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@wizage.net> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:39 PM, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 22, 2017 19:23, "qurgh lungqIj" <qurgh@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@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org