The perpetual calendar

On Mar 21, 12:42*pm, Tak To wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
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.

I prefer something like "Common Year" to "Common Era". *The former
is more like a convention/scale/unit (cf "Celsius") whereas the
latter implies that there was/is a common recognition about
"the era".

But there is! "Era" simply refers to the numeration system. We're in
an Era in which the current year is numbered 2010. The Jewish calendar
uses an Era that begins with the creation of the universe 5770 years
ago. Before BC/AD caught on, dates were often given in years of the
Seleucid Era (in the overall course of history, the Seleucid Kingdom
wasn't terribly significant). And before that, AUC (Ab Urbe Condite,
the legendary founding of Rome). But lots of places didn't use
absolute dates like those. Mesopotamia and Egypt used kings' regnal
years; for a long time, years in Mesopotamia were named
retrospectively for an important event that occurred in that year, its
"eponym," and there are "eponym lists" that correlate those names with
regnal years.

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Tak To wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 09:46:25 +0800, Robert Bannisterwrote:
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 have no quarrel with AD, but of course CE stands for "common era".
People all over the world, with no interest at all in Christianity,
use that system because it is the one that everyone else can
understand. Common, like.

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.

I prefer something like "Common Year" to "Common Era". The former
is more like a convention/scale/unit (cf "Celsius") whereas the
latter implies that there was/is a common recognition about
"the era".

But there is! "Era" simply refers to the numeration system. We're in
an Era in which the current year is numbered 2010. The Jewish
calendar uses an Era that begins with the creation of the universe
5770 years ago. Before BC/AD caught on, dates were often given in
years of the Seleucid Era (in the overall course of history, the
Seleucid Kingdom wasn't terribly significant). And before that, AUC
(Ab Urbe Condite, the legendary founding of Rome). But lots of
places didn't use absolute dates like those. Mesopotamia and Egypt
used kings' regnal years; for a long time, years in Mesopotamia
were named retrospectively for an important event that occurred in
that year, its "eponym," and there are "eponym lists" that
correlate those names with regnal years.

And Olympiads for some. On a pure note of nitpickery, with respect to
what is no doubt a typo, that's "ab urbe condita" (long "a"), "from
the-City-having-been-founded". A very Latinate construction, as my
grade 12 teacher would point out to us, her large grey eyes glistening
with an enthusiasm hardly less moist than that with which she had
recounted the desecration of Hector's body.

Tak To wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
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.

I prefer something like "Common Year" to "Common Era". The former
is more like a convention/scale/unit (cf "Celsius") whereas the
latter implies that there was/is a common recognition about
"the era".

It seems to me that the choice between "Christian" and "Common" is a
minor detail compared with the glaring inappropriateness of the word
"Era". Surely that means a span of years, with a beginning and an end.

"Christian Era" does make sense, even to non-Christians, but it does
seem to imply a commitment to switching to a new numbering system once
Christianity goes extinct.

"Common Era" has the same problem. It suggests that sooner or later we
will move on to the next era. The "Aristocratic Era", perhaps.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

On Mar 21, 10:36*pm, Peter Moylan gro.nalyomp@retep wrote:
Tak To wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
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.

I prefer something like "Common Year" to "Common Era". *The former
is more like a convention/scale/unit (cf "Celsius") whereas the
latter implies that there was/is a common recognition about
"the era".

It seems to me that the choice between "Christian" and "Common" is a
minor detail compared with the glaring inappropriateness of the word
"Era". Surely that means a span of years, with a beginning and an end.

"Christian Era" does make sense, even to non-Christians, but it does
seem to imply a commitment to switching to a new numbering system once
Christianity goes extinct.

"Common Era" has the same problem. It suggests that sooner or later we
will move on to the next era. The "Aristocratic Era", perhaps.

Diuturnal time gives me trouble too. I'm still engaged in a personal
wrestling match with 'epoch', which by and large refuses to mean what
I want it to mean. The year 2010, epoch Christus or Khristos, would
work in a Christian society, but not elsewhere I presume.

Luckily epoch and era are quite close neighbours in the dictionary.
The respective entries in the Oxford works are stuffed with cross-
references, and you may as well look them up yourselves.
--
franzi

On Mar 21, 6:36*pm, Peter Moylan gro.nalyomp@retep wrote:
Tak To wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
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.

I prefer something like "Common Year" to "Common Era". *The former
is more like a convention/scale/unit (cf "Celsius") whereas the
latter implies that there was/is a common recognition about
"the era".

It seems to me that the choice between "Christian" and "Common" is a
minor detail compared with the glaring inappropriateness of the word
"Era". Surely that means a span of years, with a beginning and an end.

There's no "surely" about it. "Era" is simply the word for that
particular phenomenon.

"Christian Era" does make sense, even to non-Christians, but it does
seem to imply a commitment to switching to a new numbering system once
Christianity goes extinct.

"Common Era" has the same problem. It suggests that sooner or later we
will move on to the next era. The "Aristocratic Era", perhaps.

Peter T. Daniels (read in alt.usage.english):

On Mar 21, 6:36 pm, Peter Moylan gro.nalyomp@retep wrote:
Tak To wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
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.

I prefer something like "Common Year" to "Common Era". The former
is more like a convention/scale/unit (cf "Celsius") whereas the
latter implies that there was/is a common recognition about
"the era".

It seems to me that the choice between "Christian" and "Common" is a
minor detail compared with the glaring inappropriateness of the word
"Era". Surely that means a span of years, with a beginning and an end.

There's no "surely" about it. "Era" is simply the word for that
particular phenomenon.


Wouldn't "Before Christian/Common Epoch be more appropriate than era? Or is
the era of a calendar only meant to denote the time after the epoch?

Unfortunately, outside the technical language of calendar specialists, epoch
means a time span, too.

Joachim

--
My favourite # 79: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEWQZ5tLD0
My favourite # 47: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKDAbp9m5yw

On 2010-03-18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

On Mar 18, 4:01Â*am, Nick wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" writes:

(b) Come back when you've learned to comprehend ordinary
conversational English.

And there we are, the circle has just closed, we are right back at the
start of the discussion again.

And it's /your/ fault that you can't comprehend ordinary conversational
English.

It's really strange. Â*The only person on the whole of Usenet who can
comprehend ordinary conversational English is PTD. Â*The rest of us must
all speak something else (that is mutually comprehensible). Â*I wonder
which of "ordinary", "conversational" or "English"?

Peter - sarcasm aside - if everybody consistently fails to understand
you and be able to hold a sensible conversation with you, do you think
you could you consider entertaining the possibility that just once or
twice a millennium your written words fail to make your intended meaning
absolutely crystal clear?

Would you like me to start nitpicking everything Brian or ERK writes,
in the same fashion they do? It would be quite easy to do.


Is that some kind of joke? You already nitpick as many other people's
posts as you have time for.


--
When Elaine turned 11, her mother sent her to train under
Donald Knuth in his mountain hideaway. [XKCD 342]

In article , Cheryl
wrote:

snip

But I'm in Canada, so we don't celebrate President's Day at all,
whenever it comes. I'd make do with a 'mid-February Holiday' in honour
of nothing in particular if I could be guaranteed a break in that dreary
month.

In Alberta we have Family Day, the third Monday in February IIANM, but
when the government introduced it (perhaps twenty years ago) they
neglected to amend the labour laws to increase the minimum number of
paid holidays. So it's mainly civil servants, teachers, and a few other
unionized workers that get the day off, while the rest of us get a dose
of envy to go with our February blahs.

--
Odysseus

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:36:07 +1100, Peter Moylan
gro.nalyomp@retep wrote in
.au in
sci.lang,alt.usage.english,sci.astro:

Tak To wrote:

Brian M. Scott wrote:

[...]

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.

I prefer something like "Common Year" to "Common Era". The former
is more like a convention/scale/unit (cf "Celsius") whereas the
latter implies that there was/is a common recognition about
"the era".

It seems to me that the choice between "Christian" and "Common" is a
minor detail compared with the glaring inappropriateness of the word
"Era". Surely that means a span of years, with a beginning and an end.

That is only one meaning. Another is 'a fixed point in time
from which a series of years is reckoned', and yet another
-- the one in use here -- is 'a system of chronological
notation computed from a given date as basis'.

Brian

On 2010-03-23, Brian M. Scott wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:36:07 +1100, Peter Moylan
gro.nalyomp@retep wrote:

It seems to me that the choice between "Christian" and "Common" is a
minor detail compared with the glaring inappropriateness of the word
"Era". Surely that means a span of years, with a beginning and an end.

That is only one meaning. Another is 'a fixed point in time
from which a series of years is reckoned', and yet another
-- the one in use here -- is 'a system of chronological
notation computed from a given date as basis'.

Cf. "epoch" (but you count seconds from that point).


--
Take it? I can't even parse it! [Kibo]