IIRC they counted the bones in their fingers using their thumb and that gives 12. The first sundial was around the equator and there is always light for half a day, so half a day becomes 12 hours.
To count large numbers often one hand was used to count using 5 fingers and the other to count the bones, so you get 5x12 for 60 minutes.
AIUI there was an aspect in the divisibility of the numbers being convenient.
12 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, and 6. 60 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30.
10 is divisible by 2 and 5. 100 is divisible by 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, and 50.
If you want to minimize dealing with fractions, 12 and 60 are far more convenient than 10 and 100.
That’s an interesting thought, but I believe it to simply be a coincidence.
The base 12 counting being based on counting the division of your fingers is historically verified, but if the division aspect was so compelling to them you’d expect it to carry forward into their writing system.
By the time you get cuneiform math though, they actually go back to base 10.
https://images.app.goo.gl/9GR6VEiT7GHYF3KaA
As you can see base 12 is not in the written system, or for written mathematics. It just was convenient for counting on their hands.
They used mixes of base 10/base 12 and base 60.
Base 10 would be used go determine the symbols for a specific “digit” in base 60.
So similar to how our 13 is 1 ten and 3 ones, their 13 was the symbol for 10 then 3 symbols for 1. 13 = 𒌋𒁹𒁹𒁹 But 73 would be written 𒁹 𒌋𒁹𒁹𒁹
Which would be interpreted as 1 sixty and 13 ones, or 60 + 13
I’ma start a revolution where we use duodecimal metric for everything, including time.
That’s how we ended up with 12 months of varying length in a year and it’s a mess.
It’s a problem no matter how you divide the year
That’s why I propose changing the orbit of the earth, too
13 months of 4 weeks + new year’s day (+leap day) actually fits perfectly.
If the day started at 1:00 then by the second hour you would be at 2:00, even though only 1 hour has passed. Effectively the day starts at 0. In fact in 24-hour time that is how it’s depicted, 00:00 with midday being depicted as 12:00, so it isn’t confusing
Careful, there are Americans around
As a programmer I’d rather it start at 0
At least our hours are the same length regardless of latitude now, so let’s be grateful for that.
When I become dictator of the world, this will be the new time unit: https://metric-time.com/
The year will also have 13 months: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fixed_Calendar
The year will be 12025: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_calendar
Because these things just make more sense. You will thank me after a few generations, because habits are hard to change.
Somebody never had a clock with roman numerals and it shows
I remember getting into an argument with a grade school teacher over IIII because most such clocks put that for 4 instead of IV because of some fuckin reason
Weird, I’ve seen many analog clocks with Roman numerals but always IV for 4.
It’s actually called the “clockmakers four” or “watchmakers four.” it’s a thing.
False. I had a clock that used IIII instead.
Your clock having it doesn’t change that mine didn’t.
I despise these so so much. IIII was historically NEVER correct. Some doofus decided to put that on a clock because it looks more symmetrical with the VIII on the other side. Terrible reasoning.
“However, even though it is now widely accepted that 4 must be written IV, the original and most ancient pattern for Roman numerals wasn’t the same as what we know today. Earliest models did, in fact, use VIIII for 9 (instead of IX) and IIII for 4 (instead of IV). However, these two numerals proved problematic, they were easily confused with III and VIII. Instead of the original additive notation, the Roman numeral system changed to the more familiar subtractive notation. However, this was well after the fall of the Roman Empire.”
https://monochrome-watches.com/why-do-clocks-and-watches-use-roman-numeral-iiii-instead-of-iv/
IIII was the way Romans usually wrote 4. It’s associated with simplicity / illiteracy. But also depended on era, region, intended audience, or practicality. I think the most famous example is the coliseum using LIIII.
There’s still variation even now; standardization is relatively new, and it’s not common knowledge. And dates… it’s like every 50-100 years people decided to write them differently.
I only recently learned the etymology of the word: “second”
Its name comes from being the “second” division of the hour, with the minute being the first.
Clocks should use 24h format. AM/PM is completely useless.
No it’s not, with a 12h format on an analog watch you can use the sun to find true north. It is also easier to read it when the hands have double the amount of degrees to indicate the number.
Edit – digital watches should use 24h, I fully agree, maybe there was a misunderstanding because it’s analog watches we’re talking about here and these could stay 12h IMHO
How do you find north on a 12h face that wouldn’t work with a 24h face? Because the method I know, requires correcting for the 12h circle.
Yeah, that’s the method I know.
Divide the angle that is made in half
And that’s how you correct for the 12h face.
Thought as much but never had any experience with 24h watches, so no comment on this from my side :)
“At least we’re not mixing in letters”
I see
IIIIin there and I cry a little on the inside.
The french:
Goddamn metric time
Even the French figured out that decimalized time was stupid after a couple of years.
Which has added credence to the old saying that “The French follow no one. And no one follows the French.”
Why is it stupid beyond, “nobody else uses it”?
Why the ‘IIII’ insted of ‘IV’?
Prevents confusion between the four and the six: III, IV, V, VI, when the watch is not held perfectly vertically for viewing.
Actually very common in watches with roman numbers iirc
i’m pretty sure that IV is a modern typographic thing
I’ve also heard that, because in Latin IV is the beginning of “IVPPITER” (Jupiter), there’s a theory that people avoided using “IV” as to not “disrespect” the god’s name. 🤷♀️
Also, on a 12 hour clock, 3 sets of four looks clean af I guess, e.g.:
- I, II, III, IIII
- V, VI, VII, VIII
- IX, X, XI, XII
May as well just go with VIIII then. Or maybe 9.
IIIIIIIII
Relatively funny but gets worse the more you think about it.
The 6 stands for 6, not 30.
When we have AM and PM it would be dumb to have 1-24.
1 is the end of the 1st hour. 2 the end of the second. This is why it starts at 0.
0
She’s a witch!
Only if she weighs as much as a duck.
She turned me into a naught!
*newt btw.
Yes, that was the intended play on words.
Days start at 0h, not 12h
It can’t start at 12 hours if there are 24 segments.
And keep your letters out of it too.
Days start at 0h, not 12h
Show me where is the zero here?
The AM/PM bullshit:
AM: 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Then the same for PM. Who counts like that? Whats after 12? 1! What?
There’s Metric / Decimal Time.
Next time someone makes a post praising the metric system and making fun of people for using imperial units, feel free to call them out as a filthy casual for using a 24-hour clock.
