Disputatio:Calendarium Macedonicum
Addenda[fontem recensere]
Multa verificanda hic, multa addenda. Pagina Theodisca res utiles praebet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:43, 22 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
- Credisne ad rem fore si nomina Aegyptia (aut potius orthographias) addidero? --Iustinus 14:48, 27 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
- Do it! I have a question. There seems no doubt that this calendar took over the structure of the Babylonian one, but where did the names come from? Presumably from an earlier calendar used in Macedonia itself or in some Greek city in its neighbourhood, but I have never seen this question discussed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:01, 27 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
- Nor have I. The names are clearly of Macedonian origin, but know nothing more. Interesting that Xandicus is a leap-month, because the same thing happens to Adar in the Hebrew calendar. --Iustinus 07:37, 30 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
- Oh wait, now that I think of it, that's no surprise at all: the lunisolar system of the Hebrew Calendar is based directly on the Macedonian. --Iustinus 06:54, 2 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, this chart is not turning out as nice as I had hoped. Maybe someone better at this kind of thing could take a look? --Iustinus 07:57, 30 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I see why the glyphs are in boxes: it's the grey background. Lots of other problems though, still. --Iustinus 08:03, 30 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
- Nor have I. The names are clearly of Macedonian origin, but know nothing more. Interesting that Xandicus is a leap-month, because the same thing happens to Adar in the Hebrew calendar. --Iustinus 07:37, 30 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
- Do it! I have a question. There seems no doubt that this calendar took over the structure of the Babylonian one, but where did the names come from? Presumably from an earlier calendar used in Macedonia itself or in some Greek city in its neighbourhood, but I have never seen this question discussed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:01, 27 Iunii 2010 (UTC)
Iam Lagidas citavi, nominibus Aegyptiis datis, sed quid de Seleucidis? Secundum hoc in linguis Semiticis nomina tralaticia usurpantur etiam nominibus Macedoniis versione graeca adhibitis. --Iustinus 16:07, 2 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- Hoc etiam. --Iustinus 16:08, 2 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- Quae cum ita sint, perhaps the "Akkadian" column should be changed to a "Semitic" column, and include the Latin names of the Semitic months found in the Vulgate. I'm currently thinking of chaving each cell give accadian, carriage return, hebrew. But given that these end up being essentially cognate names for essentially the same things (for which a Latin form is easily findable only for one language), perhaps we shouldn't even differentiate. On the other hand, that Araḫsamna and Marchesuan are cognate will be obvious only to specialists :) --Iustinus 15:30, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- I think we need to have the names. I can see the resemblance now, but I wouldn't have guessed it.
- A closely related question: should we aim to have articles for each Akkadian/Babylonian month as well as the Macedonian ones that I've just made? Or should the same article cover both? The question matters for interwiki links. I can find no articles elsewhere for Macedonian months, but de:wiki (alone) has a set of Akkadian ones. So, do I link my Macedonian months to the de: Akkadian ones, or not? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:52, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'll add Hebrew names once I figure out just what I want to call the column. As for your interwiki question, that's a tricky one. To be honest, though, I'm not certain what the value will be of having individual month articles for every calendar. I suppose we can list different festivals taht various cultures celebrated in each of them. --Iustinus 16:21, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, well, I think the value in a nice big online encyclopaedia will be that (apart from festivals etc.) you can link directly to them from any other page on which a date is given. The month article then gives you clues about seasonality and about possible conversion, and it links in turn to the main article about the calendar. So, from that point of view, the useful thing would be to concentrate the Akkadian and the Macedonian months into single articles because they were really and truly the same calendar. Does that make sense? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:00, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- As, I said, tricky. I mean, one could also argue that the Hebrew and Babylonian systems should be merged, given that they're the same names... at least as much as, say, Ishtar and Ashtaroth are both Astarte. But then an interesting data-point is that even though the Semitic and Macedonian names were apparently equated systematically in the Levant, the Egyptian Jews who translated the Septuagint did not feel the need to translate month names. But this may be one of those countless examples wehre the LXX transliterates proper nouns even when there is a more classical form available (e.g. Ὄρεχ not Ὀρχόη, Βάαλ not ּּΒῆλος, and so on.) --Iustinus 16:50, 9 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, well, I think the value in a nice big online encyclopaedia will be that (apart from festivals etc.) you can link directly to them from any other page on which a date is given. The month article then gives you clues about seasonality and about possible conversion, and it links in turn to the main article about the calendar. So, from that point of view, the useful thing would be to concentrate the Akkadian and the Macedonian months into single articles because they were really and truly the same calendar. Does that make sense? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:00, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I'll add Hebrew names once I figure out just what I want to call the column. As for your interwiki question, that's a tricky one. To be honest, though, I'm not certain what the value will be of having individual month articles for every calendar. I suppose we can list different festivals taht various cultures celebrated in each of them. --Iustinus 16:21, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
- Quae cum ita sint, perhaps the "Akkadian" column should be changed to a "Semitic" column, and include the Latin names of the Semitic months found in the Vulgate. I'm currently thinking of chaving each cell give accadian, carriage return, hebrew. But given that these end up being essentially cognate names for essentially the same things (for which a Latin form is easily findable only for one language), perhaps we shouldn't even differentiate. On the other hand, that Araḫsamna and Marchesuan are cognate will be obvious only to specialists :) --Iustinus 15:30, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
You know, the Jewish calendar still has Xandicus embolimus even --Iustinus (disputatio) 01:45, 8 Novembris 2012 (UTC)