57

The word second can refer to ordinal #2 (that which comes after first), or a unit of time, 1/60 of a minute. Ordinarily you might think that this is just a coincidence, but in Spanish, the word segundo also means both a second (of time) and ordinal #2, which suggests that there's some actual link between the two meanings somewhere.

So, why is there a "second" of time but not a "first"?

Mason Wheeler
  • 1,546
  • 5
  • 17
  • 25
  • 3
    I wonder if a dictionary might have information on this... Oh, I just found it (not on a dictionary but on Etymonline): http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=second&allowed_in_frame=0 – herisson Sep 04 '15 at 09:52
  • 1
    You should post an extract from that @sumelic as it is the answer! Fascinating as well... the "first" unit of time exists but is commonly called a "minute"! – Marv Mills Sep 04 '15 at 10:42
  • 6
    http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/133563/second-minute-and-hour/133567#133567 – Hugo Sep 04 '15 at 10:59
  • You might be interested in this question I asked about the history of the measurement of time. – Patrick M Sep 05 '15 at 05:32
  • I see there is a reopen vote. It would be better to link it to the question Hugo posted as a duplicate. – MetaEd Nov 11 '15 at 22:50
  • There is “first", which is just the "minute". Actually, "minute" is short for "pars minuta prima" (primary minute part, first small part), while "second" is short for "pars minuta secunda" (secondary minute part, second small part). – Victor May 10 '21 at 04:04

3 Answers3

93

The English word minute in the time sense (and the various similar European words) came from Latin 'pars minuta prima' or 'first small part'; when it became necessary to subdivide even further, the obvious term was 'pars minuta secunda' which became second and its various cognates. (Best explained in Etymonline.)

Tim Lymington
  • 35,168
  • 2
    To quote Martha on Meta: ‘If we accept the axiom that trivial questions are bad for the site [and the genref close-vote reason is there for just this reason], then the proper response to a general reference question is: 1.Don't answer! 2… [Vote] to close. The point is not to encourage trivial questions. If you post an answer or vote up an existing answer, you're implicitly encouraging more questions like it.’ – Edwin Ashworth Sep 04 '15 at 11:02
  • 41
    Edwin, this is an interesting question, regardless of how trivial it is. – James G. Sep 04 '15 at 14:53
  • It seems to me that every question on etymology could be considered a "general reference question" and thus "trivial". Kind of makes you wonder why the tag exists at all. – Michael J. Sep 04 '15 at 17:03
  • 13
    That begs the question: What is the example of a non-trivial question on a site that's mainly concerned with English Language minutia? – WernerCD Sep 04 '15 at 18:35
  • 3
    fantastic answer to a very interesting question. definitely belongs on this site. – user428517 Sep 04 '15 at 20:10
  • 3
    I've got to agree that most etymology questions here are pretty silly. This one, however, has an interesting answer that relates directly to the formation of the term, vs just the fact that someone centuries ago mispronounced another word, – Hot Licks Sep 04 '15 at 20:14
  • 3
    I have largely stopped visiting this site because of the overwhelming number of word and prase requests. These are completely uninteresting to anyone apart from the OP: it is as if quoting from a dictionary is now an acceptable standard for an answer, and not having read a thesaurus, that for a question. I say this to emphasize the contrast with this thread, wherein the question and answer show evidence of actual wit and creativity. If anything is to be closed as "general reference", please, let the stultifying word request threads be the first victims. – Oleksandr R. Sep 05 '15 at 01:36
  • 1
    I think the point Edwin was making was the answer is easily found, in fact @sumelic posted the link minutes (ha!) after the OP had been submitted. This answer is well written, and concise, which the majority of SE users on the hot network probably appreciate too. But I think most of the credit should go to the OP who phrased the question very well, and made "me" want to know the answer. Ostensibly the question is a duplicate, but I much prefer this answer for its clarity. PS I upvoted hours ago. – Mari-Lou A Sep 05 '15 at 05:09
  • 2
    @WernerCD "begs the question" does not mean "raises the question" http://begthequestion.info/ – Golden Cuy Sep 05 '15 at 08:04
  • @AndrewGrimm and ain't ain't a word (until it is). Living language means things change. Lines between phrases blur. If you understand what I meant, I obviously got my point across. – WernerCD Sep 08 '15 at 22:21
8

enter image description here

I.e. primary and secondary division by 60, where one minute is 1/60th part. Minute here refers to part and originates from "minutus" meaning "made small".

The etymology is quite confusing: A minute is short for "pars minuta prima" where they've omitted "prima" meaning "primary". A "second", which is a part of a part, comes from "pars minuta secunda", where they've omitted "part".

Note how minute and second are also used as angular measurement equal to 1/60 and 1/3600 of a degree respectively. There are 60*360 = 21600 minutes and 60*60*360 = 1296000 seconds in a full rotation.

JJM Driessen
  • 484
  • 4
    There is no indication in this answer of how "minute" means "first" or "primary". – AndyT Sep 04 '15 at 14:50
  • @AndyT: True, but that was not part of the OP's question. – LarsH Sep 04 '15 at 15:38
  • 1
    @LarsH - not in those words, no. But the question was not "what other units of time are there?". It is obvious that the OP knows what a minute is (he uses the word in his question). It is not difficult to work out that the question is about the etymology of "second" as a unit of time, and why there is no similar etymology leading to a "first" of time. – AndyT Sep 04 '15 at 15:59
  • 1
    Actually, I interpreted this answer to mean: One over sixty to the first is the minute. One over sixty to the second is the second. Why do we use milliseconds when we can use thirds? – Phil Sep 04 '15 at 16:20
  • 1
    @AndyT Because "minute" doesn't mean "first" or "primary", it refers to "part" (note how I italicized that), or more accurately "minutus" means "made small". As posted by the other poster, a minute is short for "pars minuta prima" where they've omitted "prima" meaning "primary". A "second", which is a part of a part, comes from "pars minuta secunda", where they've omitted "part"! This is what makes the etymology so confusing. I'm sorry if my answer was not clear for you. – JJM Driessen Sep 04 '15 at 16:26
  • @JJMDriessen - Sorry, but there is nothing in your answer that indicates that "minute" is derived from "part". Italicising "part" is nowhere near enough to indicate this. If you were to take your comment and put it into your answer, I'd be very happy that you'd answered the question. But then your answer would be identical to Tim's, and not adding anything. – AndyT Sep 04 '15 at 16:33
  • @AndyT I've updated my post with some more information. – JJM Driessen Sep 04 '15 at 16:35
  • @JJMDriessen - That's a great improvement. Downvote removed. (Although no upvote, as it's now more or less a copy of Tim's answer). – AndyT Sep 04 '15 at 16:38
  • @AntyT Except that his answer does not clarify that minute means part, which apparently is a non-trivial part of the answer. :-P – JJM Driessen Sep 04 '15 at 16:43
  • @AndyT: I get it... you're focusing on the "what's first / but not a first" part of the question. I had totally missed that. My bad. – LarsH Sep 04 '15 at 19:00
1

One sixtieth part of an hour is a minute amount of it. Similarly, one sixtieth part of a minute is a minute amount of a minute. It is of the second order of minuteness (compared to an hour), and is hence called a second.

yeee
  • 19
  • Yeah, but what do you call the third second? – Hot Licks Sep 05 '15 at 13:02
  • 1
    @HotLicks see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal#Notation - Until at least the 18th century, 1/60 of a second was called a "tierce" or "third". There was an analogous duodecimal system for measuring length (used by Newton in Principia, etc): feet indicated by ', inches by '', and lines (1/12 inch) by '''. – alephzero Sep 05 '15 at 14:31
  • @alephzero - That's the third minute. But yeee's answer is the third one providing the (same) explanation of "second" -- the third second. – Hot Licks Sep 05 '15 at 17:54