Talk:Almanac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Time
Time Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.

This is again something which in my view is better handled using a definition that by attempting to turn it into an article. I vote the link should be redirected to the Wiktionary definition of almanac. --(talk to)BozMo 12:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Gap

There's a great gap from Ptolemy's Phaesis to the 17th c. English printed almanacs. Much needs to be filled in here. --SteveMcCluskey 02:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of word?

In the first section, this article specifies an origin for the word "almanac." In the very next section, it says the origin is unclear. Only one of these statements can be true. Which one is it? --  Denelson83  21:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "unclear" is closer to the mark (with the relationship between the modern Arabic word and the medieval Arabic word being one of the question marks). I've added a link to the online etymological dictionary, and re-worded accordingly. If people can find more sources, maybe we can make a more definitive statement. Kingdon 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The origin of the word, "Almanac," is from Patristic Greek "almenichiata" and dates to before 339 A.D., prior to the origin of Arabic. It is found in Eusebius Caesarius, De Praep. Evang. III, 4. (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, XXI, 169c) The word almenichiata is [Ptolemaic?] Egyptian for the supernatural rulers of the celestial bodies according to Porphyry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John N. Lupia III (talk • contribs) 03:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This statement is problematic. First of all, Arabic did not "originate" at some time after A.D. 339, it represents a continuous development from Proto-Semitic, and has several written sources before A.D. 339. Second, the paragraph is not consistent. Even if it (for some valid reason) were correct that the origin or the word should not be sought in Arabic, the origin cannot, according to the statement above, at least, be Greek, as the next sentence goes on to claim that it is Egyptian. Third, the article as it stands is in itself problematic, as it is formed as a polemic statement ("prior to the origin of Arabic") even though the article itself does not make any reference to Arabic before that sentence. Rewriting is needed. Trondtr (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC).