Subject:
|
Re: there ain't no such thing as "year zero"...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:02:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
752 times
|
| |
|
|
(*Sound of dead horse being savagely beaten*)
That's all right, it deserves it. Keeps our minds off of
more important but far more depressing matters [1].
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Franklin W. Cain writes:
> There was *not* a "year zero". The year after "1 BC" was the year "AD 1".
> The Christian Calendar (and that *is* what it is, whether or not people
> want to accept it as such) is *not* a number line; IT DOESN'T HAVE A "ZERO"!
> Thus, the FIRST year of the FIRST decade of the FIRST century of the FIRST
> millenium was the year ANNO DOMINI ONE!!! And since a millenium is ONE
> THOUSAND YEARS, that means that the LAST year (i.e., the THOUSANDTH year)
> of that first millenium AD was the year AD 1000. Thus, the VERY NEXT YEAR,
> the year AD 1001, was the FIRST year of the NEXT millenium. And so on.
I'm in full agreement with Franklin, but my evidence is in the
term "Anno Domini" itself--"In the Year of our Lord." I doubt
anyone would have started with zero (actually, they started
somewhere much later and counted backwards to one). At least,
that's how things worked until the introduction of the conceptual
zero and the number line later in European history.
best
LFB
[1] For example, Dubya's choice for Attorney General. May Colin
Powell save us all...
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
57 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
