qurgh:

I mostly use {tera' DIS} when talking about current Earth time

Initially, I thought of using the {tera' DIS}; but the problem is that if I say {tera' DIS wa' vatlh}, then how would someone know if I mean "100 c.e." and not "100 b.c.e." ? Now that I think of it again, perhaps we could say something like {wa' vatlh DIS qaSpa' tera' DIS pagh} for "100 years b.c.e.", and {wa' vatlh DIS qaSpu'DI' tera' DIS pagh} for "100 years c.e." But the problem is, are the above understood by the average reader ? If you read these, would you understand what I'm trying to say ? qunnoq On Sep 22, 2017 7:48 PM, "qurgh lungqIj" <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

tera' DIS... ;)

I use "CE" instead of "AD". That could be {bov motlh}, but I mostly use {tera' DIS} when talking about current Earth time.

qurgh

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:44 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Can someone tell me how to say in klingon "Anno Domini" ?

I know we can say {qeylIS bov nubwI'} for "before the era of qeylIS". So initially I thought of saying {christ bov cho'wI'}.

But then I realized that the verb {cho'} means "to succeed to authority", and not "to succeed (in general)".

So, I came up with {christ bov bov veb} for "the next era of the era of christ".

I think this is correct, but again I'm not certain..

Would you understand it if you saw it, without knowing the intended meaning ? Can you think of something better ? And if you can, can you tell me too ?

qunnoq

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

Another interesting question which came to mind is the following.. Do we always need to say {tera' DIS wa'-wa'-pagh-pagh} for "1100" (c.e. or b.c.e.), or can we say too {tera' DIS wa' SaD wa' vatlh} ? qunnoq On Sep 22, 2017 8:23 PM, "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.

I don't know if I'd get "100 BCE" from {wa' vatlh DIS qaSpa' tera' DIS pagh} if we hadn't had had this conversation first (or there was more context included). 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. There's got to be a better way to say it.

Maybe {tera' DIS wa'-pagh-pagh qaSpa' bov motlh, jagh luHIv} - "Terran year 100, before the usual era happened, they attacked the enemy". I'm not a fan of that either really.

qurgh

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:00 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

qurgh:

...

I mostly use {tera' DIS} when talking about current Earth time

Initially, I thought of using the {tera' DIS}; but the problem is that if I say {tera' DIS wa' vatlh}, then how would someone know if I mean "100 c.e." and not "100 b.c.e." ?

Now that I think of it again, perhaps we could say something like {wa' vatlh DIS qaSpa' tera' DIS pagh} for "100 years b.c.e.", and {wa' vatlh DIS qaSpu'DI' tera' DIS pagh} for "100 years c.e."

But the problem is, are the above understood by the average reader ? If you read these, would you understand what I'm trying to say ?

qunnoq

On Sep 22, 2017 7:48 PM, "qurgh lungqIj" <qurgh@wizage.net> wrote:

...

tera' DIS... ;)

I use "CE" instead of "AD". That could be {bov motlh}, but I mostly use {tera' DIS} when talking about current Earth time.

qurgh

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:44 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Can someone tell me how to say in klingon "Anno Domini" ?

I know we can say {qeylIS bov nubwI'} for "before the era of qeylIS". So initially I thought of saying {christ bov cho'wI'}.

But then I realized that the verb {cho'} means "to succeed to authority", and not "to succeed (in general)".

So, I came up with {christ bov bov veb} for "the next era of the era of christ".

I think this is correct, but again I'm not certain..

Would you understand it if you saw it, without knowing the intended meaning ? Can you think of something better ? And if you can, can you tell me too ?

qunnoq

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

_______________________________________________ tlhIngan-Hol mailing list tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org

AFAIK all Terran dates are read in cardinal numbers, as if you’re reading each digit individually (e.g. 2-0-1-7): TM, ® (c) je tera' DIS wa'-Hut-Hut-loS Paramount Pictures. TM, ® c.1994 Paramount Pictures. (SkyBox Copyright) tera' poH jaj wa', jar wa', jaj loSDIch, DIS wa'-Hut-Hut-chorgh: HovpoHvetlh latlh nab yIHutlh Save this Stardate: Sunday, January 4, 1998. (STX) tera' jar Soch, DIS wa' Hut jav Hut, maSDaq SaqmeH Qu' wa'DIch HochHom turlu'taHvIS, wej logh lengwI'pu' pa'mey 'oH APOLLO wa'maH wa' ra'ghom bobcho' COLOMBIA'e'. The Apollo 11 Command Module, Columbia, was the living quarters for the three-person crew during most of the first manned lunar landing mission in July 1969. (NASM) This also applies to century names: tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH loS bIyIn jeSlaHpa' Hoch Be the first to journey to the 24th century. (STX) … qItI'nga' Duj. tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom lo'lu'taH the K'Tinga-class remained in use for most of the 23rd century. (S15) tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH loS bong QongmeH qItI'nga' Duj tI'ang ghompu' DIvI' 'ejDo' 'entepray' A sleeper ship of this [K'Tinga] class, the T'Ong, was encountered in the 24th century by the USS Enterprise. (S15) jIvIb. qaSDI’ vatlh DIS poH cha’maH Hut, jImev. I time-travel to the 29th century. (lit. “I time-travel into the future. When Century 29 happens, I stop.”) (qep'a' 2016) Note the ordinal number isn’t used: cha’maH loS not *cha’maH loSDIch. The one exception I know of was the Klingon date in the “Message To Kronos” where the number was read in decimal groups, not individual digits: poH tuj bI'reS nungbogh wa' jaj qeylIS DIS chorghvatlh loSmaH jav qaStaHvIS [sic] In the days that follow the summer solstice in the Year of Kahless 846. ('u'-MTK) N.B. chorghvatlh loSmaH jav “eight-hundred forty six” NOT chorgh-loS-jav “eight four six”. Is this because it’s a Klingon date, as opposed to those peculiar Terran dates? Or because it’s part of a dating formula, “the Year of Kahless”? Or because it’s a relatively low number (say under a thousand)? --Voragh That I don't know. The Skybox canon suggests that we should spell out the dates. I don't know of other date canon (although I wouldn't be surprised if there was something in Monopoly). Perhaps Voragh may be able to help us in that area. qurgh On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:30 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: Another interesting question which came to mind is the following.. Do we always need to say {tera' DIS wa'-wa'-pagh-pagh} for "1100" (c.e. or b.c.e.), or can we say too {tera' DIS wa' SaD wa' vatlh} ? qunnoq On Sep 22, 2017 8:23 PM, "qurgh lungqIj" <qurgh@wizage.net<mailto: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. I don't know if I'd get "100 BCE" from {wa' vatlh DIS qaSpa' tera' DIS pagh} if we hadn't had had this conversation first (or there was more context included). 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. There's got to be a better way to say it. Maybe {tera' DIS wa'-pagh-pagh qaSpa' bov motlh, jagh luHIv} - "Terran year 100, before the usual era happened, they attacked the enemy". I'm not a fan of that either really. qurgh On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:00 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: qurgh:

I mostly use {tera' DIS} when talking about current Earth time

Initially, I thought of using the {tera' DIS}; but the problem is that if I say {tera' DIS wa' vatlh}, then how would someone know if I mean "100 c.e." and not "100 b.c.e." ? Now that I think of it again, perhaps we could say something like {wa' vatlh DIS qaSpa' tera' DIS pagh} for "100 years b.c.e.", and {wa' vatlh DIS qaSpu'DI' tera' DIS pagh} for "100 years c.e." But the problem is, are the above understood by the average reader ? If you read these, would you understand what I'm trying to say ? qunnoq On Sep 22, 2017 7:48 PM, "qurgh lungqIj" <qurgh@wizage.net<mailto:qurgh@wizage.net>> wrote: tera' DIS... ;) I use "CE" instead of "AD". That could be {bov motlh}, but I mostly use {tera' DIS} when talking about current Earth time. qurgh On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:44 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com<mailto:mihkoun@gmail.com>> wrote: Can someone tell me how to say in klingon "Anno Domini" ? I know we can say {qeylIS bov nubwI'} for "before the era of qeylIS". So initially I thought of saying {christ bov cho'wI'}. But then I realized that the verb {cho'} means "to succeed to authority", and not "to succeed (in general)". So, I came up with {christ bov bov veb} for "the next era of the era of christ". I think this is correct, but again I'm not certain.. Would you understand it if you saw it, without knowing the intended meaning ? Can you think of something better ? And if you can, can you tell me too ? qunnoq

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

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@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@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

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:26 PM, mayqel qunenoS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:

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

I feel that same way about AD/BC. If you are a Christian, or familiar with Christendom, then those terms make sense. If you aren't familiar with that religion, then you'd have to Google this "Christ" person to figure out that the dates have something to do with when some people claim he was born. Since Greek culture is heavily Christian it makes sense for you, but for someone in a non-Christian culture, they won't know what you are talking about. There's even some cultures on Earth that don't use the AD/CE-BC/BCE calendar at all. I'm not saying you shouldn't say it the way you want to say it, I'm just pointing out that AD/BC isn't universal either. qurgh

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:55 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 9/22/2017 2:35 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:

I feel that same way about AD/BC. If you are a Christian, or familiar with Christendom, then those terms make sense. If you aren't familiar with that religion, then you'd have to Google this "Christ" person to figure out that the dates have something to do with when some people claim he was born. Since Greek culture is heavily Christian it makes sense for you, but for someone in a non-Christian culture, they won't know what you are talking about. There's even some cultures on Earth that don't use the AD/CE-BC/BCE calendar at all.

And yet the Skybox cards call their dates *tera' DIS,* as if they are used by the whole planet.

As children, most Americans have no idea what A.D. stands for, and some don't know what B.C. stands for. That doesn't stop them from saying *AD* and *BC,* though. *CE* and *BCE* are largely reserved for publications, and then only the more scholarly sorts. You don't need to know anything about Christ or Christianity to use *AD* or *BC*, or to use Christ as an epoch.

Keeping time is largely a matter of convention, not logic. You don't need to understand conventions to use them

Yup, the Skybox cards made an assumption and a generalization as well. Just the same way as the generalization of "Federation Standard" means everyone speaks English. As someone who works directly with an American school system I know for a fact that they teach children these days to use CE and BCE only. They don't teach them AD and BC at all anymore. If you don't know your calendar has something to do with Christ, then using the name "Christ" in your date isn't useful. Keeping time is a matter of convention, and while you don't need to understand a convention to use it, you do need to understand a convention to translate it into something that can be used by another culture. If you go to Iran, for example, you'd need to know the difference between the convention of the Gregorian calendar and the convention of the Solar Hijri calendar to be able to communicate when things happened in the past. As I said before, I'm not trying to get anyone to use a specific date system, just to be aware that if you use religious terminology in your dates that some people may not understand. qurgh

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:54 PM, SuStel <sustel@trimboli.name> wrote:

On 9/22/2017 3:15 PM, qurgh lungqIj wrote:

...

As someone who works directly with an American school system I know for a fact that they teach children these days to use CE and BCE only. They don't teach them AD and BC at all anymore.

They've also been teaching metric for decades. They taught it to me in the late '70s. A lot of good that's done.

They taught me in the 80s and that's what I prefer to use (along with most of the rest of the world).

As I said before, I'm not trying to get anyone to use a specific date

...

system, just to be aware that if you use religious terminology in your dates that some people may not understand.

They'll understand perfectly well. I'm pretty sure everyone who knows what CE and BCE mean know that they're substitutions for AD and BC. I'm also pretty sure if I went up to my teenage niece and quoted a date with "CE" at the end, she'd say "What's CE?" but if I said "AD" she'd know what I meant, whether or not she knows what AD stands for or what it means. I think I actually HAD this conversation with her a few years ago.

I just spoke to a recent graduate of the school district I work with and they knew BCE and CE, but had no idea what AD/BC was. It all depends on the school district since the US education system is not standardized, it's down to each state to determine was it taught. You're assume something about the whole country based on the school district your niece goes to.

You're looking at things in an idealized, "that's what we teach and that's how it should be" kind of way, but that's not how it is.

No, I'm pointing out that A is being taught as well, so people who think only B is being taught should be aware of the fact that there are multiple systems in use.

So when mayqel asks for how to state dates as part of the "era of Christ," the answer isn't "you shouldn't mention Christ because some people may not understand." You can do what I did and translate it literally, or you can do what others did and look at how Klingons have stated Terran dates. But no one who thinks the current year is 2017 is going to be confused by "era of Christ." They know. Whether that's how you SHOULD say it or not, you'll be understood.

My answer was "Here's how I do it" ({tera' DIS}) based on Skybox canon (I guess you missed those emails), to which I then followed up with "Oh, and btw, there are these other systems out there that you should be aware of that could lead to confusion when using the name of a specific religious figure in your dating system". Unlike you, I don't assume people have knowledge. If you don't like the way I respond to things, maybe you should just ignore me and be on your way instead of telling people how they should or shouldn't respond to a question. It's not your job to judge others responses. qurgh

As someone who works directly with an American school system I know for a fact that they teach children these days to use CE and BCE only. They don't teach them AD and BC at all anymore. If you don't know your calendar has something to do with Christ, then using the name "Christ" in your date isn't useful.

puqpu'wI' vIyu'. puqpu'wI' DuSaQDaq BC/AD lo'. not CE/BCE Qoy. DloraH