LL-L: "Y2K" LOWLANDS-L, 14.DEC.1999 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L Administrator]

 ========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 14.DEC.1999 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/~sassisch/rhahn//lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 =========================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =========================================================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =========================================================================

From: Jorge Potter [jorgepot at caribe.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Y2K" LOWLANDS-L, 13.DEC.1999 (03) [E]

Dear Lowlanders,

This discussion of Y2K:

> From: Edwin Michael Alexander [edsells at idirect.com]
> Subject: LL-L: "Y2K" LOWLANDS-L, 13.DEC.1999 (02) [E]
>
> At 08:37 AM 12/13/99 -0800, Ian wrote:
>>My understanding of it was always that the first year of our era was known
>>as "Annus Domini" / "The Year of Our Lord". Then the second year was known
>>as the "Second Year of Our Lord" and so on, which explains why there is no
>>year zero. It also explains how next year is the "2000th Year of Our Lord",
>>which would indicate the third millennium does not properly start until
>>2001. It also gives a lie to the German "n. Chr.", because the counting is
>>not actually "after Christ" but rather "of Christ".
>
> Well, you're right - except that it doesn't explain why there is no year
> zero.  The word "zero" itself (moving slowly back to the subject of
> language) comes from the Arabic word <sifr>, and came along with the
> adoptation of the system (originally from India).  The fact that the only
> numeral system in use in the 6th century in the West was the Roman Numeral
> System is quite sufficient to explain the "no year zero" puzzle.  Perhaps
> someone like Floor could correct me, but I think the Roman system is what
> we would call "natural numbers" nowadays.

is not ancient history. The part of the world dominated by Rome was imbued
with a zeroless arithmetic. The Mayans who met the first Spaniards computed
with a zero, but they were so demolished that their descendants still figure
doing what I call "computing both ends." A horse-hack driver of typical
Mayan features says he'll take us wherever, at so much an hour. So when we
used his services from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm, he tried to charge us for three
hours!

It was that way in Puerto Rico when I arrived in 1946, but now kids think in
terms of math and computers. But we do say, "Nos vemos en 8 días." (We'll
get together  a week from today.) Or "en quince días" (in two weeks)

Many workers are paid "por quincena" or "quincenalmente" (fortnightly)

So, Rome is far from dead.

Jorge Potter

==================================END======================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =========================================================================