Re: Concalendrical reference point

John Cowan writes:
 > And Rosta scripsit:
 >
 > > This is an unsolved problem of longstanding for Livagian reckoning too.
 > > On the one hand, naming years by numbers is a method of great utility
 > > in calculating the time distance between two years, but on the other
 > > hand the issue of where to locate year 1 is a troublingly arbitrary
 > > one, for which no decent candidate has yet emerged in my thinking.
 >
 > Another possibility is to use the Gethenian calendar style (from
 > Le Guin's _The Left Hand of Darkness_): the current year is always
 > numbered 1.
 >
(I must read that sometime, and _The Lathe of Heaven_.)

Doesn't that make all documents mentioning dates become innacurate
within a year?  Unless you either have no written records, or they're
_all_ computerised and updated automatically, I can't see how this
would work.

Reply