From: Tak To <takto@alum.mit.edu.->
Subject: Re: question on chinese calendar (was Re: Caucasoid Turks/Bulgars)
Date: 25 Mar 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <36FA53C7.6B634450@alum.mit.edu.->
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <369E3BE1.5C45@sbu.ac.uk> <77li2j$qi0$1@whisper.globalserve.net> <369F52FE.2B6@sbu.ac.uk> <77rc86$auj$1@brokaw.wa.com> <36A444B3.F3B70F1C@alum.mit.edu.-> <7827sb$269$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36A52D70.9E372DD2@alum.mit.edu.-> <36A556AB.9927BD29@montclair.edu> <36a63533.58309714@news.yale.edu> <7866ud$i9m$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36cdb21e.883120019@news.wxs.nl> <36A7FCC8.79790A6B@earthlink.net> <36d77e23.1000882888@news.wxs.nl> <36a8d455.81661202@news.yale.edu> <78pl3c$84o@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b0dc2f.3434839@news.yale.edu> <78v30o$vl6@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36b34d7c.60430113@news.yale.edu> <794e84$4iq@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <3744d12a.1873763068@news.wxs.nl> <796m95$eq2@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <375c0ea6.1954957123@news.wxs.nl> <79fo99$qkl@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36f597c8.18429910@news.yale.edu> <7d546l$1ev@cpca3.uea.ac.uk> <36f71942.35680365@news.yale.edu> <36F8FA5A.31E2F960@alum.mit.edu.-> <36f96dd6.3152082@news.yale.edu>
X-Accept-Language: zh,zh-CN,zh-TW,ja
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net
X-Trace: news.rdc1.nj.home.com 922375156 24.3.176.102 (Thu, 25 Mar 1999 07:19:16 PDT)
Organization: @Home Network
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999 07:19:16 PDT
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,sci.anthropology,sci.lang

Cluster User wrote:
CU> about the chinese calendar, one source (enc. brittanica) says
CU> that the year starts in the lunar month that the sun enters
CU> pisces.  however, chinese new year celebrations are set two lunar
CU> months from the winter solictice. this is what I observe from
CU> practice, as well as the statements from almanacs.

Tak To wrote:
TT> I think the above two are equivalent under the current way of
TT> placing the intercalary month (which in effect defines the year).
TT> Have you observed a difference?

CU> at least formally the sun enters pisces on march 13 (that's the
CU> information I have), but since the astrological signs of the
CU> zodiac are somewhat different from the astronomical
CU> constellations (the way tehy are marked off, apparently there
CU> are 13 constellations on the ecliptic but only 12 astrological
CU> signs) the astrological definiton of pisces may be different.

I took "the sun enters Pisces" to mean starting from around
Feb 19 -- i.e., based on the astrological/Hipparchus definition
of Pisces.

The date of March 13 would be from the contemporary *constellation*
definition of Pisces.

TT> There might be small discrepancies due to the fact that the
TT> segments on the solar ecliptic -- as delineated by the 24
TT> <jie2qi4>'s (big5:¸`®ð) of which the winter solstice is one;
TT> as well as new moons are defined for the 120E meridian rather
TT> than the Greenwhich meridian.  (I assume that the start of
TT> Pisces and the winter solstice are determined astronomically
TT> rather than simply by calendar.  If not, there might be further
TT> discrepancies.)

[Side Note] Each of the 24 segments on the ecliptic spans a 15
degree arc and the positions are fixed by the equinoxes and
solstices.  This has been the definition since the last major
reform of the Chinese calendar in late 17th century.  I don't
know off hand what the definition was before that.

Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tak To                                            takto@alum.mit.edu.-
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}]       NB: trim the .- to get my real email addr