[tlhIngan Hol] Expressing Anno Domini

[mayqel qunenoS]

qurgh:
> Maybe {tera' DIS wa'-pagh-pagh qaSpa' tera' DIS pagh,
> jagh luHIv} - "Terran year 100, before Terran year 0
> happened, they attacked the enemy.", but that still feels
> clunky to me.

I agree. Since the c.e./b.c.e. construction is to be used as part of a
larger sentence, if the construction which someone uses is long, then the
result will probably be a long and difficult to understand sentence.

So, so far, SuStel's {christ bov} -in my opinion- is superior.

As far as the {bov motlh} is concerned, I don't know whether I would
understand it to be "c.e.", unless someone had explained this to me first.

I know it will sound strange, but in Greek there's no c.e./b.c.e. In order
to express the year, someone has to use a.d./b.c. There is no other way,
and if there is, it is so rare, that I have never come across it.

The first time I read "c.e." in english, I had to google it to understand
what it means.. And even then it felt strange. So, reading the {bov motlh},
there is no way I would understand the intented meaning.

Now, qurgh, don't misunderstand me; the {bov motlh} is perfectly
understandable for a native english speaker; it is just that it could be
difficult for someone else, whose native language doesn't use the
c.e./b.c.e. method.

So, as a result of the above, I will use {christ bov nubwI'} for
b.c./b.c.e. and SuStel's {christ bov} for a.d./c.e.

qunnoq

On Sep 22, 2017 8:54 PM, "mayqel qunenoS" <mihkoun at gmail.com> wrote:

> De'vID:
> > What's wrong with {*Christ* bov nubwI' DIS wa'}
>
> It is perfectly fine for expressing "before christ"; but how would you
> express "after christ" ?
>
> qunnoq
>
> On Sep 22, 2017 8:45 PM, "qurgh lungqIj" <qurgh at wizage.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 22, 2017 19:23, "qurgh lungqIj" <qurgh at wizage.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think this is the same as in English. If I say "It happened in the
>>> year 300" no one knows if I mean CE or BCE, but they assume I mean CE.
>>>
>>> If we had an easy way to talk about negative numbers, then I'd use that
>>> for BCE.
>>>
>>>
>>> But BCE years are not negative years. There's no "year zero".
>>>
>>
>> They kind of are though. They increase as you go backwards, just as
>> negative numbers do. I'm not suggesting this is the best way to do it, just
>> how I'd probably chose to do it without any guidance from Maltz.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What's wrong with {*Christ* bov nubwI' DIS wa'} etc?
>>>
>>
>> I'd say it has the same problem that lead to the creation of CE and BCE
>> over AD and BC in the first place. You have to know who, or what, this
>> "Christ" is.
>>
>> qurgh
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tlhIngan-Hol mailing list
>> tlhIngan-Hol at lists.kli.org
>> http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol-kli.org/attachments/20170922/90b783bd/attachment-0016.htm>