6/4 sounds great. I think 3/2/3/2 is also an option, or if there's one more work day, maybe 3/1/4/2. If only five days of work, we could try the most radical 1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1 (work every other day). 5/5 is actually pretty reasonable and maybe my favorite. It's actually pretty workable for employers too because if you need someone working every day, it's simple to just hire two people. Makes it easier for everybody, and doesn't it sound great to have three 5 day breaks every month?
I think the biggest advantage to a 10 day week is really just that it accommodates more variation in schedule, and not every person or every industry has to have the same work week. It certainly helps being an even number, so scheduling anything for every other day is easier.
I'm actually so down for calendar reform but it seems like it's probably an impossible task.
I really like the idea of 10 days because of where weeks come from. In many languages, the names of days trace back to major celestial bodies (Sun, Moon, and the five planets). This is very obvious in English with Sunday (Sun), Monday (Moon), and Saturday (Saturn) but less obvious with other days because the names were converted into Germanic gods (Thursday = Thor's day, though the planet should be Jupiter).
Well now that we know there's two more planets: Uranus and Neptune, and the Earth is also a planet... it would kinda make sense to add 3 more days to the week for Uranus, Neptune, and Earth.
The actual French republican calendar just uses numbered days ie primidi, duodi, tridi similar to Chinese and Portuguese but imo that's so boring.
They did not have a 31st day and neither did they have a January. Rather, the day that we call January 31 was the 12th day of Pluviôse and also had its own name "Broccoli"
Good question. Really depends on what it is, I think. I just watched the movie Melancholia which is pretty ambiguous about its setting. I was wavering between US and UK based on the accents, but I think in the back of my head I kinda assumed vaguely East Coast -ish.
China has an extremely high literacy rate, so the difficulty in learning the system is, at least, provably surmountable.
The strength of being able to unite communication historically across East Asia and potentially around the world is a pretty big plus. Offering such a strength impossible in other systems, ideograms are hardly equivalent to imperial units.
Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Japanese are totally unrelated languages. Chinese languages are sino-tibetan, Vietnamese is austro-asiatic, Japanese is japonic, and Korean is alone in its own family. Totally unrelated to each other as far as we can trace.
Despite that, they all used to use the same writing system and, shockingly, they were mutually intelligible when written down. In Japanese this method of reading Chinese (without actually knowing Chinese) was called kundoku but I think that the other languages also had ways to read & write Chinese writing with very light translation. Even today, Chinese writing unites the different dialects/languages of China.
My proposed lingua franca is the Chinese writing system. Everybody should keep their own writing systems, but they should also learn to transcribe into Chinese, the only extant written language in which this is really possible.
I stopped believing in toki pona when I heard somebody say that "watermelon" would be "kili telo" (fruit [of] water). It goes without saying that "kili telo" would not be understood as "watermelon" unless they had heard it in English before, or heard someone use the English-derived "kili telo".If you're going to use English-language ideas to form words, then English is a prerequisite language for speaking toki pona, and toki pona becomes useless.
I think if toki pona is developed as you describe, it could be much more useful than it is today.
The Gregorian calendar is by far the most commonly used calendar in the world, certainly in the English speaking world, and while I don't particularly care to defend or attack your comment or the original comment, my point stands that the most obvious interpretation of what they said is in the context of the Gregorian calendar and to pretend they meant it outside of that context is silly.
It may be pronounced either way, and may also be spelled "broach", an alternate spelling which is very common although probably slightly less than this chart implies given multiple meanings of "broach".
I'm not really informed on this history of this word, but I think it's possible that the "brooch" spelling increased in frequency along with the pronunciation that rhymes with "mooch" while people who pronounce it to rhyme with "roach" are more likely to spell it as "broach".
The obvious meaning of someone saying "year 0 doesn't exist" is that the Gregorian calendar does not have a year 0; the year before 1 AD is 1 BC. It's not a math thing, it's a protocol thing.
Your point on consistency is just wrong. There is no reason that "believing years exist" would necessarily imply "believing all numbered years exist"
Dogs are made out of air, water, and dog food.