Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Biff the unclean · 06-13-2003, 10:17 AM

You might just want to point out that AD and BC have fallen out of use in the past couple of decades. These days we have CE standing for "Common Era" and BCE for "Before Common Era"

Shake · 06-13-2003, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
You might just want to point out that AD and BC have fallen out of use in the past couple of decades. These days we have CE standing for "Common Era" and BCE for "Before Common Era"

... which you have to admit are still rather silly, since they're still based on the supposed birth of Christ. Why not use the Chinese calendar? I suppose it's all too ingrained in Western society now to change, though.

I'd use CE and BCE if they were based on something more concrete. I mean, what changed that made the past ~2000 years a "common" era?

Tau · 06-13-2003, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jinto
Congratulations to Tau, Amaranth, and mike_decock from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Hey, my post wasn't redundant! I got here first!

This post, on the other hand, is redundant.

Biff the unclean · 06-13-2003, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shake
... which you have to admit are still rather silly, since they're still based on the supposed birth of Christ. Why not use the Chinese calendar? I suppose it's all too ingrained in Western society now to change, though.

I'd use CE and BCE if they were based on something more concrete. I mean, what changed that made the past ~2000 years a "common" era?

Yeah, that's true.
Technically it's based on the commonly accepted date, which in turn is based on Jesus' birth. It's supposed to get rid of the myth without causing undue confusion or expense. Maybe when we change to "Star Date" we can fix it.
Anyway, those bible scholar types, who think there was an historic Jesus at all, are all convinced that when Dennis the Short made the calendar he screwed it up. Jesus is now supposed to have been born in 4 or 7 or 14 BCE. Which puts the old kibosh on BC & AD no matter what you do

emotional · 06-13-2003, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
As far as how much time elapsed, some guy a long time ago (can't remember his name; someone else can provide it) used the genealogies of the old testament to calculate the supposed date of creation - and I think his answer was 4004 B.C. He might have even given an exact date.

James Ussher, primate (!) of Ireland, calculated the 4004 BC date. His contemporary John Lightfoot fixed the time and date of creation at 9 AM on the 23rd of October. They both lived in the 17th century, BG - Before Geology destroyed the whole nice scheme.

NonHomogenized · 06-13-2003, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thesouphead
This is becoming to become a reoccurring occurrence.

It's deja vu all over again!

Rational BAC · 06-13-2003, 08:15 PM

Actually I like this thread.

Exactly when did BCE and CE replace BC and AD?

It seems to have just sprung up mysteriously to confuse all us old pharts.

Language does do these strange twists and turns sometimes ======and here we all have a fairly recent transformation---which should be easily explainable.

N'est-ce pas?

Neato!!!

I love language and how it transforms.---sometimes without any noticeable reason.

Any input into the exact years of this very significant change and why it happened and under what circumstances it happened will be greatly appreciated by this former language major.

This is a challenge to all the academics in languages out there. =====

===We actually have history in the making here (at least in a linguistic sense). And very recent history at that. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to try and understand how languages change and why languages change.

Do not undermine my faith concerning this very academic discussion on this sometimes very academic forum.

Go for it guys!!!!!!!!!!!!

Demigawd · 06-13-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Exactly when did BCE and CE replace BC and AD?

I don't know the exact date, but it can be traced to when western academia finally realized that there was this thing called Earth, and on this "Earth", there was multiple religions that didn't exactly jive with western Europian christian mythology. So, to describe history in terms of BC and AD was a christian-centric concete. Therefore, BCE and CE were born to keep the same time-line without the religious overtones.

Neat, eh?

Rational BAC · 06-13-2003, 08:39 PM

Demigawd--

That helps a little bit and thank you for that part.

But you all do realize I hope that this is a MAJOR transformation in language. -------------in an amazingly short period of time.

Why did it happen? Exactly what year did it begin to occur? What publications started the change? And for what reason? For what very specific sociological, historical and cultural reasons did this curious transformation occur?

This is linguistic history in the making. And it should be taken very seriously. We may never, any of us, see the like of this again. This is like the "moon landing" in linguistic history.

IT IS MAJOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All help on this expected and encouraged greatlly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

PS-------What is very interesting about this subject is that most language changes occur from the bottom up.--------over a very LONG period of time. Society and linguists eventually realize that a common usage from the "unwashed masses" has become so popular, that it has to be included in "proper" English.

This one is noticeably different. Came from the top down. I want to know who was the "top" that wanted it taken down to the general populace. And for what reasons? And exactly when?

Rational BAC · 06-13-2003, 09:19 PM

Any change in language that comes "from the top down" worries me greatly.

Exactly the same thing as when "under God" was MANDATED by our very loveable McCarthyist-influenced Congress in the mid 50's.

I have never said "under God" when saying the Pledge and never intend to. -----------because I seriously dislike anyone "mandating" my use of language from the top down in any way at all. Especially anything concerning religion.

Again-----this is very serious. I hope you all take it so.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-13-2003, 10:17 AM	#11
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	You might just want to point out that AD and BC have fallen out of use in the past couple of decades. These days we have CE standing for "Common Era" and BCE for "Before Common Era"

06-13-2003, 08:15 PM	#17
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Actually I like this thread. Exactly when did BCE and CE replace BC and AD? It seems to have just sprung up mysteriously to confuse all us old pharts. Language does do these strange twists and turns sometimes ======and here we all have a fairly recent transformation---which should be easily explainable. N'est-ce pas? Neato!!! I love language and how it transforms.---sometimes without any noticeable reason. Any input into the exact years of this very significant change and why it happened and under what circumstances it happened will be greatly appreciated by this former language major. This is a challenge to all the academics in languages out there. ===== ===We actually have history in the making here (at least in a linguistic sense). And very recent history at that. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to try and understand how languages change and why languages change. Do not undermine my faith concerning this very academic discussion on this sometimes very academic forum. Go for it guys!!!!!!!!!!!!

06-13-2003, 08:39 PM	#19
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Demigawd-- That helps a little bit and thank you for that part. But you all do realize I hope that this is a MAJOR transformation in language. -------------in an amazingly short period of time. Why did it happen? Exactly what year did it begin to occur? What publications started the change? And for what reason? For what very specific sociological, historical and cultural reasons did this curious transformation occur? This is linguistic history in the making. And it should be taken very seriously. We may never, any of us, see the like of this again. This is like the "moon landing" in linguistic history. IT IS MAJOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All help on this expected and encouraged greatlly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PS-------What is very interesting about this subject is that most language changes occur from the bottom up.--------over a very LONG period of time. Society and linguists eventually realize that a common usage from the "unwashed masses" has become so popular, that it has to be included in "proper" English. This one is noticeably different. Came from the top down. I want to know who was the "top" that wanted it taken down to the general populace. And for what reasons? And exactly when?

06-13-2003, 09:19 PM	#20
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Any change in language that comes "from the top down" worries me greatly. Exactly the same thing as when "under God" was MANDATED by our very loveable McCarthyist-influenced Congress in the mid 50's. I have never said "under God" when saying the Pledge and never intend to. -----------because I seriously dislike anyone "mandating" my use of language from the top down in any way at all. Especially anything concerning religion. Again-----this is very serious. I hope you all take it so.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.