Talk:Dog days: Difference between revisions
m Signing comment by 203.51.45.178 - "→Dog Days meant when I was a child in the 1960s and 1970s: " |
→Potentially misleading commentary in article.: new section |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
If the Greeks used the term "Dog Days" first, why does is the article written with the reference to the Roman usage first? Surely the Greek usage and the reference to the Greek's connecting it the Dog Star should be the main part of the naming section, with the progression to usage by the Romans later? [[Special:Contributions/188.221.46.100|188.221.46.100]] ([[User talk:188.221.46.100|talk]]) 14:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
If the Greeks used the term "Dog Days" first, why does is the article written with the reference to the Roman usage first? Surely the Greek usage and the reference to the Greek's connecting it the Dog Star should be the main part of the naming section, with the progression to usage by the Romans later? [[Special:Contributions/188.221.46.100|188.221.46.100]] ([[User talk:188.221.46.100|talk]]) 14:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Potentially misleading commentary in article. == |
|||
" Because the length of each Julian Calendar year was 11 minutes 48 seconds too long, over the centuries, seasonal changes gradually occurred on earlier and earlier dates.. " |
|||
NO! (well this is simply misleading) |
|||
do the math (it hurts i know) |
|||
11.8 minutes a year:::: |
|||
11.8/60min =.1966 |
|||
.1966/12hr = .01638 |
|||
.01638/7days = .0023412 |
|||
.0023412/4weeks = 5.85E-4 |
|||
5.85E-4/12months = 4.87E-5 |
|||
recip. = 20501 YEARS TO ADD A YEAR! |
|||
So it takes 20501/52 to add ONE week to the Julian calendar when compared to a gregorian. |
|||
Thus: about 400 years = one week. |
|||
1400 years of roman empire = a month...December and February are both cold. June and August are both hot. I doubt after 1400 years written record were all that wonderfully readable. |
|||
Unfounded i think is the word. |
|||
-Andy |
|||
(a scientist) |
Revision as of 02:03, 1 September 2012
"Incidentally, dog meat is a food traditionally eaten during the hottest days of the year in South Korea." This seems not only incidental but out of place, having nothing to do with "dog days". I think it should go. Comments? Whogue 04:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Rabies
In the 1940s and 1950s in rural East Tennessee, we kids (and perhaps adults too?) thought "dog days" were so called because dogs were prone to contract rabies in that season. Jm546 03:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Dog Days meant when I was a child in the 1960s and 1970s
Dog Days when I was a child in Arkansas meant that simple sores,scratches and wounds to your body became festered easily and boils were more common during this time of year. Severe itching for no apparent reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.144.174 (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is what Dog Days always meant to us in Georgia, ditto the above comment. Some mention should be made of this.74.36.192.167 01:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is something I recognize from Sweden too, half a world apart too. Also that during the 'rotten-months' milk go sour much quicker, things rot much quicker than during the rest of the year. (During the 'rotten-months' subtract 3 days for the best-before date for milk, and a full week for any meat/pork. Any food has to be eaten immediately after the container has been opened or it will go bad right away) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.45.178 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
dog days/dog meat
The eating of dog meat during the dog days in South Korea is not incidental. Koreans believe that the eating of dog meat bolsters one's metabolism to help one deal with the increased heat associated with the dog days. Also, the dog days in South Korea are quite specific days associated with the dog stars.125.243.52.130 (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)badukplayer
Koreans say dog meat gives you Stamina. Dog meat tastes like pot roast 58.232.101.30 (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Capitalization
Why is D in "Days" capitalized? Seems to me the article should be "Dog days". The phrase is more akin to "good old days" than "Labor Day", which is a proper holiday. Tritium6 (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be capitalized. DeeKenn (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Baseball
August is routinely mentioned as the 'Dog Days' portion of the baseball season in baseball circles. It is seen as a point in the seaon where due to fatigue, the heat, and prior to the focusing of mental energies at the end of the season due to the pennant race, that play often gets sloppy. Is this worth mentioning in the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.237.174 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Dog Days Bright and Clear
I've removed the annoying "citation needed" tag at the end of this quote. The citation is provided as a part of the text in the very next paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofa King (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Roman and Greek Usage
If the Greeks used the term "Dog Days" first, why does is the article written with the reference to the Roman usage first? Surely the Greek usage and the reference to the Greek's connecting it the Dog Star should be the main part of the naming section, with the progression to usage by the Romans later? 188.221.46.100 (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Potentially misleading commentary in article.
" Because the length of each Julian Calendar year was 11 minutes 48 seconds too long, over the centuries, seasonal changes gradually occurred on earlier and earlier dates.. "
NO! (well this is simply misleading)
do the math (it hurts i know)
11.8 minutes a year::::
11.8/60min =.1966 .1966/12hr = .01638 .01638/7days = .0023412 .0023412/4weeks = 5.85E-4 5.85E-4/12months = 4.87E-5
recip. = 20501 YEARS TO ADD A YEAR!
So it takes 20501/52 to add ONE week to the Julian calendar when compared to a gregorian. Thus: about 400 years = one week.
1400 years of roman empire = a month...December and February are both cold. June and August are both hot. I doubt after 1400 years written record were all that wonderfully readable.
Unfounded i think is the word.
-Andy
(a scientist)