Re: Attic months
|Date:||Thursday, January 5, 2006, 0:59|
--- In email@example.com, R A Brown <ray@C...> wrote:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
> > On 1/3/06, R A Brown <ray@c...> wrote:
> >>The earlier systems appear to have used an 8 year cycle of 99lunations,
> >>i.e. three years in the cycle had an extra intercalated month.
> > ... hence the alternating 49- and 50-month intervals between
> > Olympiads. No matter how your particular city state arranged the
> > months into years, everyone could see and count the moon phases,so
> > they neatly sidestepped the calendrical differences that way.
> >>But while the Metonic cycle caught on (it is still used for themodern
> >>Hebrew calendar and for determining Easter in both the Old andthe New
> >>style calendars), the Callipic cycle did not catch on. I guess a76 year
> >>cycle was felt just too long for practical use.
> > Perhaps, but the new-style calendar has a 400-year cycle, so I'd
> > expect 76 to be manageable.
> Yes, but in the new-style calendar it's only a matter ofintercalating a
> single day every so often, and the rule is pretty simple: "A yearis a
> leap year if it is evenly divisible by 4 and is not evenlydivisible by
> 100, or is evenly divisible by 400."
> But with the Metonic & Callipic cycles it's a question ofintercalating
> a whole month, and knowing whether the intercalated month is of 29or 30
> days. One has to know where one is in the cycle. Even in theMetonic
> cycle, one has to know whether it is the 3rd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 16thor
> 19th year as those will contain 13 months, while the rest have only12.
> Although I haven't been able to discover details, presumably the
> Callipic cycle was not just four consecutive Metonic cycles; theremust
> have been differences in each of the four 19-year periods,otherwise
> there'd be no point in having the longer cycle. So presumably onewould
> not merely need to know where one was in a 19-year period, but also
> which of the four 19-year periods one was in.
> Even the 19-year Metonic period seems more complicated than our 400-year
> new-style cycle. The extra complication of the Callipic must havebeen
> felt by most not worth the gain in accuracy.
> >>It seems that in the classical pronunciations, the mid vowels /e/and
> > /o/ had,as
> >>in Middle English, _two_ long pronunciations, one high & theother low.
> > And they were phonemically distinct? I didn't know that - aboutMid.
> > English either.
> Yes - apparently so. The higher sounds were spelled |ee| and |oo|or just
> |e| and |o| in unblocked syllables, whereas the lower sounds werespelled
> |ea| and |oa| respectively.
> >>For a reasonable description of ancient Greek pronunciation, Isuggest
> >>Sidney Allen's "Vox Graeca"
> > That sounds like a winner; I own his _Vox_Latina_. But shouldn'tthe
> > title of the Greek one be in Greek instead of Latin? :)
> á¼© á¼`Î»Î»Î·Î½Î¹Îºá½´ ÏÏÎ½á½µ ?
> >>But better still IMO, if you read French...
> > Not well enough for a technical nonfiction book to be anythingbut a
I've actually worked out, on the computer, the least-erroneous way of
It's actually three Metonic cycles, one of which is one day different
in length than the other two.
57 years = 705 months = 20819 days.
Quoting from my thread-starting "Survey(?) of ConLangs' Calendars and
Colors and Kinterms" post:
"Mine will use a lunisolar calendar with a cycle that is 57 years
long, and 705 months long, and 20819 days long.
Some months will be 29 days and some will be 30 days;
some years will be 12 months and some will be 13 months;
so some years will be 354 days, some will be 355 days, some will be
383 days, and some will be 384 days.
Every 57 years = 705 months = 20819 days,
everything will synch-up again."
Tom H.C. in MI
> > long laborious exercise in avoiding RSI from frequent
> > dictionary-flipping. :)
> Sounds like me with German :)
> MAKE POVERTY HISTORY