Talk:Roman calendar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"For us"

There is a weird use of the phrase "for us" in the article which assumes the reader is a user of the Gregorian Calendar, but there are places that use different calendars so this sentence seems a bit off to me. I'm referring to the sentence "his birthday was sometimes celebrated on both dates, i.e. (for us) on both 23 and 24 September." the "(for us)" might read better as "(for users of the Gregorian Calendar)" or something similarly phrased.-NeF (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The Gregorian calendar is the modern international standard but you're right that there's no need to go full-on Victorian with the phrasing. — LlywelynII 20:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

"nundina" or "nundinae"?

As far as I understand, "nundina"=singular and "nundinae"=plural, but in chap. 5 of 'Oxford Latin Course, pt.1', they wrote "nundinae sunt" and translated it as "it is market day", isn't it supposed to be "nundina est"? In NOVA ROMA they said that "nundinae is sometimes used to designate a market-place or a time for marketing in general", so maybe "nundinae sunt" is actually "it is marketing time"? Thanks. 109.66.42.18 (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Good question, though you missed the more important point that the kalendae, nonae, and idus themselves are also plural even in reference to a single day.

The Romans just rolled that way. Recurring dates of their calendar were treated as plurals even in reference to a single instance. — LlywelynII 20:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Rhyme

The one I learned in school (which happens to be in iambic quadrameter) was

"In March, July, October, May,

the Ides fall on the fifteenth day

the nones the seventh and besides

are two days less for Nones and Ides."

I like this one better than the one on the article page. -Ich (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So find it in a reliable source. — LlywelynII 20:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Names

I think that these months originally could be named like:

• Primilis
• Sectilis
• Tertilis
• Quadrilis
• Quintilis
• Sextilis
• September
• Octember
• November
• December
• Unodecember
• Duodecember

because of -ilis -ember endings.

We can also call them:

• January
• February
• March
• April
• May
• June
• July
• August
• Tibery
• Caligul
• Claudy
• Ner

because of avoiding false numbering scheme and finishing of List_of_Roman_emperors#Julio-Claudian_dynasty up to the end.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.121.97.29 (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but nobody liked Tiberius, Caligula, or Nero and Claudius isn't going to be left there by his lonesome. If September goes to Tiberius, it means October would've been Livius after his mother. Caligula could then change November to Germanicus after his dad and December becomes Claudius or whoever succeeds them. (Obviously some POD occurred that made their dynasty more stable and their months less prone to being neutralized.) As far as linguistic development, I'm thinking Middle English would have tried to preserve the main rhythm and vowels, so Tiberius→Tibeer/Tibear/Taiber/Tiber/Tiberry/Tibry; Livius→Leavy/Leafy/Livy/Livvy; Germanicus→German; Claudius→Claude. The adjective from primus is primalis (→Primal), but afaik that's medieval; it was really just primus (→Prime). Ditto secundalis (→Secundal) and secundus (→Second) and tertialis (→Tertial/Tercial) and tertius (→Terce). Undecember already has its own article.

All of this really belongs on an Alternative History forum, though, since it has little to do with this article. — LlywelynII 20:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

roman calendar

the romans made thier calendar by naming the months after gods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.55.182 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A few of them, but not all. — LlywelynII 20:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

445 day year is poor example of political manipulation.

Because the term of office of elected Roman magistrates was defined in terms of a Roman calendar year, a Pontifex Maximus would have reason to lengthen a year in which he or his allies were in power, or shorten a year in which his political opponents held office. For example, Julius Caesar made the year of his third consulship in 46 BC 445 days long.

The final sentence correctly indicates that the length of the year was in the gift of the Pontifex Maximus, but it's a poor example because that was the final excessively long year of the old system. It was not "part of the problem" as they say, but part of Julius's solution to the variable political year problem. 46 BCE was made 445 days long to realign the year with the seasons, so that 45 BCE could begin the Julian solar calendar that we use today. One (unused) source for the statement about how the year was manipulated for political purposes, using almost the same text as the first sentence above, can be found in Isaac Asimov's The Roman Republic (1966). But instead of saying that 46 was an example of that manipulation, Asimov points out that although 46 BCE is often referred to as "The Year of Confusion", it should instead be called "The Last Year of Confusion", because it was necessary to realign the year before starting a reformed calendar. I'm just expressing my view that the final sentence is misleading, since the effect of this one long year was the opposite of what the main thrust of the point was. Silas Maxfield (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly misleading in that 46 BC wasn't a typical example but it's not mistaken to point out that Caesar's reforms realigned the year by addition of days to his term rather than subtracting them. — LlywelynII 20:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The logical mishap of the explain of Kalends, Ides, and Nones

Current explain:

• Kalendae (whence "calendar"), Kalends—first day of the month; it is thought to have originally been the day of the new moon. According to some ancient or modern proposed etymologies of the word, it was derived from the phrase kalo Iuno Covella or kalo Iuno Novella, meaning, respectively, "hollow Juno I call you" and "new Juno I call you", an announcement about the Nones or in proclaiming the new moon that marked the Kalends which the pontiffs made every first day of the month on the Capitoline Hill in the Announcement Hall.[18]
• Idus or Eidus, Ides—thought to have originally been the day of the full moon, was the 15th day of March, May, July, and October (the months with 31 days) and the 13th day of the others.
• Nonae, Nones—thought to have originally been the day of the half moon. The Nones was eight days before the Ides, and fell on the fifth or seventh day of the month, depending on the position of the Ides. (Nones implies ninth from the Latin novem, because, counting Ides as first, one day before is the second, and eight days before is the ninth).

1. How can the Kalends be the day of new moon and the first day , when the intercalary is 23 days?
2. How can the Kalends be the day of new moon and the first day, if the moonth length is 31/30/31/30/31/30/30/31/30/30…
3. How to explain the roman date notation, days before the key days
4. Ides/Eidus is the day I obviously.
5. The five days of Februry is the real februum days obviously. This may esplain the intercalary well

183.240.202.53 (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

1) Because "originally" ≠ "in system with 23-day intercalary month" 2) or "with fixed months". 3) This is well covered by the article. 4) No, it wasn't. Obviously. 5) This doesn't make sense. February was February; there are no "februum days"; and nothing in that "explains" the intercalary month. — LlywelynII 20:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Day	31-day months	30-day months	29-day months	23-day months	22-day months	February
1	a.d. XVI. Kal.	a.d. XVI. Kal.	a.d. XVI. Kal.	a.d.XVI. Kal.	a.d. XVI. Kal.	a.d.V.Feb.
2	a.d. XVI. Kal.	a.d. XVI. Kal.	a.d. XVI. Kal.	a.d. XVI. Kal.	a.d. XVI.Kal.	a.d.IIII.Feb.
3	a.d. XV. Kal.	a.d. XV. Kal.	a.d. XV. Kal.	a.d. XV. Kal.	a.d. XV.Kal.	a.d.III.Feb.
4	a.d. XIIII. Kal.	a.d. XIIII. Kal.	a.d. XIIII. Kal.	a.d. XIIII. Kal.	a.d. XIIII.Kal.	prid.Feb.
5	a.d.XIII.Kal.	a.d.XIII.Kal.	a.d.XIII.Kal.	a.d.XIII.Kal.	a.d.XIII.Kal.	Feb.
6	a.d.XII.Kal.	a.d.XII.Kal.	a.d.XII.Kal.	a.d.XII.Kal.	a.d.XII.Kal.
7	a.d.XI.Kal.	a.d.XI.Kal.	a.d.XI.Kal.	a.d.XI.Kal.	a.d.XI.Kal.
8	a.d.X.Kal.	a.d.X.Kal.	a.d.X.Kal.	a.d.X.Kal.	a.d.X.Kal.
9	a.d.IX.Kal.	a.d.IX.Kal.	a.d.IX.Kal.	a.d.IX.Kal.	a.d.IX.Kal.
10	a.d.VIII.Kal.	a.d.VIII.Kal.	a.d.VIII.Kal.	a.d.VIII.Kal.	a.d.VIII.Kal.
11	a.d.VII.Kal.	a.d.VII.Kal.	a.d.VII.Kal.	a.d.VII.Kal.	a.d.VII.Kal.
12	a.d.VI.Kal.	a.d.VI.Kal.	a.d.VI.Kal.	a.d.VI.Kal.	a.d.VI.Kal.
13	a.d.V.Kal.	a.d.V.Kal.	a.d.V.Kal.	a.d.V.Kal.	a.d.V.Kal.
14	a.d.IIII.Kal.	a.d.IIII.Kal.	a.d.IIII.Kal.	a.d.IIII.Kal.	a.d.IIII.Kal.
15	a.d.III.Kal.	a.d.III.Kal.	a.d.III.Kal.	a.d.III.Kal.	a.d.III.Kal.
16	prid.Kal.	prid.Kal.	prid.Kal.	prid.Kal.	prid.Kal.
17	Kal.	Kal.	Kal.	Kal.	Kal.
18	a.d.VI.Non.	a.d.V.Non.	a.d.IIII.Non.	a.d.VI.Eid.	a.d.V.Eid.
19	a.d.V.Non.	a.d.IIII.Non.	a.d.III.Non.	a.d.V.Eid.	a.d.IIII.Eid.
20	a.d.IIII.Non.	a.d.III.Non.	prid.Non.	a.d.IIII.Eid.	a.d.III.Eid.
21	a.d.III.Non.	prid.Non.	Non.	a.d.III.Eid.	prid.Eid.
22	prid.Non.	Non.	a.d.VIII.Eid.	prid.Eid.	Eid.
23	Non.	a.d.VIII.Eid.	a.d.VII.Eid.	Eid.
24	a.d.VIII.Eid.	a.d.VII.Eid.	a.d.VI.Eid.
25	a.d.VII.Eid.	a.d.VI.Eid.	a.d.V.Eid.
26	a.d.VI.Eid.	a.d.V.Eid.	a.d.IIII.Eid.
27	a.d.V.Eid.	a.d.IIII.Eid.	a.d.III.Eid.
28	a.d.IIII.Eid	a.d.III.Eid.	prid.Eid.
29	a.d.III.Eid	prid.Eid	Eid.
30	prid.Eid.	Eid.
31	Eid.

Kalends of January: is the year given the current year, or the year it will be in January?

For example, Christmas Day 2016, A.D. VIII Kal. Ian., I think.

Christmas Day will occur in 2769 A.U.C., however the Kalends of Ianuarius will be in 2770 A.U.C. So which would be the correct year, in this example?68.174.141.151 (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Romans didn't actually do anything by AUC dating and "modern Romans" would use the Gregorian system rather than employ an "Obamae VIII" style no one else understood. Christmas 2016 would be dated a.d. VIII Kal. Ian. of the year 2016. The actual day would be Kal. Ian. of the year 2017. This doesn't always apply to medieval dating, when years might be dated, e.g., to the prior year all the way until Lady Day in March and then begin their calendar year on that date. — LlywelynII 20:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Attribution of the Metonic cycle to Numa

A citation was asked for the attribution of the metonic cycle to Numa. This has been done by several historians, the first one being apparently Temple Stanyan in his Grecian history, published 1707-1739. Unfortunately, I have been able to find a precise reference only to the french translation by Denis Diderot in 1743 (Paris, Briasson, page 135). The translation reads: "Quelques Auteurs disputent ce Cycle à Méton; Tite-Live en attribue l'invention à Numa." It would be great if someone could find the exact english reference.

Done. — LlywelynII 12:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

"Anno Prouinciarium"

apart from being misspelled even on its own terms, the term anno provinciarum "anno+provinciarum" does not actually exist, does not appear in its alleged source, and appears to have simply been WP:OR invented by its editor. Needless to say, removed. — LlywelynII 05:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

The following were listed in a §Further reading section, which is generally a bad idea since Wikipedia articles are generally left uncurated and there's no clue as to the importance or use of these sources:

• Bickerman, E.J. (1969), Chronology of the Ancient World, London: Thames & Hudson.
• Feeney, Denis C. (2007), Caesar's Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History, Berkeley: University of California Press, ISBN 0-520-25119-9.
• Richards, E.G., Mapping Time, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-850413-6.

Kindly restore them to the article once someone has gone through them and used them to source information in the article or (at minimum) once they include short glosses as to their use and importance to scholarship on this topic.

• Holford-Strevens, Leofranc (2005), The History of Time: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 53 ff.

has the exact dates for the eclipses, bits about Caesar's responsibility for botched intercalation in the 1st century BC, &c.

• More details at Key's article, already given.
• More details at Rupke's article, already given (e.g.)

 — LlywelynII 06:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Epochs of Hispanic and Mauretanian provincial eras

Under the heading "Years" the following sentences are found at the end: "In addition [to] Egypt's separate calendar, some provinces maintained their records using a local era. Africa dated its records sequentially from 39 BC; Spain from AD 38. This dating system continued as the Spanish era used in medieval Spain. [reference citations removed by me]". As far as I can see, there has been some confusion here about the epochs of these two eras. The Hispanic (or Spanish) era has its epochal date at 1 January 38 B.C.E. (Julian), not at "AD 38". And the Mauretanian (maybe "African") provincial era has its epochal date at 1 January 40 C.E. (Julian), not at "39 BC". Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_era where the epoch of the Hispanic era is correctly given as "38 BC", and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy_of_Mauretania which correctly gives "40 AD" as the death year of the last king of this country, Ptolemy of Mauretania (who was executed by the Roman emperor Caligula), before Mauretania was annexed as a Roman province. Compare also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABerber_calendar which (under the heading "History section") references both the Hispanic ("Spanish Era") and the Mauretanian provincial eras with correctly given epochal years, "38 BC" and "AD 40" (by Chris Bennett). /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The meanings of April and of May

Aprilis is the month of Venus. This is 99%. Apru is the etruscan name of Venus. And not only this (really weak) is the evidence, but the roman festivals. Martius is the month of Mars. How is the month beginning, the kalends of March, March 1? With the holiday of Mars. Aprilis is the month of Venus. How is the month beginning, the kalends of April, April 1? With Veneralia, the holiday of Venus. Maius is the month of Maia (and of the elders (maiores)). How is the month beginning, the kalends of May, May 1? With the holiday of Maia. Ivnivs is the month of Juno (and of the youth (ivniores)). How is the month beginning, the kalends of June, June 1? With the holiday of Juno. This is not coincidence. This is the system of the Calendar of Romolus! --Akitlosz (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Ablative of time

The article says that "the days of the month were expressed in early Latin using the ablative of time" and then gives the example "VI Kalendas Decembres", which is definitely not in the ablative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imerologul (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)