currently in near-universal use. It's a (the) civil calendar, and It's often referred to as "the Gregorian Calendar", though only its leapyear system is Gregorian.

Which one is that? It's the one by which Karl has to make his appointments and schedule every kind of business.

2. A calendar can be defined, specified and named by stating its year-division system and leapiyear-rule.

Karl disagreed with that, saying that epoch is needed to specify a calendar. Alright, if the specification of a calendar requires specifying (one or all of) its parameters. But does a change in a parameter change a calendar into a different calendar? When Hanke & Henry change the epoch of their calendar, does that mean that it's no longer the Hanke-Henry Calendar?

This is a silly quibble. Most would agree that it's still the Hanke-Henry Calendar, but with a changed parameter (the epoch).

And, when we refer to the Hanke-Henry Calendar by name, we don't say "Hanke-Henry Calendar with  ________  as its epoch.". We recognize that it's still the same calendar, even though one of its parameters has been changed.

So then, what might "Roman-Gregorian" mean???  Well, how about this. We're currently using a calendar that has the Roman month system, and the Gregorian leap-year system. Is that a sufficient clue?

There now, I've solved Karl's quandary for him.

Michael Ossipoff






On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

If I have to play guessing games with what Michael means, I won’t consider his work explained well enough for me to comment on it.

 

I haven’t seen the term Roman-Gregorian used by anyone but Michael Ossipoff,  therefore I take to be original terminology of Michael.

If this term is not original please show us a work that uses it with exactly the same meaning as Michael uses it.

 

If Michael is not willing to give the definitions of his original terminology (again and again) then his work does not merit consideration.

 

I too use original terminology such as ‘yerm’ and if any asks what I mean by it I’ll explain.

 

Also the hint is incorrect:  A calendar also needs an epoch or the day of one date defined. This is particularly important in the context of Nearest Monday. It was a very important issue in determining the definition of the Maya calendar (issue referred to as correlation).

 

Karl

 

17(03(20

 

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 05 April 2018 07:45
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

 

Karl--

Oh alright, I'll give you two clues:

1. When I've mentioned "Roman-Gregorian", I've at least usually referred to it as "Our current Roman-Gregorian Calendar", or at least "Our current Roman-Gregorian."

2. A hint: A calendar can be defined, designated, &/or named by stating its year-division system and its leapyear system.

Michael Ossipoff

 

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

 

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Thank you Michael for clarifying things.

 

What exactly does Michael mean by Roman-Gregorian?

 

Karl

 

I can't believe you're asking that. But, if you are, I don't want to spoil it for you by explaining it. I'd rather leave it as a homework assignment.

Also, I respect you too much to believe that you need an explanation.

Alright, if, after 3 days, you say that you don't have the answer to that puzzle of what "Roman-Gregorian" could refer to, then i'll reveal the answer.at that time. But I don't want to insult you by explaining it now.

 

By the way, in reply to something that you said to Brij:

.

There’s good reason for choosing the Mean Tropical Year’s length as the average calendar year-length:

.

1. Though I like the suggestion to use the length of the June Solstice year, there’s also the practical argument that the MTY would result in a calendar relatively consistent at all times of year, not favoring any time of year.

.

2. It’s the natural default choice, because, whenever we read about the length of the year, the length of the MTY is what’s given.

.

But, aside from that, who says that we have to choose fine-tuning parameters such as that? Arguing those issues, and, especially, taking them to the public, is the best way to make calendar reform seem too complicated and involved. And continuing to argue them, and all the many proposals,  is an excellent way to ensure that we keep on postponing reform while we endlessly argue minutiae.

.

There’s already a perfectly good fixed-calendar reform leapyear system (year-start system, actually) already in wide use: Nearest-Monday.

.

In fact, there’s already a fixed calendar that’s in wide use, and it’s the simplest and most convenient one:

.

ISO WeekDate.

Do you want calendar reform in order to gain simplicity, convenience and efficiency? ISO WeekDate.  Then where’s the debate issue?

.

So, what calendarists need to decide (if they haven’t already) is whether they want to endlessly argue fine-points and fine-tunings of innumerable alternatives, or whether they would rather support the simplest and most convenient proposal, a calendar that’s already in wide use in business and government—ISO WeekDate.

.

Michael Ossipoff

 

 

 

 

 

 

17(03(19

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 29 March 2018 17:53
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

 

Karl--

When I say "WeekDate Calendar", I'm only referring to a year-division system, which could be used with any leap-year rule, including Mininum-Displacement.

Yes of course Nearest-Monday isn't free-standing. That's why it's so briefly-explained, in one simple sentence.   ...because it isn't necessary to define a leap-year system.

When I say "Nearest-Monday", I'm only referring to its use with Roman-Gregorian.

The new calendar's year starts on the Monday that is nearest to Roman-Gregorian's January 1st.

There's no other year-start or leapyear system that's as briefly-defined as Nearest-Monday, because, you can define Nearest-Monday to someone in one brief and simple sentence, because it isn't necessary to define a leap-year rule

 

I suggest that if people really want calendar reform, then it's obvious that all calendar-reform advocates should be advocating the same reform.  And that reform should be the most simple, convenient, un-arbitrary year-division system, with the most briefly-explained year-start system.


That calendar-proposal should be ISO WeekDate.

That's obvious.

 

...a calendar that has the great advantage of already being in wide use in business and government, internationally.

Michael Ossipoff

 

 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 05 April 2018 22:35
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

 

As I said, I didn't want to insult Karl by explaining the obvious to him. But if he wants to be insulted, then I'll walk him through it:

First, I'll explain to Karl the two clues that I gave him. Then I'll answer him inline.

1. When mentioning "Roman-Gregorian", I at least usually referred to it as "Our current Roman-Gregorian Calendar", or at least "Our current Roman-Gregorian".

How many calendars can be called "our current calendar"?. Yes, there are various religious calendars in use, and various fixed calendars used in business and government, but none of those could be called "our [one] current calendar". There's only calendar currently in near-universal use. It's a (the) civil calendar, and It's often referred to as "the Gregorian Calendar", though only its leapyear system is Gregorian.

Which one is that? It's the one by which Karl has to make his appointments and schedule every kind of business.

KARL  ASKS: Why not call it the Gregorian Calendar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

KARL REPLIES: Calling it something other than Gregorian calendar suggests it is not the Gregorian calendar and so causes confusion, if it is the Gregorian calendar!  

 

2. A calendar can be defined, specified and named by stating its year-division system and leap-year-rule.

Karl disagreed with that, saying that epoch is needed to specify a calendar. Alright, if the specification of a calendar requires specifying (one or all of) its parameters. But does a change in a parameter change a calendar into a different calendar? When Hanke & Henry change the epoch of their calendar, does that mean that it's no longer the Hanke-Henry Calendar?

This is a silly quibble. Most would agree that it's still the Hanke-Henry Calendar, but with a changed parameter (the epoch).

And, when we refer to the Hanke-Henry Calendar by name, we don't say "Hanke-Henry Calendar with  ________  as its epoch.". We recognize that it's still the same calendar, even though one of its parameters has been changed.

So then, what might "Roman-Gregorian" mean???  Well, how about this. We're currently using a calendar that has the Roman month system, and the Gregorian leap-year system. Is that a sufficient clue?

KARL REPLIES: I strongly disagree with the implied idea that a calendar should be named by the name of its year-division system and the name of its leap year rule (and the name of its epoch rule). Use of existing names would aid communication.

 

There now, I've solved Karl's quandary for him.

KARL REPLIES:  Now I’m one step closer to understanding what Michael means by Nearest Monday. It could be ISO week date, but I’m still not sure or that. If it is just that, why not use ISO Week date and possibly provide a link such as

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_week_date to save having to define it.

 

This unnecessary use of original terminology makes understanding Michael very difficult.  New terms may be necessary to name something not already named, such as full moon cycle.

 

Karl

17(03(21 in Yerm Lunar Calendar

https://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/palmen/yerm1.htm

 

Michael Ossipoff




 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Michael Ossipoff


KARL REPLIES: I strongly disagree with the implied idea that a calendar should be named by the name of its year-division system and the name of its leap year rule (and the name of its epoch rule). Use of existing names would aid communication.

:D

Perhaps Karl isn't aware that "Roman" is an existing adjective meaning "of the Romans", and that it's well-accepted (...at least by most people) that the month-system we use is from the Romans.   ...and that our current leapyear system is known the Gregorian leapyear system. (It's named after a pope named Gregorius).

Karl strongly disagrees that a calendar should be named for its year-division system and its leapyear-rule? One can only wonder what "existing name" Karl thinks would be better for our currently-used Roman-Gregorian Calendar.

It's usually erroneously called "the Gregorian Calendar', even though only its leapyear-rule, and not its year-division system, is Gregorian.

And no, I didn't say that a calendar's epoch needs to be part of that calendar's name. Just the year-division system and the leapyiear-rule (or other year-start rule) would be sufficient. No need to include all of the parameters in the name.



KARL REPLIES:  Now I’m one step closer to understanding what Michael means by Nearest Monday.

 



:D  That's good, because I explicitly defined that name when I introduced it.


It could be ISO week date, but I’m still not sure or that.


No, it couldn't be ISO WeeDate, because I explicitly defined it otherwise.  But at least it's good that Karl isn't "sure of that".


If it is just that, why not use ISO Week date


See above.

 I specifically and explicitly defined "Nearest-Monday" as the name of a year-start rule. Of course ordinarily a year-start rule is a leapyear-rule. But the Nearest-Monday year-start rule needn't mention leapyear. Hence, I call it a year-start rule, and not a leapyear rule.

ISO Weekdate consists of the WeekDate year-division system, used with the Nearest-Monday year-start rule.

 


This unnecessary use of original terminology makes understanding Michael very difficult. 



Nonsense. If (astonishingly), the name "Nearest-Monday" wasn't already in use, then it needed to be introduced.


And no, it doesn't "make understanding Michael very difficult". I clearly and specifically defined "Nearest-Monday" when I introduced that name.


I didn't mean to make it difficult for Karl, but "Nearest-Monday" is the obvious name for a year-start system that starts the fixed-calendar year on the Monday that's nearest to the first day of a Roman-Gregorian year.


If that year-start rule already had a different name, then it was badly in need of a better name.


By the way, why must Karl write in purple-gray, making it necessary to change adjoining text back to black?


Michael Ossipoff



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Three quick answers:

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 06 April 2018 16:03
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

 

 

KARL REPLIES: I strongly disagree with the implied idea that a calendar should be named by the name of its year-division system and the name of its leap year rule (and the name of its epoch rule). Use of existing names would aid communication.

:D

Perhaps Karl isn't aware that "Roman" is an existing adjective meaning "of the Romans", and that it's well-accepted (...at least by most people) that the month-system we use is from the Romans.   ...and that our current leapyear system is known the Gregorian leapyear system. (It's named after a pope named Gregorius).

KARL REPLIES: It is one of several month systems used by the Romans. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar .

Karl strongly disagrees that a calendar should be named for its year-division system and its leapyear-rule? One can only wonder what "existing name" Karl thinks would be better for our currently-used Roman-Gregorian Calendar.

KARL REPLIES: The Gregorian Calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar .

It's usually erroneously called "the Gregorian Calendar', even though only its leapyear-rule, and not its year-division system, is Gregorian.

KARL REPLIES: I disagree.

Have a good weekend

Karl

17(03(21

PS: I write my text in a different colour to distinguish from your text.  

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Victor Engel
Dear Calendar People,

This discussion seems to be devolving to the ridiculous. Michael seems to be using "Gregorian" as an adjective. Karl, like almost everyone else in the world, is using "Gregorian Calendar" as a proper noun. It need not be entirely gregorian or gregorian at all. It is a name that describes a specific calendar that is well-defined without further qualification.

Victor

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:07 AM Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Three quick answers:

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 06 April 2018 16:03


To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

 

 

KARL REPLIES: I strongly disagree with the implied idea that a calendar should be named by the name of its year-division system and the name of its leap year rule (and the name of its epoch rule). Use of existing names would aid communication.

:D

Perhaps Karl isn't aware that "Roman" is an existing adjective meaning "of the Romans", and that it's well-accepted (...at least by most people) that the month-system we use is from the Romans.   ...and that our current leapyear system is known the Gregorian leapyear system. (It's named after a pope named Gregorius).

KARL REPLIES: It is one of several month systems used by the Romans. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar .

Karl strongly disagrees that a calendar should be named for its year-division system and its leapyear-rule? One can only wonder what "existing name" Karl thinks would be better for our currently-used Roman-Gregorian Calendar.

KARL REPLIES: The Gregorian Calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar .

It's usually erroneously called "the Gregorian Calendar', even though only its leapyear-rule, and not its year-division system, is Gregorian.

KARL REPLIES: I disagree.

Have a good weekend

Karl

17(03(21

PS: I write my text in a different colour to distinguish from your text.  

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Walter J Ziobro

To all

For what it is worth, ISO 8610 refers to the current calendar as the Gregorian calendar.

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Friday, April 6, 2018 Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Calendar People,

This discussion seems to be devolving to the ridiculous. Michael seems to be using "Gregorian" as an adjective. Karl, like almost everyone else in the world, is using "Gregorian Calendar" as a proper noun. It need not be entirely gregorian or gregorian at all. It is a name that describes a specific calendar that is well-defined without further qualification.

Victor

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:07 AM Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Three quick answers:

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 06 April 2018 16:03


To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

 

 

KARL REPLIES: I strongly disagree with the implied idea that a calendar should be named by the name of its year-division system and the name of its leap year rule (and the name of its epoch rule). Use of existing names would aid communication.

:D

Perhaps Karl isn't aware that "Roman" is an existing adjective meaning "of the Romans", and that it's well-accepted (...at least by most people) that the month-system we use is from the Romans.   ...and that our current leapyear system is known the Gregorian leapyear system. (It's named after a pope named Gregorius).

KARL REPLIES: It is one of several month systems used by the Romans. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar .

Karl strongly disagrees that a calendar should be named for its year-division system and its leapyear-rule? One can only wonder what "existing name" Karl thinks would be better for our currently-used Roman-Gregorian Calendar.

KARL REPLIES: The Gregorian Calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar .

It's usually erroneously called "the Gregorian Calendar', even though only its leapyear-rule, and not its year-division system, is Gregorian.

KARL REPLIES: I disagree.

Have a good weekend

Karl

17(03(21

PS: I write my text in a different colour to distinguish from your text.  

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Walter J Ziobro
In reply to this post by Victor Engel

To all

And Inter Gravissimus refers to the calendar it describes as "Calendarium Gregorianum Perpetuum"

Walter Ziobro

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail




On Friday, April 6, 2018 Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Calendar People,

This discussion seems to be devolving to the ridiculous. Michael seems to be using "Gregorian" as an adjective. Karl, like almost everyone else in the world, is using "Gregorian Calendar" as a proper noun. It need not be entirely gregorian or gregorian at all. It is a name that describes a specific calendar that is well-defined without further qualification.

Victor

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:07 AM Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Three quick answers:

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 06 April 2018 16:03


To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

 

 

KARL REPLIES: I strongly disagree with the implied idea that a calendar should be named by the name of its year-division system and the name of its leap year rule (and the name of its epoch rule). Use of existing names would aid communication.

:D

Perhaps Karl isn't aware that "Roman" is an existing adjective meaning "of the Romans", and that it's well-accepted (...at least by most people) that the month-system we use is from the Romans.   ...and that our current leapyear system is known the Gregorian leapyear system. (It's named after a pope named Gregorius).

KARL REPLIES: It is one of several month systems used by the Romans. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar .

Karl strongly disagrees that a calendar should be named for its year-division system and its leapyear-rule? One can only wonder what "existing name" Karl thinks would be better for our currently-used Roman-Gregorian Calendar.

KARL REPLIES: The Gregorian Calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar .

It's usually erroneously called "the Gregorian Calendar', even though only its leapyear-rule, and not its year-division system, is Gregorian.

KARL REPLIES: I disagree.

Have a good weekend

Karl

17(03(21

PS: I write my text in a different colour to distinguish from your text.  

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Victor Engel


On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Calendar People,

This discussion seems to be devolving to the ridiculous.

No, it started out as "the ridiculous", when Karl said that he didn't know what "Roman-Gregorian Calendar" refers to.


 Michael seems to be using "Gregorian" as an adjective. Karl, like almost everyone else in the world, is using "Gregorian Calendar" as a proper noun.


Incorrect. "Gregorian Calendar" is a noun-phrase, not a noun.

...and "Gregorian" is indeed an adjective.  The  "...ian" suffix is a common ending for adjectives that indicate an origin or affiliation or other similar relation.



It need not be entirely gregorian or gregorian at all.

:D

 
It is a name that describes a specific calendar that is well-defined without further qualification.


No one's denying that "Gregorian Calendar" is a (faulty) name that's in wide use.

But, contrary to popular belief, resulting from a sloppy name, Gregorius's 16th century edict didn't introduce the month system that we use. It was from the Romans.

The use of the name "Gregorian Calendar" is admittedly common. That doesn't make it a good name. It's an incomplete name that erroneously implies Gregorian origin for the entire calendar.

A more objective and descriptive name for that calendar is "Roman-Gregorian Calendar", specifying both the year-division system and the leapyear system. They're different aspects of the calendar, and I remind you that they have different origins.

Michael Ossipoff

 

Victor

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:07 AM Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Three quick answers:

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 06 April 2018 16:03


To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

 

 

KARL REPLIES: I strongly disagree with the implied idea that a calendar should be named by the name of its year-division system and the name of its leap year rule (and the name of its epoch rule). Use of existing names would aid communication.

:D

Perhaps Karl isn't aware that "Roman" is an existing adjective meaning "of the Romans", and that it's well-accepted (...at least by most people) that the month-system we use is from the Romans.   ...and that our current leapyear system is known the Gregorian leapyear system. (It's named after a pope named Gregorius).

KARL REPLIES: It is one of several month systems used by the Romans. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar .

Karl strongly disagrees that a calendar should be named for its year-division system and its leapyear-rule? One can only wonder what "existing name" Karl thinks would be better for our currently-used Roman-Gregorian Calendar.

KARL REPLIES: The Gregorian Calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar .

It's usually erroneously called "the Gregorian Calendar', even though only its leapyear-rule, and not its year-division system, is Gregorian.

KARL REPLIES: I disagree.

Have a good weekend

Karl

17(03(21

PS: I write my text in a different colour to distinguish from your text.  


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Michael Ossipoff
In reply to this post by Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC


On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Three quick answers:

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 06 April 2018 16:03
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.


KARL REPLIES: It [The Roman Calendar now in use] is one of several month systems used by the Romans. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar .


Yes, and any one of those several could be called "a Roman month-system".  I didn't use "a". I used "the". That means that I was referring to something that there's only one of.

Of those several month-systems that the Romans used at different time, guess which one is the Roman month-system.

It's the one, the final one, that they eventually arrived at and didn't replace.    ...the only one remaining in use.

What Karl is missing is that, at any time, there's only one Roman month-system that can be called "the Roman month-system".

Each of several month-systems that was a Roman month-system, stopped being "the Roman month system" as soon as, in Roman use, it was replaced by a new Roman month-system.

Is there a Roman month-system that wasn't so replaced? Yes. We're using it now.





.

It's usually erroneously called "the Gregorian Calendar', even though only its leapyear-rule, and not its year-division system, is Gregorian.

KARL REPLIES: I disagree.


Karl thinks that our civil calendar's year-division system, month-system, is Gregorian in origin.

You post in purple, to distinguish your posts from those of other people. And then, often that results in subsequent lines likewise appearing in purple, and so I have to change the color of my own text back to black.
 

Michael Ossipoff

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Michael Ossipoff
Typo:

I added, to the text quoted below, the phrase in brackets.

It [The Roman Calendar now in use] is one of several month systems used by the Romans.

When I said "The Roman Calendar now in use", I meant "The Roman month-system now in use".

Michael Ossipoff


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Three quick answers:

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 06 April 2018 16:03
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.


KARL REPLIES: It [The Roman Calendar now in use] is one of several month systems used by the Romans. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar .


Yes, and any one of those several could be called "a Roman month-system".  I didn't use "a". I used "the". That means that I was referring to something that there's only one of.

Of those several month-systems that the Romans used at different time, guess which one is the Roman month-system.

It's the one, the final one, that they eventually arrived at and didn't replace.    ...the only one remaining in use.

What Karl is missing is that, at any time, there's only one Roman month-system that can be called "the Roman month-system".

Each of several month-systems that was a Roman month-system, stopped being "the Roman month system" as soon as, in Roman use, it was replaced by a new Roman month-system.

Is there a Roman month-system that wasn't so replaced? Yes. We're using it now.





.

It's usually erroneously called "the Gregorian Calendar', even though only its leapyear-rule, and not its year-division system, is Gregorian.

KARL REPLIES: I disagree.


Karl thinks that our civil calendar's year-division system, month-system, is Gregorian in origin.

You post in purple, to distinguish your posts from those of other people. And then, often that results in subsequent lines likewise appearing in purple, and so I have to change the color of my own text back to black.
 

Michael Ossipoff


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Michael Ossipoff

 Michael seems to be using "Gregorian" as an adjective. Karl, like almost everyone else in the world, is using "Gregorian Calendar" as a proper noun.


Incorrect. "Gregorian Calendar" is a noun-phrase, not a noun.

But of course a noun-phrase can be, and often is, used as a noun.

Michael Ossipoff


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Typo:

I added, to the text quoted below, the phrase in brackets.

It [The Roman Calendar now in use] is one of several month systems used by the Romans.

When I said "The Roman Calendar now in use", I meant "The Roman month-system now in use".

Michael Ossipoff


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Three quick answers:

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 06 April 2018 16:03
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.


KARL REPLIES: It [The Roman Calendar now in use] is one of several month systems used by the Romans. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar .


Yes, and any one of those several could be called "a Roman month-system".  I didn't use "a". I used "the". That means that I was referring to something that there's only one of.

Of those several month-systems that the Romans used at different time, guess which one is the Roman month-system.

It's the one, the final one, that they eventually arrived at and didn't replace.    ...the only one remaining in use.

What Karl is missing is that, at any time, there's only one Roman month-system that can be called "the Roman month-system".

Each of several month-systems that was a Roman month-system, stopped being "the Roman month system" as soon as, in Roman use, it was replaced by a new Roman month-system.

Is there a Roman month-system that wasn't so replaced? Yes. We're using it now.





.

It's usually erroneously called "the Gregorian Calendar', even though only its leapyear-rule, and not its year-division system, is Gregorian.

KARL REPLIES: I disagree.


Karl thinks that our civil calendar's year-division system, month-system, is Gregorian in origin.

You post in purple, to distinguish your posts from those of other people. And then, often that results in subsequent lines likewise appearing in purple, and so I have to change the color of my own text back to black.
 

Michael Ossipoff



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Victor Engel
It is a proper noun, i. e., the name of THE Gregorian calendar. There's no need to drag the Romans into it. 

Victor

On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:00 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Michael seems to be using "Gregorian" as an adjective. Karl, like almost everyone else in the world, is using "Gregorian Calendar" as a proper noun.


Incorrect. "Gregorian Calendar" is a noun-phrase, not a noun.

But of course a noun-phrase can be, and often is, used as a noun.

Michael Ossipoff


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Typo:

I added, to the text quoted below, the phrase in brackets.

It [The Roman Calendar now in use] is one of several month systems used by the Romans.

When I said "The Roman Calendar now in use", I meant "The Roman month-system now in use".

Michael Ossipoff


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Three quick answers:

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 06 April 2018 16:03
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.


KARL REPLIES: It [The Roman Calendar now in use] is one of several month systems used by the Romans. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar .


Yes, and any one of those several could be called "a Roman month-system".  I didn't use "a". I used "the". That means that I was referring to something that there's only one of.

Of those several month-systems that the Romans used at different time, guess which one is the Roman month-system.

It's the one, the final one, that they eventually arrived at and didn't replace.    ...the only one remaining in use.

What Karl is missing is that, at any time, there's only one Roman month-system that can be called "the Roman month-system".

Each of several month-systems that was a Roman month-system, stopped being "the Roman month system" as soon as, in Roman use, it was replaced by a new Roman month-system.

Is there a Roman month-system that wasn't so replaced? Yes. We're using it now.





.

It's usually erroneously called "the Gregorian Calendar', even though only its leapyear-rule, and not its year-division system, is Gregorian.

KARL REPLIES: I disagree.


Karl thinks that our civil calendar's year-division system, month-system, is Gregorian in origin.

You post in purple, to distinguish your posts from those of other people. And then, often that results in subsequent lines likewise appearing in purple, and so I have to change the color of my own text back to black.
 

Michael Ossipoff



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Michael Ossipoff


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:
It is a proper noun

Victor needs to look up the difference between a noun and a noun-phrase.

 
, i. e., the name of THE Gregorian calendar. There's no need to drag the Romans into it. 

...you mean other than the fact that they're the origin of the "Gregorian Calendar" 's months?  :D

 I'm not trying to legislate that you not be allowed to say "Gregorian Calendar."

I realize that following tradition is very, very important to some people.But your hallowed and sacrosanct tradition of calling it the "Gregorian Calendar", when only part of it is Gregorian, is silly.

And that worship of tradition is self-contradictory too:  The Roman month-system has presumably been kept partly due to tradition (but maybe just inertia and laziness).  But, if you value that tradition, then why do you want to forbid mentioning the Roman contribution, the Roman origin of the months. 

So we keep the Roman month-system because we value tradition so much, but we also have a tradition of not referring to that Roman origin in the calendar's name?

Maybe I should apologize for offending the traditional sensibilities of some very devoted followers of tradition.

When I refer to the current universal civil calendar, I call it by its month-system and its leapyear-system. No one's saying that you have to.

Yes, several have pointed out how common the "Gregorian Calendar" usage is. Sorry, but "common" isn't the same as "apt".

As a name, "Gregorian Calendar" is less apt, less descriptive, and less useful than "Roman-Gregorian Calendar". "Gregorian Calendar"  implies something, an origin, that isn't true. And, thereby, it probably misleads some people regarding the matter of the calendar's origin.

But, as I said, I'm not saying that you should have to change your usage. This silly quibble began when Karl started objecting to my use of "Roman-Gregorian Calendar".

Now, have we all had our say?

Michael Ossipoff

 
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:00 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Michael seems to be using "Gregorian" as an adjective. Karl, like almost everyone else in the world, is using "Gregorian Calendar" as a proper noun.


Incorrect. "Gregorian Calendar" is a noun-phrase, not a noun.

But of course a noun-phrase can be, and often is, used as a noun.

Michael Ossipoff


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Typo:

I added, to the text quoted below, the phrase in brackets.

It [The Roman Calendar now in use] is one of several month systems used by the Romans.

When I said "The Roman Calendar now in use", I meant "The Roman month-system now in use".

Michael Ossipoff


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Three quick answers:

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 06 April 2018 16:03
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.


KARL REPLIES: It [The Roman Calendar now in use] is one of several month systems used by the Romans. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar .


Yes, and any one of those several could be called "a Roman month-system".  I didn't use "a". I used "the". That means that I was referring to something that there's only one of.

Of those several month-systems that the Romans used at different time, guess which one is the Roman month-system.

It's the one, the final one, that they eventually arrived at and didn't replace.    ...the only one remaining in use.

What Karl is missing is that, at any time, there's only one Roman month-system that can be called "the Roman month-system".

Each of several month-systems that was a Roman month-system, stopped being "the Roman month system" as soon as, in Roman use, it was replaced by a new Roman month-system.

Is there a Roman month-system that wasn't so replaced? Yes. We're using it now.





.

It's usually erroneously called "the Gregorian Calendar', even though only its leapyear-rule, and not its year-division system, is Gregorian.

KARL REPLIES: I disagree.


Karl thinks that our civil calendar's year-division system, month-system, is Gregorian in origin.

You post in purple, to distinguish your posts from those of other people. And then, often that results in subsequent lines likewise appearing in purple, and so I have to change the color of my own text back to black.
 

Michael Ossipoff




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Victor Engel
Michael needs to look up the difference between a noun phrase and a proper noun.

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:
It is a proper noun

Victor needs to look up the difference between a noun and a noun-phrase.

 
, i. e., the name of THE Gregorian calendar. There's no need to drag the Romans into it. 

...you mean other than the fact that they're the origin of the "Gregorian Calendar" 's months?  :D

 I'm not trying to legislate that you not be allowed to say "Gregorian Calendar."

I realize that following tradition is very, very important to some people.But your hallowed and sacrosanct tradition of calling it the "Gregorian Calendar", when only part of it is Gregorian, is silly.

And that worship of tradition is self-contradictory too:  The Roman month-system has presumably been kept partly due to tradition (but maybe just inertia and laziness).  But, if you value that tradition, then why do you want to forbid mentioning the Roman contribution, the Roman origin of the months. 

So we keep the Roman month-system because we value tradition so much, but we also have a tradition of not referring to that Roman origin in the calendar's name?

Maybe I should apologize for offending the traditional sensibilities of some very devoted followers of tradition.

When I refer to the current universal civil calendar, I call it by its month-system and its leapyear-system. No one's saying that you have to.

Yes, several have pointed out how common the "Gregorian Calendar" usage is. Sorry, but "common" isn't the same as "apt".

As a name, "Gregorian Calendar" is less apt, less descriptive, and less useful than "Roman-Gregorian Calendar". "Gregorian Calendar"  implies something, an origin, that isn't true. And, thereby, it probably misleads some people regarding the matter of the calendar's origin.

But, as I said, I'm not saying that you should have to change your usage. This silly quibble began when Karl started objecting to my use of "Roman-Gregorian Calendar".

Now, have we all had our say?

Michael Ossipoff

 
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:00 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Michael seems to be using "Gregorian" as an adjective. Karl, like almost everyone else in the world, is using "Gregorian Calendar" as a proper noun.


Incorrect. "Gregorian Calendar" is a noun-phrase, not a noun.

But of course a noun-phrase can be, and often is, used as a noun.

Michael Ossipoff


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Typo:

I added, to the text quoted below, the phrase in brackets.

It [The Roman Calendar now in use] is one of several month systems used by the Romans.

When I said "The Roman Calendar now in use", I meant "The Roman month-system now in use".

Michael Ossipoff


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Three quick answers:

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 06 April 2018 16:03
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.


KARL REPLIES: It [The Roman Calendar now in use] is one of several month systems used by the Romans. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar .


Yes, and any one of those several could be called "a Roman month-system".  I didn't use "a". I used "the". That means that I was referring to something that there's only one of.

Of those several month-systems that the Romans used at different time, guess which one is the Roman month-system.

It's the one, the final one, that they eventually arrived at and didn't replace.    ...the only one remaining in use.

What Karl is missing is that, at any time, there's only one Roman month-system that can be called "the Roman month-system".

Each of several month-systems that was a Roman month-system, stopped being "the Roman month system" as soon as, in Roman use, it was replaced by a new Roman month-system.

Is there a Roman month-system that wasn't so replaced? Yes. We're using it now.





.

It's usually erroneously called "the Gregorian Calendar', even though only its leapyear-rule, and not its year-division system, is Gregorian.

KARL REPLIES: I disagree.


Karl thinks that our civil calendar's year-division system, month-system, is Gregorian in origin.

You post in purple, to distinguish your posts from those of other people. And then, often that results in subsequent lines likewise appearing in purple, and so I have to change the color of my own text back to black.
 

Michael Ossipoff





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.

Jamison Painter
It seems to me that most of us know that the Gregorian Calendar is a reform of the Julian Calendar, which itself  was a reform of the Roman Calendar.

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018, 1:44 PM Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael needs to look up the difference between a noun phrase and a proper noun.

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Victor Engel <[hidden email]> wrote:
It is a proper noun

Victor needs to look up the difference between a noun and a noun-phrase.

 
, i. e., the name of THE Gregorian calendar. There's no need to drag the Romans into it. 

...you mean other than the fact that they're the origin of the "Gregorian Calendar" 's months?  :D

 I'm not trying to legislate that you not be allowed to say "Gregorian Calendar."

I realize that following tradition is very, very important to some people.But your hallowed and sacrosanct tradition of calling it the "Gregorian Calendar", when only part of it is Gregorian, is silly.

And that worship of tradition is self-contradictory too:  The Roman month-system has presumably been kept partly due to tradition (but maybe just inertia and laziness).  But, if you value that tradition, then why do you want to forbid mentioning the Roman contribution, the Roman origin of the months. 

So we keep the Roman month-system because we value tradition so much, but we also have a tradition of not referring to that Roman origin in the calendar's name?

Maybe I should apologize for offending the traditional sensibilities of some very devoted followers of tradition.

When I refer to the current universal civil calendar, I call it by its month-system and its leapyear-system. No one's saying that you have to.

Yes, several have pointed out how common the "Gregorian Calendar" usage is. Sorry, but "common" isn't the same as "apt".

As a name, "Gregorian Calendar" is less apt, less descriptive, and less useful than "Roman-Gregorian Calendar". "Gregorian Calendar"  implies something, an origin, that isn't true. And, thereby, it probably misleads some people regarding the matter of the calendar's origin.

But, as I said, I'm not saying that you should have to change your usage. This silly quibble began when Karl started objecting to my use of "Roman-Gregorian Calendar".

Now, have we all had our say?

Michael Ossipoff

 
On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:00 PM Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
 Michael seems to be using "Gregorian" as an adjective. Karl, like almost everyone else in the world, is using "Gregorian Calendar" as a proper noun.


Incorrect. "Gregorian Calendar" is a noun-phrase, not a noun.

But of course a noun-phrase can be, and often is, used as a noun.

Michael Ossipoff


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
Typo:

I added, to the text quoted below, the phrase in brackets.

It [The Roman Calendar now in use] is one of several month systems used by the Romans.

When I said "The Roman Calendar now in use", I meant "The Roman month-system now in use".

Michael Ossipoff


On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Michael Ossipoff <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Karl Palmen - UKRI STFC <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Michael and Calendar People

 

Three quick answers:

 

From: East Carolina University Calendar discussion List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Michael Ossipoff
Sent: 06 April 2018 16:03
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Reply to Karl, regarding ISO WeekDate, the obvious best calendar-reform proposal.


KARL REPLIES: It [The Roman Calendar now in use] is one of several month systems used by the Romans. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_calendar .


Yes, and any one of those several could be called "a Roman month-system".  I didn't use "a". I used "the". That means that I was referring to something that there's only one of.

Of those several month-systems that the Romans used at different time, guess which one is the Roman month-system.

It's the one, the final one, that they eventually arrived at and didn't replace.    ...the only one remaining in use.

What Karl is missing is that, at any time, there's only one Roman month-system that can be called "the Roman month-system".

Each of several month-systems that was a Roman month-system, stopped being "the Roman month system" as soon as, in Roman use, it was replaced by a new Roman month-system.

Is there a Roman month-system that wasn't so replaced? Yes. We're using it now.





.

It's usually erroneously called "the Gregorian Calendar', even though only its leapyear-rule, and not its year-division system, is Gregorian.

KARL REPLIES: I disagree.


Karl thinks that our civil calendar's year-division system, month-system, is Gregorian in origin.

You post in purple, to distinguish your posts from those of other people. And then, often that results in subsequent lines likewise appearing in purple, and so I have to change the color of my own text back to black.
 

Michael Ossipoff





12