Aristotle&rsquo\;s definition of time is a real head-scratcher: &lsquo\;number of motion with respect to before and after&rsquo\;. The phrase is opaque\, to say the least. Moreover\, it flirts with danger: it seems to suggest that somehow time is made up of countable instants. And yet nothing could be clearer than that Aristotle would not have made that elementary mistake: he was very clear-headed about the nature of continua\, of mathematical density. So what on earth does the definition mean?
\n\nThe phrase\, of course\, has puzzled commentators from the get-go. Many have gone poking around in the arcana of ancient mathematics to try to find a meaning of &lsquo\;number&rsquo\; that would make sense here. Some of these proposals have been very ingenious\, even acrobatic. Other commentators have said that Aristotle must be using the word &lsquo\;number&rsquo\; metaphorically &ndash\; but it seems implausible that\, in an otherwise sober discussion\, he would make such prominent use of a metaphor\, without at least flagging it as such. It&rsquo\;s a puzzling business.
\n\n\nThis paper is deflationary. Based on some modest philological and grammatical research\, as well as a culinary parallel\, it shows that the meaning of the phrase is extremely easy and straightforward: for a millennium and a half we have been mishearing it. It&rsquo\;s all so simple &ndash\; once you see it.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR