GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-12 > 0946071142
From: Dick Marston <>
Subject: Re: Millennium: A Proposal
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 13:32:22 -0800
> In a message dated 12/23/1999 2:53:55 PM, writes:
> << If the Common Era began with the year 1 then the
> 1st millennium of the COMMON ERA (and that IS the system under discussion)
> would end at the end of 1000, etc, etc. >>
> No, it ended in 999. Think of it as decimals 1 through ten--the last digit
> ends in 0. The first millennium had only 999 years because they could not
> count the year O -- as there was none. The reason is that an arbitrary
> decision was made to divide time at this point and go from -1 to a +1--thus
> losing an entire year. Since that time we have had the year 1000, which is
> counted as a part of this millennium--just like the twenties were 1920-1929
> or the sixties were 1960-1969.
I'll tell you what, Ken. I'll go down to my bank and withdraw a thousand
dollars counting your way, and you go down to your bank and withdraw a
thousand dollars counting my way. Then we'll exchange. Deal?
I guess I understood you correctly the first time. My trouble is,
however, learning to quit when I'm ahead. I still think genealogy was a
better suggestion, at least for THIS list. Merry Christmas!
|Re: Millennium: A Proposal by Dick Marston <>|