AD versus Common Era
- Thread starter Ultramann
- Start date
- Status
January and February were originally placed as the last two months of the year, not the first, which is why Sept- to December make sense. Sometime later, IIRC, Jan and Fwb were moved to the front.
Well, I imagine the difference is that "Anno Domini" comes from a still-active religion, whereas nobody really worships the Norse/Germanic gods anymore (except for a smattering of neopagans, which is a "reconstructed" religion rather than a genuine continuation of ancient beliefs), so the Norse-derived names of the weekdays have become neutral. Similarly, in Romance languages, the days of the weeks are named for the corresponding Roman deities, which are also a defunct religion.
So nobody's going to take a name like "Wednesday" or "March" as endorsement of Germanic or Roman religion at the expense of other religions. But "Anno Domini," "The Year of Our Lord (Jesus Christ)," is clearly a different matter. It's a term from a very active modern religion, so it can't be considered neutral or generic in the way that terms derived from "fossil" religions are.
^To be fair, "Anno Domini", again, is Latin--a basically dead language, which no one outside Vatican City speaks anymore. Most people wouldn't know or necessarily care what it would mean, were it not explained and translated every single dang time. Dittos for CE.
As you yourself pointed out, Chris, "CE" can have more than one definition as you see fit. One could easlily say the same for "AD".
As you yourself pointed out, Chris, "CE" can have more than one definition as you see fit. One could easlily say the same for "AD".
As mentioned above, Rush, botany, medicine and law all use Latin terms on a daily basis. As long as people continue to speak, learn and use a language it is not dead. Latin may be archaic, but it is most certainly not dead. I do not speak Latin at all but I'm sure I can rattle off a dozen or more Latin terms without much difficulty, as I'm sure you can.
Any high-school educated person, even one who watches medical and legal dramas, should be able to do the same.
Latin is part of the genetics of English. Anyone who's familiar with words like "annual" and "dominion," and is capable of thinking about how words are related to each other, should be able to extrapolate what "Anno Domini" means. But then, that's the best reason why Latin should still be taught in school -- because studying it is a great foundation for learning how to analyze words and their relationships, and that improves one's understanding of English. (That and it's great for improving mental discipline, pattern recognition, and memory in general.)
Memento: mens sana in corpore sano!
Latin is also the root language for Spanish, Portuguese Italian and French, IIR my linguistics class correctly.
^ Just a guess: "remember: a sound mind is a sound body"?
Christopher, that's a good way of explaining the difference but that makes it sound like a conscious rejection of Christian imagery rather than a simple evolution of language because people are threatened (not unfairly) by the power Christianity has thrown around. In actual fact, the days of the week/months of the year are just as much endorsement of Germanic/Latinate deities as Anno Domini. But if (somehow) the situation was reversed, and Nordic pantheism was the dominant cultural force, would there be an effort to rename the days of the week?
It seems strange that the Church ends up being the one less threatened by artifacts of other religions since there was never (to my knowledge) any real effort to rename the days of the week or months of the yeaer into something "properly Christian."
Christopher, that's a good way of explaining the difference but that makes it sound like a conscious rejection of Christian imagery rather than a simple evolution of language because people are threatened (not unfairly) by the power Christianity has thrown around. In actual fact, the days of the week/months of the year are just as much endorsement of Germanic/Latinate deities as Anno Domini. But if (somehow) the situation was reversed, and Nordic pantheism was the dominant cultural force, would there be an effort to rename the days of the week?
It seems strange that the Church ends up being the one less threatened by artifacts of other religions since there was never (to my knowledge) any real effort to rename the days of the week or months of the yeaer into something "properly Christian."
Yep, and Romanian, Catalan, and various other more obscure ones, collectively known as Romance languages.
"Annual Dominion"? Perhaps..."Year in Command"--i.e., the current year?
Almost. "Remember: a healthy mind in a healthy body". The point was an exhortation to take care of both your body and your mind.
You call Piedmontese "obscure", I call it "charmingly uncommon".
quis custodiet custodes?
"I do," replied Vimes.
"Ah, but who watches you, Commander?"
"I watch myself."
cogito ergo sum.
"I do," replied Vimes.
"Ah, but who watches you, Commander?"
"I watch myself."
cogito ergo sum.
Not a rejection of Christianity -- an inclusion of everything else. Christians are just one religion out of many. They're 25-30 percent of the human species, not 100 percent. Just because Christians aren't given special exclusive privilege, that doesn't mean they're being persecuted or rejected. It just means that NOBODY ELSE IS EITHER. Why is that so hard to understand? This isn't a zero-sum game. It's utter rubbish to say that if Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and atheists and the like are not being persecuted, then Christians therefore are being persecuted. The point is to persecute no one, to treat Christians on a par with everyone else. It's incredibly obnoxious to suggest that Christians are somehow being cheated or violated by being treated as equals rather than superiors.
Argue all you want, but CE/BCE is a widely accepted norm today. It's not some fringe proposal, it's increasingly the standard. And it's been around for centuries within Christendom as an accepted alternative for AD/BC, so it's a lie to claim it's somehow anti-Christian. This whole argument is ridiculous.
Nolo contendere. Non sequitur. Habeas corpus. Quid pro quo. Amicus curiae. Ipso facto. Pro bono. Res ipsa loquitur. Ex post facto. Ad hoc. Mea culpa. In vino veritas. In nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Veni, vidi, vici. Illegitimi non carborundum. Ooscray ooyay.
Ah, Discworld, my old friend. Where have you been?
Rather than take up any more of my valuable BBS time by wading through 14 pages of posts, I'll just say what has already probably been said by offering that Christopher's Trek book was written for the benefit of English language-speaking human beings on Earth in the year 2011, the vast overwhelming majority of which might use AD but also understand CE.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Fuck.
<sigh> Sorry Christopher, I must have worded that poorly because I certainly would rather not accuse you of reading things in that weren't there. You know what's obnoxious, it's being treated like a fire-breathing fundamentalist that's fighting the "War on Christmas." And are you really saying that BC/AD is persecution towards Jews/Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists/Atheists/etc?
As you said it's ultimately a moot point and BCE/CE works very well, but something you said about inclusiveness is rattling around in the back of my head. Something about the way we're approaching this, and I'd rather add more cultural/religious referents to the soup we have than take any ingredient away from it, but I'm having a hard time formulating what I'm trying to say. Instead of making a bland "one size fits all" designation (that ultimately uses the same reference point, just chooses not to acknowledge it), let's add more cultural markers to the blend. Something like that, maybe it'll come to me later.
Also: Christendom is dead despite the necromantic efforts of the right wing in the US and other places, and it deserved to die. Christendom =/ Christianity, as I'm sure the Hugeonots and Anabaptists and Quakers and Copts would tell you. Not to mention every non-Christian (and probably every non-white) group it ran across.
As you said it's ultimately a moot point and BCE/CE works very well, but something you said about inclusiveness is rattling around in the back of my head. Something about the way we're approaching this, and I'd rather add more cultural/religious referents to the soup we have than take any ingredient away from it, but I'm having a hard time formulating what I'm trying to say. Instead of making a bland "one size fits all" designation (that ultimately uses the same reference point, just chooses not to acknowledge it), let's add more cultural markers to the blend. Something like that, maybe it'll come to me later.
Also: Christendom is dead despite the necromantic efforts of the right wing in the US and other places, and it deserved to die. Christendom =/ Christianity, as I'm sure the Hugeonots and Anabaptists and Quakers and Copts would tell you. Not to mention every non-Christian (and probably every non-white) group it ran across.
- Status