GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1999-12 > 0946130260


From: "Jeff Snavely" <>
Subject: Re: Millennium: A Proposal
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 13:57:40 -0000


The fact that the 3rd Millennium starts on January 1st, 2001 [by the
Gregorian Calendar] will make a lot more sense if you think about counting
the years in a millennium the same as you would count any object. Everyone
keeps wanting to count 0 as if having 0 objects meant that you had 1. There
was no Jan. 1st, 0000 AD through Dec. 31st, 0000, so the first millennium
had to be 1 minute old at 12:01pm January 1st, 0001 AD (going by the
calendar system that we use today to avoid confusing everyone more with
other calendar systems). Think about it as if you were counting out money.
Think of each millennium as $1000. The first $1000 would be $1 through
$1000, the second $1000 would be $1001 through $2000, the third $1000 would
be $2001 through $3000. If you think about it this way, it makes perfect
sense. If you still don't believe me, go read "2001: A Space Odyssey."

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carole Dutton Malisiak" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 1999 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: Millennium: A Proposal


> Wayne Baylor wrote:
> >
> > That's Right! You start the counting with zero, but the child doesn't
reach
> > 1 year of age until the END of year 1.
>
> No. He reaches 1 year old at the end of year ZERO at his birth TIME,
e.g., the
> child is born July 15, 0000, at 6:30 am. At 6:31, July 15, 0001, the
child is
> one year and one minute old. Thus, the millennium will be 1 minute old on
Jan
> 1, 2000, at 12:01.
>
> snip
>
> The first day of the 3rd millennium is January 1, 2000. Otherwise, you
are
> adding a year onto my children's ages!!
>
> Carole
> -------------------
> > Carole Dutton Malisiak wrote in message
<>...
> > >Hi Guys! Here is a feminine point of view (POV) for Spencer ;-)
> > >
> > >My children were all born at 0. Their age was counted in minutes,
hours,
> > days,
> > >then weeks, then months--then they were one year old on their birthday
> > which
> > >only lasted for a minute or less. Then we start counting over--one
month
> > later
> > >they were 13 months of age, etc. Mothers usually count the age of
their
> > child
> > >in months up to about two years old. So, in my opinion, you have to
use
> > zero to
> > >start the count and 2000 is the start point because it has a zero. The
> > Common
> > >Era had to start with a zero, but we record it as a 1--just like with
> > children's
> > >ages! We did not "lose" any years along the way. After all, the
counting
> > >started with the birth of a child. Right?
>

This thread: