Talk:Bissextus

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Incomprehensible

This article is completely incomprehensible. You need to have intimate, preexisting, knowledge of the Julian calendar, but that went out of use in 1582, 432 years ago. How did the Roman's number the days of the months? How could six get involved with Feb. 24th?

Nick Beeson (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox UK legislation?

@Mauls: do you want to add an Infobox UK legislation to this article? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bis

In the paragraph beginning 'In the ancient' it is not clear which is first and which second, given that the immediately previous counting is backwards. It seems odd to me for bis sextum to be the day before sextum. 81.150.72.227 (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not at all unusual in that. You have to think like an ancient Roman to make sense of it.

The best explanation I could come up with is this: "bis sextum" means "the sixth, twice". Thus, if you are counting backwards, the 'first sixth' you should reach is the 'normal' one. Still counting backwards, the next (extra) sixth is the one that we today would consider the one before that first one but the Romans considered to be the one after it. More obviously, it is the one between the 'normal sixth' and the 'normal seventh' (counting backwards).

Any good? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the article to say "earlier one" and "later one" (rather than "first" and "second", which presumes a direction of counting). Does that help? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes.

(Sorry previous reply got misplaced) 81.150.72.227 (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no it didnt. Confusing layout/ordering. Sorry again. 81.150.72.227 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find it is the one between the actual sixth and the actual seventh! 8-) 81.150.72.227 (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, in a leap year, the second sixth would be the actual seventh and the nominal seventh would be actual eighth. Counting backwards.

What I call the 'normal' sixth is formally ante diem sextum Kalendas Martias; the 'normal' seventh is formally ante diem septum Kalendas Martias and its name doesn't change despite the insertion of the the bissextile day (ante diem bis sextum Kalendas Martias) in the sequence and thus it not (in reality) being seven days before the Kalends. In effect, the sixth 'day' lasted 48 hours. No doubt it seemed a good idea at the time. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]