## Time Time Time see what's become of me?

 Posts 632
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM
If going for zy/zeen, I'd go for the brevity we have in "five thirty-two twenty-six" (which is closer) with "eight ninezy-two eleven," without the point or the trices. If the eleven isn't important, then just round up to "eight ninezy-three." Even "about a quarter to nine," assuming that a single number may represent dwells. Why not? Or "twenzy-nine (trices) to nine."

If the zy/zeen is deemed odd, then resort to -qua? "Eight biqua nine (un)qua two point eleven." "Two (un)qua nine to nine." Assuming that "unqua" may omit "un" where everything's clear. I think I saw that once…not in a dream.

Further abbreviation: "Eight nine qua three," analogous to "five thirty-two."

 Posts 632
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM
"Eight ninezy-two eleven" reminds me that for 890.E I cannot say "eight ninezy eleven," which would probably be taken as 89E. "Point" is required.

There are "eight ninezy-eleven" and "eight ninezy eleven" (resp. 89E and 890.E), but good luck distinguishing those in normal speech. A pause would be needed before "eleven" in the latter but wouldn't likely be enough to indicate it.

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
Paul Rapoport wrote: "Eight ninezy-two eleven" reminds me that for 890.E I cannot say "eight ninezy eleven," which would probably be taken as 89E. "Point" is required.

There are "eight ninezy-eleven" and "eight ninezy eleven" (resp. 89E and 890.E), but good luck distinguishing those in normal speech. A pause would be needed before "eleven" in the latter but wouldn't likely be enough to indicate it.
First of all, for most everyday purposes, time to the nearest trice is going to be more than sufficient, just as time to the minute is. Indeed, time to the nearest breather (ten minutes) or half-breather (block, 5 minutes) usually is good enough. The kinds of applications where we would need to express it down to the lull or the twinkling, just as down to the second, tend to be technical ones where fussy precision is expected anyway. Racing start and finish times come to mind. Or a television producer planning and then cuing the local commercial spots into the break periods during the broadcast program. Or computer security personnel tracking the course of a virus attack through a network. Or just about any scientific recording of relatively quick phenomena. So pronouncing a radix point is not so great a price to pay for the needed precision.

Translating 890.Ez to conventional time gives us 5:30:46d PM (5:30:45.83d PM if you want to get really precise) or 24d-hour style 17:30:46d. That would likely be pronounced as "five-thirty pee-emm, and forty-six seconds" or "seventeen-thirty and forty-six seconds", making a point of stressing the fussy precision of the seconds. So something like "eight-ninezy trices and eleven lulls" or "eight-ninezy point one trices" doesn't seem much of a hardship, really, for such purposes. But if someone asked casually what the time was, most of us would glance at such a clock and respond simply "eight-ninezy-one", or likely even just "eight-ninezy" ... unless the person was rushing to a meeting and would appreciate knowing if they were already a trice late.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
Another possibility is to express time in an ordinal style rather than the cardinal style I've shown above. For instance, 890.Ez could be pronounced casually as "trice eight-ninezy" or even "dwell eight point nine"; or more precisely as "trice eight-ninezy-one" or "trice eight-ninezy point eleven" or even "trice eight-ninezy, lull eleven", depending on how much specificity is demanded.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)

Dozens Demigod
icarus
Dozens Demigod
Joined: Apr 11 2006, 12:29 PM
There are actually very many possibilities. One I am fond of calls 6:40 am "three duor two dozen", or "three twozen" just as I would say "six forty". If it were 7:50 am I would say "A dozen to four". If one likes primel, one might use that in place of "duor" and you'd get "dwell".

Strictly dozenal time would admit avoiding that "split" between minutes and hours. Therefore one might also say "three gross two dozen (minettes)" or "threegro twodo" in an old scheme, fill in your own numbers.

(This is just to point out that one need not use any particular system or framework; dozenal time works the same way.)

I think this is exactly what Swatch was trying to achieve with its "Beat", dividing the day into thousandths. This way, we could look at the Swatch and see that we were 27.8% through the day. Of course, decimally we completely lose all register with divisibilities. Few muggles walking around "know" or "parse" that "250" is exactly 6 am, and still fewer recognize "333" as 8 am. The result is that at first people using Beat are completely at sea unless it's midnight or noon, and it was only a sort of "gimmick" to make people "look cool". (the problem is that people who really crave looking cool are often the least predisposed to reorganizing their way of telling time).

With a dozenal "swatch" we could write "320" and that would register with the way we have tended to divide the day. We know that "3" at the start is a quarter of the day through; we would know that in a dozenal world, as the digit "3" with regard to division is a quarter. (I know I can say this, because when we look at a clock today and see a "3" we know it's a quarter. Everyone older than 9 knows that.)

So it would seem that time written as three dozenal digits would be common. If we needed more precision we could engage more digits. Races might use 5 or 6 digits. Colloquially the finish times or splits might use dovic or vic (thanks for the history research, Kode, and here I am trying to stay more neutral in terms of nomenclature. Though I am personally fond of primel, and not as fond of the founder style, I don't want to convey by implication that primel is "the" way). We can see some of this in the use of metric. Why are planets measured in kilometers? Couldn't they be measured in megameters? Even interplanetary distances are stated in kilometers. From this we can see that a way we state time might be "sticky" and we would use a perhaps "inappropriate" or "not fully appropriate" scale despite the fact another rank is available.

Suppose "trice" proved more "popular" than breather. Then we might say "320 trice" instead of "32 breathers", despite the fact we really don't need to be "that punctual", we were only interested in "around" what time to meet. But perhaps people might have gotten in the habit of using trices.

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
icarus wrote: There are actually very many possibilities. One I am fond of calls 6:40 am "three duor two dozen", or "three twozen" just as I would say "six forty".
Actually, I think 6:40d am would be trice 340z (remember, 1 dwell = 2 hours, but 10z trices = 10d minutes). So that could be "minette threegro-fourdo" or "duor three, temin four"... or "trice three-forzy" or  "dwell three, breather four".

icarus wrote:If it were 7:50 am I would say "A dozen to four". If one likes primel, one might use that in place of "duor" and you'd get "dwell".
Yeah, I like that. I forgot about that customary construction, but we can certainly emulate it. So 7:50d am = trice 3Ɛ0z could be "trice three-levenzy" or "a breather to dwell four" or "zen trices to dwell four".  Or we can shorten that to "breather to four" or "zen to four".

For that matter 6:40d am could also be "four breathers past dwell three" or "forzy trices past dwell three".  Or those can be shortened to "four breathers past three" or "forzy past three".  Why, it could even be "a third past three" (meaning a third of a dwell past dwell three). After all, in conventional time, we already say "half past" and "quarter past". Of course "half past dwell three" would be 7:00d am = trice 360z, and "quarter past dwell three" would be 6:30d am = trice 330z. 6:15d am = trice 316z would be "an eighth past dwell three".

icarus wrote:So it would seem that time written as three dozenal digits would be common.
And in fact, for many years after the founding of the DSA (and who knows how many before?), the Duodecimal Bulletin expressed times (for instance, in meeting agendas) as simple three-digit dozenal integers of minettes (trices). That was their first instinct, and it was a good one.

icarus wrote:(This is just to point out that one need not use any particular system or framework; dozenal time works the same way.) ... (thanks for the history research, Kode, and here I am trying to stay more neutral in terms of nomenclature. Though I am personally fond of primel, and not as fond of the founder style, I don't want to convey by implication that primel is "the" way).
Nor would I imply that Primel is "the" only way, or that it could never be improved upon -- but it is "a" way. If you honestly like it, why do you have to tie your hands and go through awkward circumlocutions to pointedly avoid it? Why not just use it? Run it through some paces and give it some wear, help me smooth out the rough parts and maybe make it better. I understand that as an officer of the DSA, you don't want to appear biased. But in that case, just come up with a stock disclaimer, like we've included in the front matter of every Bulletin issue, to remind everyone that just because we test-drive one scheme doesn't mean we're sanctioning it.  Or of you absolutely must demonstrate even-handedness, do up any examples as tables comparing all the relevant approaches side-by-side.

In fact, by using those old Do-metric names like you are, aren't you implying that you are endorsing them as some kind of gold standard that can't ever be improved on?  Face it: The early DSA punted on finding good colloquial names for the lull and the twinkling.  The "dovic" and "grovic" aren't really distinct names. They're just formal scalings of the vic with do-metric prefixes.  And you've got to admit, "duor", "temin", "minette", and "vic" are pretty con-langy and derivative. We can do better. I mean, how do you even pronounce "duor"? Is a "duor" how long it takes to consume a "dewar" of scotch, if you do in in one sitting?   I give the DSA founders a lot of credit for getting a lot of things right, but they weren't demigods. Are we supposed to put them on a pedestal simply because they're long dead and therefore historical figures now?  Are we engaging in ancestor worship?
We can see some of this in the use of metric. Why are planets measured in kilometers? Couldn't they be measured in megameters? Even interplanetary distances are stated in kilometers. From this we can see that a way we state time might be "sticky" and we would use a perhaps "inappropriate" or "not fully appropriate" scale despite the fact another rank is available.
Maybe because metric's prefix scheme, even after SI inflated it, still falls far, far short of being a full-up replacement for scientific notation, or even for natural language expressions for large numbers.   It's still pretty half-aed.  And remember that it only started with kilo-, hecto-, deka-, deci-, centi-, milli-.  And maybe myria- too. No mega- or micro- even, to start with.  So there were a number of years where the biggest length you could express in metric was the kilometer, and you had to prepend "hundred", "thousand", "million" etc to it to express bigger distances. People got used to that and it became a habit, long before someone coined more prefixes. But if the French Revolutionaries had come up something like SNN already fully formed, it might be a different story.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)

Dozens Demigod
icarus
Dozens Demigod
Joined: Apr 11 2006, 12:29 PM
Kode, I do like primel the best. The problem that we have and that I as an admin must acknowledge, is that what I might write may seem like what must be used, much like the old way an Editor of the Duodecimal Bulletin had to use the convention so as not to be partial to any system.

In fact, I keep time in trices. My journal and the project numbers of my business count the number of days similar to Julian from 1 July 1970 (days before that day did not exist ; ) how's that for narcissism! But I was just one dozen three years old = 3100). I have always kept time in trices/minettes (see my drawings from "4679.930" here; this drawing 4703.759 won an award) these drawings are 27 years old - I was eleventeen). I don't write colons, just three digits and have done this "min zamaan" (since forever) in class notes, meeting times, deadlines, etc. as a sort of personal ceremonial. For a long while due to my faulty teen years I did see myself as an "entire civilization in one person" so when I commenced to do something fairly profound or when I completed same, it got a ceremonial date stamp. The very most profound life events I know by their táyyâ number, 3310, 4686, 5454, 7307 (atriçtar niça, þesiçexh aþnexha, kyniçþes kyniçþesa, etc.). I did not have an English name, but in my "conlang" they are called ymníçin (one an ymníçâ). This means "one great gross-th (of a day)" (ymníça táyye) but it sounds like "ün-nikh". Since it is not English and since "trice" is the most clement sort of term for them (cf. the name of my company, purposely succinct), I speak of trices. 4703.759 = "þésam rýney tára ke rýney kýniç nár ymníçin" = "theysam sheeney tawzhakuh sheeney keenikhnar eenekhin. but it usually goes "þexyntár k' rýnkýniçnár ynníçin", which means "four dozen seven gross three (days) and seven gross five dozen nine trices". I am very used to breaking numbers into grosses in this language and not using the "hundreds, myriads" places. This is because one gross days is seen as a xrgâ (life-phase) or tayyiney (gross-day), so it gets called þésrýn tára (four dozen seven (life-phases) three) than the first way. (Sorry for thorns, Wendy and I are kindred in the use of thorns and here you see more of them than maybe she ever used in one message, but I also use eths (ð) as in trakáða renéya which is the name of my calendar, the first word meaning calendar, the second pertains to my name. The numbers are cyclical dozenal: xar tar exh nar 0 3 6 9, xar þes aþn 0 4 8, and the nontrivial totatives 5 7 are kyn, ryn, but this came from evolution - áþnâ was once ávnâ but ávnâ is "hero" - not initial design xar an tiv tar þes kyn exh ryn aþn nar dej ðal, usually in final position ending in â, -ung. The thing is that I only use trices, and I use them as inscriptions for completion dates, and rarely in real time, since as Paul might say, there ain't no one to talk to about them. Now since I learned about them I call the trice "trí" (tshee-khung). All my r's are turning into sh's, it started in college and it's getting worse.

But that is enough about me. I try to use various systems just to get people sharing theirs, but I've always used strictly dozenal since age one dozen three, mostly when I was eleventeen and thereabout, and even now, but only rarely when necessary for an "inscription", just the same as my use of the "conlang". Since I have defaulted to strictly dozenal for many years, it would be difficult for me to consider practicing another system. When I saw Paul's watches, I was elated, because finally a watch with ymníçin! But of course, no one else in the world know what ymníça is, so maybe it's like living in another country all your life to see someone with Italian words on their clock.

Ha so I do use trices, and only those. Trices and days and grosses of days.

 I ought to write this. I have used x dozen x (life phases) x dozen x days for many years. The thing is, today is X126 táyyâ. Before long one would expect 5 digits but I will tell you I am not planning that! I will write "C000" for náma xrgâ. This is because my conlang (lrixe) has "play" and there are transdozenal numerals that were names of the smallest argam larger than eleven. So I will be saying the equivalent of "tenty-one, eleventy-four" and not one hundred one, one hundred fourteen. In this way it is a sort of defective dozenal, rather than strict, as it pertains to a human life and I expect to naturally live 4 "life-seasons" or "generations" of 4600 days = 16000 days = 85 years and change. This has come about through 33 years of practice using a strictly dozenal count of days! In high school and college I did not use regular dates but táyyin (which were sure to make me popular as a boy band). These latter years the is written the xrga over the days like in this picture.

 Posts 632
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM
Well, some conlangs are clearly more interesting than others…  but I stay clear of them anyhow. More or less plain English is more likely to be understood, and I have enough trouble getting people to count by twelves.
Last edited by Paul Rapoport on Apr 14 2018, 10:34 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
icarus, just to be clear, I do know that you've been using pure dozenal divisions of the day for a good long time, certainly longer than I even ever heard of "dozenal" being a thing. And as we've both been underscoring for the sake of any newcomers here, the idea of pure dozenal divisions of the day is by no means original to me, nor to you for that matter, nor to anyone currently alive who has ever posted on this forum.  The credit for the idea really goes to the founders of the DSA, who hit on it practically immediately, unquennia before any of us were even glimmers in our parents' eyes.

The only thing I can lay claim to about any of that, is that I've tried to come up with nice pithy names for those things.  All I am asking you is, if you really do dislike the sound of "duor, temin, minette, grovic, dovic, vic", and you really do like the sound of "dwell, breather, trice, lull, twinkling, jiff", then please don't artificially give a boost to the former set because you're afraid of appearing unbiased. When you aren't using your own conlang, but want to communicate in a sort of form of English, please try using my suggested coinages.  A language isn't a language without a population of speakers.  And there's so much to work out about the actual usage of those words, as the above posts reveal.  Maybe you like some of them, but others feel awkward. That would be good to know. I'm open to suggestions.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)

 Posts 632
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM
I'm also on the Board for now and state that I prefer SDN/SNN and Primel, but I know a good book when I see one, and Don Goodman's thorough treatment (and updating) of TGM should be more widely known. His defence of dividing the day into two is often ingenious, even if I weigh that against the other way and come out preferring the latter. Using one way doesn't mean I think it is worth 100 and the other is worth 0. Even if I prefer Primel for my own use, I've taken care to include TGM in what I produce, including its nomenclature for weather measurements on my watch.

As long as these conversations are limited to the 3 or 6 people who I think read them, I'm not concerned that my intent will be misunderstood. Nonetheless, others mentioning dozens "out there" seem to think that do-gro-mo and all the rest of that are de jure or at least de facto the regulation terms. I wince. The DSA might officially recognize those as a fine first step but outdated, not simply because they're old but because they're not as good as later inventions. There's such a thing as improvement. Not all sets of measures or terms are equally good, which I think may be demonstrated if one accepts certain axioms.

Dozens Demigod
icarus
Dozens Demigod
Joined: Apr 11 2006, 12:29 PM
Well I'd have to give it a try, meaning a year (or anrénâ, three-gross days).

Concerning nomenclature, and perhaps this sort of conversation is best there, I suppose there are several approaches. Publicly, I support any method of undergirding or strengthening "pure English" words, because these more seamlessly integrate dozenal thought into today's real-world culture. Kode's colloquialisms for units of measure fit here. They make abstract divisions of the day more usable because they are handles on the concept that mate with the average person's concept of a length of time. "I'll do it in a jiff." "Step to the beat". "There was a lull in the conversation". "she wrapped up the shift with three big tips." These hint at the abstract length of these periods without speaking of "seconds" or "minutes" which are foreign to the strictly dozenal and semi-diurnal divisions of the day. (The hour is not foreign to the latter).

Kode's approach, and the approach of most nomenclature-proposers is to generate a solution that we all can use. In days of yore, if Kode were king this would just be conferred top-down; the King, le roi, said, "Do it thus, you must, or face the rack or guillotine" and of course, the country didst call a dozenth of a day a "breather" henceforth; those who didn't got uncomfortable. Now in a hyperdemocratic era, we would work bottom-up; let the best most popular proposal win. How many likes did it get? How many shares? (This era is unstable...). These are all outward-focused nomenclatures. Most nomenclatures, those that would be effective, are outward-focused.

Tolkien produced an inner nomenclature, even a sort of structural manifold that was not totally intended to serve as a nomenclature in and of itself, but to lend depth to his stories of Middle Earth. Of course these are published works, but we could see this as an internal dialog. In this way, my nomenclature fits here. I don't intend for anyone else to use it; I don't give a damn. It serves the purpose to give me names for concepts so I might refer to it; it is quite selfish that way. The preponderance of my "dozenal career", from 1192 - 11a9, was entirely personal and rarely "leaked" outside of my own practice. This is why I had used my own system for such a very long time. I'd given up cultivating a conlang nearly two dozen years ago as a boy's game. I retained dozenalism because it was a useful tool. The conlang does remain for a still-substantial inner dialog; I have names for things that don't have English names, or are very complicated to explain. So you could see me as a "China" in one person.

It is time to use outward-facing names that are well-crafted. Therefore I'll give them a try.

We've considered the divisions of the day, but what about strictly dozenal multiples of the day? I have this scheme, again it is internal:
 "red" calendar "blue" calendar Other items 1 tayyâ, "day" 3 tartayyor, "three-days" 6 reçyrâ, "row, line of items" 10 lisarâ, "brief set" 30 ekrone, "screen, matrix" 100 xrgâ, "life phase" 300 anrenâ, "Icarus' 'year'" 1000 xisaen, "life stage" 1600 ekron tivanal, "heavenly partition" 4600 xiomðe, "life-season, generation" 16000 vixsaen, "lifetime"
The red figures are the most often considered. Remember that these are used in reflection over the past, in planning the middle-term future, so I don't have much use for "week" long lengths. I see the 100-day periods as short-range planning and recent-past reflection, while the 1000-day lengths constitute major stages in life, especially early such as high school, college, career, and setting down roots, starting a family. These periods have been "Anglicized" with me thus I do say "stage" or "phase" to mean one gross or one great gross days (about 5 months, about 5 years). The out-of-phase with "months and years" is a feature, not a bug, because I loathe using the start of months as a hard-line "deadline", but prefer "guidelines" with planning life. I do celebrate the turning of phases! Haha. They are stronger than a birthday.

The blue figures are weaker. 30 is a quarter of 100 and is near a month long and are used for shorter range planning, but usually "snap" to multiples of 30 days with regard to the overall calendar. Example, today is X127, so the next "ekrone" is X130-X160. They did once have names but I've abandoned them. 4600 is a quarter of a life; it is about 21 years long and change. They are not really a means to measure time itself, but one's own lifetime. The 16000 is likewise self-referential, and not a measure of time in general. These have been in use for longer than a xiomðe.

I had used 300 days as an analog to the year and it took for several years in my mid-twenties (kynacry xisaen or "the Fifth Era"; the eras have names, this was "nixaþa xisaen" or "the Apprenticeship Era", first years of career. Beware, the first era was "the Zeroth Era" between birth and around kindergarten). It did have divisions into the dozen ekrone which itself as a period of time has proven "more successful" but only slightly so. The analog with the year is just too out-of-phase with the year. The other, italicized periods never really took. Perhaps the strongest of these had been the "lisara" but only for perhaps a few months at age 23-24.

[edit: I forgot the ekron tivanal, the "heavenly partition", which is equivalent to 1600 days or 6 anrenyn. These are the partition of a lifetime into a dozen parts. The reason these never "caught" was that the partition is too similar in length to the already-strong xisaen. Also corrected plural-genitive of tartayyin -> tartayyor not that it matters much. It is "three of days" not "three days". The main reason to consider a 1600-day period is that it frames into the 4600-day generation and 16000-day lifetime. The challenge regarding "lifetime" as a unit is that it is peculiar to one person. Society proceeds beyond the life of any one man and thus we do not see our own decimal account of years broken into "generations". Therefore I would posit that a strictly dozenal account of time might proceed as well.]

I am not suggesting the conlang terms to be seen as multiples of days, but am more interested in communicating the more than 25 year long "data gathering" as to use of the multiples for your consideration. I would say that the division in the range of a week would perhaps be stronger with a "normal person" and we would of course need much longer times for historical events. The problem with time as multiples of days is that the seasons and years are just too strong to deny for most people. Politically, and increasingly in schools, the "100 day" period (as in "the first 100 days...") is more and more common. People rarely use this as a measure of days in general, but as a relative duration, therefore the relationship to growing seasons, religions, etc. is unnecessary.

 Posts 632
Dozens Disciple
Paul Rapoport
Dozens Disciple
Joined: Dec 26 2012, 01:59 AM
Most interesting. Aside from the terms, whose importance to you is clear, the multiples of days interest me. Even though the calendar I use tries its hardest to reconcile the irreconcilable year division with the day multiple in order to look semi-recognizable (even bessi-recognizable!), if one doesn't have to depend heavily on one or the other, then why not use, for example, dozenal multiples of days? And forget about dividing the year.

In the traditional calendar, a date number changes its day of the week every month (except when February has 28 days) and every year. Suppose we ameliorated that by using only day multiples, perhaps with a dozen names for days. Then the seasons would jump around instead of the dates. Grouping of days would be whatever you wanted, in some integral number of dozens. A year-like period could be anything likewise, useful only for counting and thus not necessarily close to the current 265/6 days.

If people don't care much now about when seasons begin, maybe having any season start at any point in a "year" would be feasible.

Would it? Or is the year a ("strong") reality as fundamental as the day?

 Posts 194
Regular
sunny
Regular
Joined: Jun 30 2013, 08:58 AM
Paul Rapoport wrote: Would it? Or is the year a ("strong") reality as fundamental as the day?
That seems the question which is hard to answer. Because we are so much accustomed at using larger spans of time in combination of months and years, sometimes even taking moon into account even if it makes the calendar more complicated where moons phases doesn't help us at all, certainly not as much as the seasons. No one wants to change to (or even answer) for propagating counting days and only using its powers for a calendrical longer time spans timekeeping.

But I think that's a question worth pondering for.

Dozens Demigod
icarus
Dozens Demigod
Joined: Apr 11 2006, 12:29 PM
I wrote a long response that went darkly batman political and thus am just writing a nutshell.

(The nutshell about the political is this: I am not sure we will continue to be an urban culture for much longer; we don't seem to be too interested in advancing civilization anymore. Ergo, dispensing with the longstanding raisons d'etre of the measurement of time is not wise; the west is in a marked and accelerating decline, there will be no singularity or colonies on mars; the planets are once again to be only heavenly lights. There won't be antibiotics in the near future and the systems that sustained us since midcentury are unsustainable without the merit-based institutions we are now gleefully and wantonly destroying. We can't build a pedestrian bridge over troubled inlets. We can't sail a navy with Boaty McBoatface useless ships and crew that are more interested in homemaking at sea. STEM is a buzzword. We only want to hear what we already believe and stifle what's real, and thus have stopped learning. We can't figure out basic things for essuaging our individual delusions and we are in a new secular Inquisition; no lessons were learned in the last century and it seems we shall repeat the worst of it, only with better, democratized weapons. This is merely my personal consideration and you need not buy it. I have diversity pokemon cards that are pretty high-powered so could show them to you since freedom of speech is also in decline. Since we are not interested in talking to one another, we cannot come together to correct the situation and it will scroll out to its bitter end, no one will be unscathed. We are entering a dark age and time is shorter than you think. But this is darker than "Batman," some fantasy that will be entirely forgotten as Rome forgot hers in less than 4 dozen years for want of food and warmth.

What a fool believes, he sees / the wise man has the power to reason away.

the problem is the world is full of midwits and controlled by them - look at the bell curve, that is why the song goes like that. Really wise people don't reason away reality but that is what we are doing to make ourselves feel better. The world has fallen to the Dark Side, Luke, and we even did away with Luke for feelz. There I got it out there and you need not listen anymore.)

Now on to naturally inherent periods of time.

The day is the strongest and most inherent basis for time; we talked about the division of such and dispensed with what SI decided what was the basis for its system. Strictly dozenal division works well here.

The rotation of the earth (not sidereal but vis a vis the sun), the revolution of the moon about the earth (again vis a vis the sun), and the revolution of the earth-moon system around the sun are the strongest realities we contend with. The day is the strongest because it's in our nature, the circadian rhythm, among man and many other forms of life. It is easy for males to fail to consider the month as likewise biologically inherent. In wet temperate agrarian countries, the year is also important.

Secondary considerations are the week and the quarter. The week is the attempt to mnemonically break down the month, 6 or 7 days the limit, which is pretty close to a quarter moon. The quarter divides the wet temperate year into its seasons, which are of little import in dry or monsoon tropical climates; there we have wet and dry seasons at least in the latter.

We can go strictly dozenal in groupings of days. The dozen-day length is long for a person to memorize but with modern education could be achieved. We could break it into two sixes.

You all might be familiar with the decimal "hundred days". It is increasing in use in the chattering seaboard hegemonies to discuss politics. "the first hundred days". No reference to moons or seasons, but just a metric of "how did we do" (or "how did we do, and what do we want to inculcate and propagandize to advance The Cause"). It has jumped to school. The first 100 days of school are getting marked. Again, there's no need to account for moons or seasons. By the same token we might use dozenal durations in place of the "strongly inherent" periods that we might otherwise place into a calendar that are famously difficult to reconcile.