4 ms·

That article seems to state the opposite?

by Jap2-0 4y ago

lolinder 4y ago
> In the oldest Roman calendar, which the Romans believed to have been instituted by their legendary founder Romulus, March was the first month, and the calendar year had only ten months in all. Ianuarius and Februarius were supposed to have been added by Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, originally at the end of the year. It is unclear when the Romans reset the course of the year so that January and February came first. Most of what we know about pre-republican Rome is from oral tradition, not actual records. So if by the time of the Republic February was the second month of the year, it was the second month of the year through all of recorded Roman history.
- kgwgk 4y ago
  Maybe Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November and December were the seventh, eight, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth months of the year through all of the “recorded Roman history”. But it seems well accepted that they were once the fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, ninth and tenth months of the year.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have referred to it as a legend. That seems to have negative connotations for most people that I didn't mean to convey. I really don't doubt the authenticity of the story, I mainly was trying to indicate that we don't know when the change occurred but it certainly happened a long time before Caesar: by his day, the change was an oral tradition whose full story was lost in the very distant past.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >That seems to have negative connotations for most people that I didn't mean to convey. Not just "for most". It has negative connotations (of the kind reffered to here) for all people. "Legend" connotes "didn't take place".
      - lolinder 4y ago
        I'm a person, and legend does not have that connotation for me, it means "it was only handed down orally so we can't be sure". I'm sure my idiolect is unusual in that regard, but I stand by my "for most people".
      - IncRnd 4y ago
        A legend is a traditional story sometimes regarded as historical but isn't authenticated. You are saying that a legend is a story that is believed to be false. That is exactly opposite from the meaning of the word and is NOT something believed by "all people."

That article seems to state the opposite?

by Jap2-0 4y ago

That article seems to state the opposite?

> In the oldest Roman calendar, which the Romans believed to have been instituted by their legendary founder Romulus, March was the first month, and the calendar year had only ten months in all. Ianuarius and Februarius were supposed to have been added by Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, originally at the end of the year. It is unclear when the Romans reset the course of the year so that January and February came first. Most of what we know about pre-republican Rome is from oral tradition, not actual records. So if by the time of the Republic February was the second month of the year, it was the second month of the year through all of recorded Roman history.

kgwgk 4y ago
Maybe Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November and December were the seventh, eight, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth months of the year through all of the “recorded Roman history”. But it seems well accepted that they were once the fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, ninth and tenth months of the year.
- lolinder 4y ago
  In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have referred to it as a legend. That seems to have negative connotations for most people that I didn't mean to convey. I really don't doubt the authenticity of the story, I mainly was trying to indicate that we don't know when the change occurred but it certainly happened a long time before Caesar: by his day, the change was an oral tradition whose full story was lost in the very distant past.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >That seems to have negative connotations for most people that I didn't mean to convey. Not just "for most". It has negative connotations (of the kind reffered to here) for all people. "Legend" connotes "didn't take place".
    - lolinder 4y ago
      I'm a person, and legend does not have that connotation for me, it means "it was only handed down orally so we can't be sure". I'm sure my idiolect is unusual in that regard, but I stand by my "for most people".
    - IncRnd 4y ago
      A legend is a traditional story sometimes regarded as historical but isn't authenticated. You are saying that a legend is a story that is believed to be false. That is exactly opposite from the meaning of the word and is NOT something believed by "all people."