🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <01bc773e$7b8ac160$d5db0a26@elnnharrington>, Neil Harrington
<nharr...@earthlink.net> writes
>Bill Newton <Bi...@notwen.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
><daS67JAr...@notwen.demon.co.uk>...

>> As I understand things a 'Millenium' is a span of a thousand years.
>> Does it not follow therefore that we shall  be celebrating our ENTRY
>> into the second Millenium immediately after midnight on 31st
>> December 1999?
>
>Nope.
>
>In the first place, we are already in the second millennium. We have been
>for nearly a thousand years.

Hi Neil, I think you might be incorrect here mate. We cant be in the
second Millenium 'already' because it doesn't exist as yet! 

Why?

Because a Millenium is a span of a thousand years and accordingly can
only be identified in looking backwards in time.

Ater the year 2000 it would be in order to say  "we lived in the second
Millenium"  because we could then look back and identify the 1000 year
span that became the second 'Millenium.

>There was no year zero, so the first millennium ran from the year 1 to the
>year 1000 *inclusive*. That is, the first millennium wasn't finished until
>the year 1000 was finished. The second millennium then started, on the
>first day of 1001.

You are a little confused here. 'Milleniums' dont get 'started' as such,
rather a span of time BECOMES a Millenium after a 1000 years.

Accordingly we can only look back in time to identify a Millenium.

>The next millennium will be the third, and it will begin on Jan. 1, 2001.

Not really correct. A third Millenium will not exist until Jan 1st 3001
at which time the necessary 1000 year period will be able to be
identified.

What you suggest is a bit like saying that, "we're currently in the
1997th year of the second Millenium"

Well we're not are we? It wont be until after the year 2000 that 'this'
year will be recognised as the 1997th year of the second Millenium.

Should the world end tomorrow, a second Millenium would not have existed
as the necessary 1000 years would not have been reached.

>I'm sure millions of people will be enthusiastically ringing in the "new
>millennium" at midnight, Dec. 31, 1999. They'll all be a year early,

I've written elsewhere in this thread with my view on that :-)

> and
>probably half of them still won't understand this even when it's explained
>to them.

Even less will understand my ramblings!

Incidentally I'm not really heavy on any of this but it's an interesting
debating point.

Hang loose Neil.

Cheers.

-- 
Bill Newton