The perpetual calendar

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:59:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in

in sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro:

On Mar 18, 2:07*pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:

[...]

German 'v./n. Chr.' are less objectionable than 'A.D.' for
the same reason that 'A.C.N.' and 'B.C.' are, though '(v.)
u. Z.' are much better than any of these.

The French is "av./ap. j.-c." Both these [Ger. & Fr.]
formulations are as inappropriate to non-Christians as
B.C. and A.D. because they ascribe Messiah-hood
("Christ") to Jesus, a doctrine accepted only by
Christians (and possibly Mormons; the dioramas in the
Salt Lake City museum were less than clear about the role
of Jesus in their theology).

I'm sure that if you think about it hard enough, you can
figure out why this is still less objectionable than 'A.D.'

Brian

On Mar 18, 6:12*pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:59:00 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
wrote in

in sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro:

On Mar 18, 2:07*pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:

[...]

German 'v./n. Chr.' are less objectionable than 'A.D.' for
the same reason that 'A.C.N.' and 'B.C.' are, though '(v.)
u. Z.' are much better than any of these.
The French is "av./ap. j.-c." Both these [Ger. & Fr.]
formulations are as inappropriate to non-Christians as
B.C. and A.D. because they ascribe Messiah-hood
("Christ") to Jesus, a doctrine accepted only by
Christians (and possibly Mormons; the dioramas in the
Salt Lake City museum were less than clear about the role
of Jesus in their theology).

I'm sure that if you think about it hard enough, you can
figure out why this is still less objectionable than 'A.D.'

I should think Messiah-hood, being indisputably spiritual, and so
"higher" than merely mundane concerns, would be still more
objectionable than lord-hood, which can be taken as merely temporal.

James Hogg wrote:
Robert Bannister wrote:
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" writes:

I'm at the American Oriental Society annual meeting in St. Louis,
and I asked Peter Machinist, professor of, among other things,
Jewish History at Harvard, about the introduction of CE.

He doesn't know who, exactly, was responsible, but volunteered that
it's a post-Holocaust phenomenon.
Did you point out that you had seen evidence that it was in use in
1856? If so, what was his reaction?

And that wasn't an isolated publication. I see use in the _Journal of
Sacred Literature in 1859. (Interestingly there, I see one article
that constrasts "B.C.E" with "A.C.E" and another that contrasts "B.C."
with "C.E.".) Also in the title of a book listed in a book on the
Talmud that appears to have been printed in 1890. An 1886 _Outlines
of Jewish History_ is subtitled "From B.C. 586 to C.E. 1885" but uses
"B.C.E." in a table of dates. There are a couple of dozen Google
Books hits in the 1880s and about twice that in the 1890s, so I'd
guess that that's where it started to become common.

I wonder how the people who object to A.D. and (I think) A.C.N.* feel
about the German "vor/nach Christi Geburt", which exactly describes what
the calendar is attempting to represent.

* My Latin has gone bad - something like ante Christi natum

Ante Christum natum.

Then there are the Irish expressions Be Jaysus and Ah Jaysus.


[polite applause]

--

Rob Bannister

Brian M. Scott wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:33:25 +0800, Robert Bannister
wrote in
in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro:

[...]

I wonder how the people who object to A.D. and (I think)
A.C.N.* feel about the German "vor/nach Christi Geburt",
which exactly describes what the calendar is attempting
to represent.

German 'v./n. Chr.' are less objectionable than 'A.D.' for
the same reason that 'A.C.N.' and 'B.C.' are, though '(v.)
u. Z.' are much better than any of these.

The part that puzzles me is: the small proportion of the population that
knows what A.D. stands for knows "anno domini", but "the year of our
lord" should surely offend only atheists, since all the others have a
"lord", whether they call it Adonai, Jehovah, Allah, Krishna or
whatever. Very few people would be aware of the full title "year of our
lord Jesus Christ etc." and since the remainder does not show up in the
A.D., I find it hard to accept that A.D. includes any of that stuff.


--

Rob Bannister

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
On Mar 18, 2:07 pm, "Brian M. Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:33:25 +0800, Robert Bannister
wrote in
in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro:

[...]

I wonder how the people who object to A.D. and (I think)
A.C.N.* feel about the German "vor/nach Christi Geburt",
which exactly describes what the calendar is attempting
to represent.
German 'v./n. Chr.' are less objectionable than 'A.D.' for
the same reason that 'A.C.N.' and 'B.C.' are, though '(v.)
u. Z.' are much better than any of these.

The French is "av./ap. j.-c." Both these [Ger. & Fr.] formulations are
as inappropriate to non-Christians as B.C. and A.D. because they
ascribe Messiah-hood ("Christ") to Jesus, a doctrine accepted only by
Christians (and possibly Mormons; the dioramas in the Salt Lake City
museum were less than clear about the role of Jesus in their theology).

You seem to assume that "Christ" is understood to mean "Messiah" to most
people, whereas I believe the vast majority think it's just part of
Jesus' name.

Merriam-Webster gives the following meanings:
1 : messiah
2 : jesus
3 : an ideal type of humanity
4 Christian Science : the ideal truth that comes as a divine
manifestation of God to destroy incarnate error

I would take meaning 2 as being the most commonly understood one.

--

Rob Bannister

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:13:11 +0800, Robert Bannister
wrote in
in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro:

Brian M. Scott wrote:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:33:25 +0800, Robert Bannister
wrote in
in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro:

[...]

I wonder how the people who object to A.D. and (I think)
A.C.N.* feel about the German "vor/nach Christi Geburt",
which exactly describes what the calendar is attempting
to represent.

German 'v./n. Chr.' are less objectionable than 'A.D.' for
the same reason that 'A.C.N.' and 'B.C.' are, though '(v.)
u. Z.' are much better than any of these.

The part that puzzles me is: the small proportion of the
population that knows what A.D. stands for knows "anno
domini", but "the year of our lord" should surely offend
only atheists, since all the others have a "lord",
whether they call it Adonai, Jehovah, Allah, Krishna or
whatever.

First, this isn't true: off the top of my head you've
excluded followers of Shinto, Taoism, Vodun, Wicca,
Kemetism, Romuva, and Ásatrú, and arguably some followers of
Hinduism. Secondly, the lord in question is obviously the
Christian lord.

[...]

Brian

The part that puzzles me is: the small proportion of the population
that knows what A.D. stands for knows "anno domini", but "the year of
our lord" should surely offend only atheists, since all the others
have a "lord", whether they call it Adonai, Jehovah, Allah, Krishna or
whatever. Very few people would be aware of the full title "year of
our lord Jesus Christ etc." and since the remainder does not show up
in the A.D., I find it hard to accept that A.D. includes any of that
stuff.

As M. Scott said, you've ignored rather a lot of religions there.
You've even ignored the fact that all of the other "lord"s weren't
(supposedly) circumcised on January the 1st, A.D. 1.

Robert Bannister wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
Robert Bannister wrote:

[...]

I wonder how the people who object to A.D. and (I think)
A.C.N.* feel about the German "vor/nach Christi Geburt",
which exactly describes what the calendar is attempting
to represent.

German 'v./n. Chr.' are less objectionable than 'A.D.' for
the same reason that 'A.C.N.' and 'B.C.' are, though '(v.)
u. Z.' are much better than any of these.

The part that puzzles me is: the small proportion of the population
that knows what A.D. stands for knows "anno domini", but "the year
of our lord" should surely offend only atheists, since all the
others have a "lord", whether they call it Adonai, Jehovah, Allah,
Krishna or whatever. Very few people would be aware of the full
title "year of our lord Jesus Christ etc." and since the remainder
does not show up in the A.D., I find it hard to accept that A.D.
includes any of that stuff.
JC was the one whose birth established the point counted up or down
to. Roughly.

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:


The part that puzzles me is: the small proportion of the population
that knows what A.D. stands for knows "anno domini", but "the year of
our lord" should surely offend only atheists, since all the others
have a "lord", whether they call it Adonai, Jehovah, Allah, Krishna or
whatever. Very few people would be aware of the full title "year of
our lord Jesus Christ etc." and since the remainder does not show up
in the A.D., I find it hard to accept that A.D. includes any of that
stuff.

As M. Scott said, you've ignored rather a lot of religions there.
You've even ignored the fact that all of the other "lord"s weren't
(supposedly) circumcised on January the 1st, A.D. 1.


Conceded. I'm an atheist, and I just forget about all these different
gods and whether they had their private parts cut or not.

I think "Before/After Jesus" would have been a better choice. "CE" for
"Christian Era" is fine, except it implies that Christianity rules - oh,
you're going to claim it stands for "Common Era" - no doubt the people
who hate "A.D." believe that (not).
--

Rob Bannister

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:46:25 +0800, Robert Bannister
wrote in
in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro,alt.religion. kibology:

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:

[...]

As M. Scott said, you've ignored rather a lot of religions there.
You've even ignored the fact that all of the other "lord"s weren't
(supposedly) circumcised on January the 1st, A.D. 1.

Conceded. I'm an atheist, and I just forget about all these different
gods and whether they had their private parts cut or not.

Mileage varies: I've never had the slightest use for
religion, which is one of the main reasons that I tend *not*
to forget about them.

I think "Before/After Jesus" would have been a better choice. "CE" for
"Christian Era" is fine, except it implies that Christianity rules - oh,
you're going to claim it stands for "Common Era" - no doubt the people
who hate "A.D." believe that (not).

I much prefer 'CE' to 'AD', and yes, I do take it to stand
for 'Common Era': that was how I learnt it in the first
place.

Brian