One:Extended Unified Timeline

From MLexWiki
Revision as of 11:47, 7 October 2012 by John Kinzie (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

The Extended Unified Timeline is one of several attempts[1] to establish a reliable correspondence between the several thousand existing methods of recording temporal distance between events.[2] Like all such timelines, the EUT is ultimately unsuccessful, but has gained widespread use in academic circles due to its relative comprehensiveness.[3]

History

The original Unified Timeline was developed by an international consortium of chronological theorists at the Fifth/Eight Annual Nairobi Conference and essentially ignored for the next two decades. The "Extended" version, which resembles the original only in format and a number of Key Dates, was the life's work of Professor Jean La Lime, a colleague and mentor of the author. La Lime's untimely death is the cause of the Timeline's several minor lacunae.

Use

The EUT is a complex instrument, the proper use of which depends on physical and dimensional location, mental state, and available quantity of both scrap paper and oxygen. Physically, it resembles a massive book, with most of its pages unfolding into large, easily-torn panels. The user, seeking to establish the chronological correspondence between (for example) the Arlington Address and the Long Afternoon, cross-tabulates each against its geographic position and the most ontologically relevant Key Date to determine the correct match-table to use. This table is memorized, copied longhand, and then burned. Re-executing this procedure recursively will eventually provide a useful estimate of the precise temporal distance between the original inputs.

Notes

  1. Notable others include the Revised Minimal Timeline, Anno Demoni, TimeZone™, TimeZone™ For Kids, and the Hexagonal Chronology.
  2. This is to be distinguished from a dating system, such as Adda Krazh, which is subject to relative temporal distortion, works in a single dimension only, and is usually just guessed at.
  3. And, one might add, the human predilection for "order" when no such thing necessarily exists.