[tied] Re: Why borrow 'seven'? (was: IE right & 10)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:
> > Loreto:
> > > Actually it probably is that the oldest calendars have several-
> > > numbered days in a week. Four and seven are not the favourites.
> >
> > ?? Let's get this right. The time it takes for the moon to go
> around
> > the earth is said to take 27.321661 days, no?
>
> No! That's the sidereal period, i.e. with reference to the fixed
> stars. Relative to the Earth-Sun axis (which moves with respect

to

> the fixed stars), it's a bit over 29 and a half days - remember

that

Yes, 29 point something (29.53xxx??). Off a bit by the sidereal by a
few wholes and decimals. That is why we usually have 30 days in a
moon (cycle).
Said to also correspond to the womans menstruation cycles. "Mens".

> the Moslem year is between 354 and 355 days long.
>
> > The year is approximately 365 days long, for one thing. When you
> take
> > the lunar cycle in _combination_ with the solar cycle, "seven" is
> > really great. The solar year can be approximated using 7 and 52
> > (a multiple of 13). So we can approximate 13 lunar cycles in such
> > a rounded-off year, or rather 13 monthes... all using nice whole
> > numbers. Sweet!
>
> It's a shame it isn't true. Roman consuls only got a 13-month

year

> if they were on good terms with the pontifex maximus.
>
> Richard.

Oh and yes again. See http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-
roman.html
And it seems even the 'ancient' Romans does not favour four and
seven. Seems 'holy' seven (as well as shh' four) is really Middle
Eastern or....

Loreto