Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique)

Tue, 08 Aug 1995 05:41:49 GMT (Michael L. Siemon) wrote:

>In article <>,
> wrote:

>+Obviously if the year originally started in March, this theory is untrue,
>+and is merely an explanation added later, which seemed to fit the facts. Can
>+anyone confirm or deny this.
>+I'm always interested in proving that I was lied to as a child

>You were not lied to (and it is probably a good idea to stop being quite
>so adolescent.)

I think you need to turn on the mechanism that controls your sense of
humor. It seems to be stuck.

>However, the Romans were NEVER very rational about
>anything to do with counting or calendars. For *some* purposes the
>year began on January 1st, for others (in particular, the inauguration
>of consuls, who gave their names to the years) on March 1st.

Seems like a simple explanation.

>The actual case is just more complicated than you were told (and would
>you have had the patience then -- or do you have it now? -- to delve
>into the actual historical situation?

...[sigh]... I imagine that even a 3 year old could manage to handle
the patience needed for the simple explanation you gave.

>"Stand, stand at the window, as the tears scald and start;
>you shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart."

Yup! Sense of humor is definately stuck in the "off" mode.

Stella Nemeth