How do you write the date?

[J N Winkler]

With AD and BC the convention for many years was to write BC after the year and AD before the year (e.g., "44 BC," "AD 64").  In full in English the phrase goes something like "in the year of our Lord 1066."

Another comparatively recent change in terminology is the substitution of "late antiquity" for "Dark Ages."  The latter phrase is considered both pejorative and historically inaccurate given the technological changes that occurred during the period, such as introduction of the horse collar, moldboard plow, three-field crop rotation system, etc.

[jwolfer]

Another comparatively recent change in terminology is the substitution of "late antiquity" for "Dark Ages."  The latter phrase is considered both pejorative and historically inaccurate given the technological changes...

Are we hurting anyone's self esteem/feelings or being insensitive by saying Dark Ages?



Z981

[michravera]

"2018.01.23" except in school districts where I use "1/23/18".

[Beltway]

I write it 2018 C.E.

Hunh?

Mike

People who object to "BC"  and "AD"  often use "BCE"  and "CE,"  respectively, to denote "Before Common Era"  and "Common Era."  I suppose you could suggest that since Jesus is generally agreed to have been a real person, regardless of whether you believe he should be assigned any religious significance, it could be appropriate to date the years as before and after his estimated birth (you wouldn't use "Christ"  because that's a title–his parents weren't Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Christ). Problem with that is, "Before Jesus"  would lead to an unfortunate abbreviation:
"Julius Caesar was assassinated on March 15, 44 BJ."  
"Hmmm. I hadn't realized assassination was a happy ending."

There were many people named Jesus back then in Israel.

The one we are referring to is fully named Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus Christ.

[J N Winkler]

Are we hurting anyone's self esteem/feelings or being insensitive by saying Dark Ages?

Not at all:  we merely make it harder for ourselves to see the technological progress that actually occurred.

[jakeroot]

In full in English the phrase goes something like "in the year of our Lord 1066."

Interesting year to use for your example.

[Beltway]

Are we hurting anyone's self esteem/feelings or being insensitive by saying Dark Ages?

Not at all:  we merely make it harder for ourselves to see the technological progress that actually occurred.

It was much more than technological, here is how Encyclopædia Britannica defines it --

Migration period, also called Dark Ages or Early Middle Ages, the early medieval period of western European history–specifically, the time (476—800 ce) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West or, more generally, the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. The name of the period refers to the movement of so-called barbarian peoples–including the Huns, Goths, Vandals, Bulgars, Alani, Suebi, and Franks–into what had been the Western Roman Empire. The term "Dark Ages"  is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies. Though sometimes taken to derive its meaning from the dearth of information about the period, the term's more usual and pejorative sense is of a period of intellectual darkness and barbarity.

...
Add to that the deep decline and corruption of the institutional church, and the massive plagues.

[Stephane Dumas]

I write 2018-1-28.

[1995hoo]

I write it 2018 C.E.

Hunh?

Mike

People who object to "BC"  and "AD"  often use "BCE"  and "CE,"  respectively, to denote "Before Common Era"  and "Common Era."  I suppose you could suggest that since Jesus is generally agreed to have been a real person, regardless of whether you believe he should be assigned any religious significance, it could be appropriate to date the years as before and after his estimated birth (you wouldn't use "Christ"  because that's a title–his parents weren't Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Christ). Problem with that is, "Before Jesus"  would lead to an unfortunate abbreviation:
"Julius Caesar was assassinated on March 15, 44 BJ."  
"Hmmm. I hadn't realized assassination was a happy ending."

There were many people named Jesus back then in Israel.

The one we are referring to is fully named Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus Christ.

Your first sentence is correct, but–no offense–your second sentence misses the point in the context of the "BCE"/"CE" usage. "Christ" is a religious term–it's derived from a Greek translation of a Hebrew word meaning "anointed" that's usually rendered in English as "Messiah." It's not part of his name, and that's one reason why people whose use of "BCE" is predicated on religious grounds use that form. Otherwise, they could just use "BC" if "Christ" were part of his name–but if you feel strongly about him not being the Messiah, then you wouldn't use "BC."

[jwolfer]

I write it 2018 C.E.

Hunh?

Mike

People who object to "BC"  and "AD"  often use "BCE"  and "CE,"  respectively, to denote "Before Common Era"  and "Common Era."  I suppose you could suggest that since Jesus is generally agreed to have been a real person, regardless of whether you believe he should be assigned any religious significance, it could be appropriate to date the years as before and after his estimated birth (you wouldn't use "Christ"  because that's a title–his parents weren't Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Christ). Problem with that is, "Before Jesus"  would lead to an unfortunate abbreviation:
"Julius Caesar was assassinated on March 15, 44 BJ."  
"Hmmm. I hadn't realized assassination was a happy ending."

There were many people named Jesus back then in Israel.

The one we are referring to is fully named Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus Christ.

Your first sentence is correct, but–no offense–your second sentence misses the point in the context of the "BCE"/"CE" usage. "Christ" is a religious term–it's derived from a Greek translation of a Hebrew word meaning "anointed" that's usually rendered in English as "Messiah." It's not part of his name, and that's one reason why people whose use of "BCE" is predicated on religious grounds use that form. Otherwise, they could just use "BC" if "Christ" were part of his name–but if you feel strongly about him not being the Messiah, then you wouldn't use "BC."

Also not everyone is Christian or from a Christian background.. with that being said getting all offended by BC and AD is silly.  Using the terms doesn't acknowledge the divinity of Christ or the existence of God any more than saying you are taking a trip to Salvador, Brazil.

Z981

[wanderer2575]

When writing (including electronic correspondence):  01/28/2018.  Always eight digits with a leading zero if needed, mm/dd/yyyy.

But when saving computer files, YYYYMMDD followed by any description elements.  This sorts my files chronologically when looking at directories.

[bmorrill]

28 January 2018, 28 /1/2018 or occasionally a Roman numeral (28/I/2018) for the month.  All resulting from having grown up in Germany in the 1950s. Also do dashes sometimes depending on space available and mood, but usually the first format, and I never abbreviate the month.

[MikeTheActuary]

Today is 28 January 2018, or in short form 2018-01-28.

[NWI_Irish96]

I write it 2018 C.E.

Hunh?

Mike

People who object to "BC"  and "AD"  often use "BCE"  and "CE,"  respectively, to denote "Before Common Era"  and "Common Era."  I suppose you could suggest that since Jesus is generally agreed to have been a real person, regardless of whether you believe he should be assigned any religious significance, it could be appropriate to date the years as before and after his estimated birth (you wouldn't use "Christ"  because that's a title–his parents weren't Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Christ). Problem with that is, "Before Jesus"  would lead to an unfortunate abbreviation:
"Julius Caesar was assassinated on March 15, 44 BJ."  
"Hmmm. I hadn't realized assassination was a happy ending."

There were many people named Jesus back then in Israel.

The one we are referring to is fully named Jesus Christ or the Lord Jesus Christ.

Your first sentence is correct, but–no offense–your second sentence misses the point in the context of the "BCE"/"CE" usage. "Christ" is a religious term–it's derived from a Greek translation of a Hebrew word meaning "anointed" that's usually rendered in English as "Messiah." It's not part of his name, and that's one reason why people whose use of "BCE" is predicated on religious grounds use that form. Otherwise, they could just use "BC" if "Christ" were part of his name–but if you feel strongly about him not being the Messiah, then you wouldn't use "BC."

Even if you use CE/BCE instead of BC/AD, you're still basing the numbering system on the birth of Jesus (though off by a few years).  If BC/AD really offends someone that much, then they should just not use that reference point at all.  Call this year 5778 if you're Jewish or 4,540,002,018 if you're atheist/agnostic.

[Scott5114]

Even if you use CE/BCE instead of BC/AD, you're still basing the numbering system on the birth of Jesus (though off by a few years).  If BC/AD really offends someone that much, then they should just not use that reference point at all.  Call this year 5778 if you're Jewish or 4,540,002,018 if you're atheist/agnostic.

Except nobody knows what 4,540,002,018 is supposed to refer to, and won't fly on legal documents (or really any other type of document that has to be shared with anyone). As you point out, Jesus was theoretically born 4 to 6 years before 1 AD, so 0001-01-01 is a fairly arbitrary date anyway (akin to the arbitrary selection of 1970-01-01 as the epoch by which Unix-style dates are calculated).

ISO 8601's solution to the problem is to refer to 1 BC as 0000, 2 BC as —0001, and so on, which seems like a rational enough way of solving the problem to me.

[1995hoo]

The points you guys are making are the reason why some people use "BCE" and "CE"–basically, those abbreviations are a way of saying something like, "OK, this system for dating the years is widely accepted and I have no problem with that, but I don't want to use the religious-based terminology." Doesn't bother me. I seldom have reason to distinguish between BC and AD anyway (as I'm sure is true for most of us unless someone teaches ancient history). I don't care if someone else prefers "BCE"/"CE" as long as that person doesn't complain if I use "BC"/"AD."

[CNGL-Leudimin]

Even if you use CE/BCE instead of BC/AD, you're still basing the numbering system on the birth of Jesus (though off by a few years).  If BC/AD really offends someone that much, then they should just not use that reference point at all.  Call this year 5778 if you're Jewish or 13,800,002,018 if you're atheist/agnostic.

FTFY .

[NWI_Irish96]

Even if you use CE/BCE instead of BC/AD, you're still basing the numbering system on the birth of Jesus (though off by a few years).  If BC/AD really offends someone that much, then they should just not use that reference point at all.  Call this year 5778 if you're Jewish or 13,800,002,018 if you're atheist/agnostic.

FTFY .

Was going by age of earth not age of universe since what is being measured are earth years.

[Scott5114]

It could always be worse. The Japanese calendar resets to 1 every time a new Emperor takes the throne. The current year there is 30. There is a "era name" that gets attached when you need to define which Emperor you're talking about (so it's currently "Heisei 30" or "H30" if you need to be more precise).

The current Emperor is planning to retire in April 2019, so the year is only going to get up to 31. The year 31 will only have January through April, then the year will reset to 1, which will have only May through December, with year 2 starting on January 1, 2020.

The only nice thing about this system is that you don't have to write a lot of numbers: the highest the year ever has gotten is 64!

[english si]

I can never remember if the u goes before the o; I'm terrible at remembering multiple-vowel spellings, except for "beautiful".

Worst case example is asking me to spell that piece of furniture / government department that begins with B and I'll mentally spell it buryirow if there's no spell-checker

Damn Norman Yoke making French seem fantastically fashionable for the bourgeoisie!

Then again, the Celtic languages (well Q-Celtic ones like Gàidhlig and Gaeilge) love their multiple vowels and while they are phonetic (with different phonemes to English - cf Siobhan 'shivon') they have often loads of letters Dún Laoghaire is pronounced Dunleary. However, unlike the French-based English spellings, those long formations aren't pointless and the extra letters merely about showing off - two good English examples being Cholmondeley (pronounced Chum-lee), Beaulieu (Bew-lee) and both are frivolous spellings of names rather than the name being shortened but spelt the same (Gloucester = Gloster, etc).

The Webster dictionary/American mindset mostly got rid of/didn't readd such things, unlike the Oxford dictionary/British mindset. cf the difference between Peterborough, England and Greensboro, NC or colour/color.

Are we hurting anyone's self esteem/feelings or being insensitive by saying Dark Ages?

No, but snowflakes aren't the only reason to change prejudicial terms.

Medievalists really don't like terms like 'Dark Ages' and 'Middle Ages' not only as they play down their favourite era as irrelevant, but as they elevate the classical and modern eras, especially the latter. These notions feed myths in society - trying to build a golden age by either chasing Greco-Roman culture, or (more common now) purging the past as progress is the key. We have terms like "Renaissance" (returning to a distant past thinking that's better than modernity) and "Enlightenment" (saying we are better than everyone before) for periods at the end of the Middle Ages and start of the Modern Era respectively for a reason - we re-found what made the 'classical' period (ie antiquity) 'classic' and then we became Enlightened beyond it. Antiquity is the start of history, Modernity is the End of History, we are the pinnacle of history apparently.

Emphasising the classical period as better than what came afterwards pushed for Empire and 'civilisation' of barbarians, emphasising the modern period as better than what came before pushed for totalitarian pushes for a future with mass murders of those who wouldn't get with the modernisation programme, vandalism of the past's treasures, etc, etc. Historians take a step back, try and see things from outside our time-bound culture (CS Lewis talks of 'the Breeze of the Centuries' cleaning out the cobwebs in your mind), and want to address our destructive narcissistic myths of self-importance - and one of those is viewing the period in Europe / Middle East / North Africa between ~400 and ~1600 as just the stuff that comes in-between.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

It could always be worse. The Japanese calendar resets to 1 every time a new Emperor takes the throne. The current year there is 30. There is a "era name" that gets attached when you need to define which Emperor you're talking about (so it's currently "Heisei 30" or "H30" if you need to be more precise).

The current Emperor is planning to retire in April 2019, so the year is only going to get up to 31. The year 31 will only have January through April, then the year will reset to 1, which will have only May through December, with year 2 starting on January 1, 2020.

The only nice thing about this system is that you don't have to write a lot of numbers: the highest the year ever has gotten is 64!

Date and time is a social construct, if you think about it.

[CNGL-Leudimin]

The only nice thing about this system is that you don't have to write a lot of numbers: the highest the year ever has gotten is 64!

The Showa era (the previous to the current one) got that far. Interestingly enough, Showa 64 lasted just seven days, as the Showa Emperor (Hiro Hito) died on January 7, 1989 and thus from January 8 onwards the year was known as Heisei 1 instead.

[formulanone]

It could always be worse. The Japanese calendar resets to 1 every time a new Emperor takes the throne. The current year there is 30. There is a "era name" that gets attached when you need to define which Emperor you're talking about (so it's currently "Heisei 30" or "H30" if you need to be more precise).

The current Emperor is planning to retire in April 2019, so the year is only going to get up to 31. The year 31 will only have January through April, then the year will reset to 1, which will have only May through December, with year 2 starting on January 1, 2020.

The only nice thing about this system is that you don't have to write a lot of numbers: the highest the year ever has gotten is 64!

The only drawback is that you have to remember new kanji, but after that, you're set for a while.

I forget if we wrote month (月) before day (日) in class, it's been a few decades...but I recall the reign+year came first.

[Scott5114]

It could always be worse. The Japanese calendar resets to 1 every time a new Emperor takes the throne. The current year there is 30. There is a "era name" that gets attached when you need to define which Emperor you're talking about (so it's currently "Heisei 30" or "H30" if you need to be more precise).

The current Emperor is planning to retire in April 2019, so the year is only going to get up to 31. The year 31 will only have January through April, then the year will reset to 1, which will have only May through December, with year 2 starting on January 1, 2020.

The only nice thing about this system is that you don't have to write a lot of numbers: the highest the year ever has gotten is 64!

The only drawback is that you have to remember new kanji, but after that, you're set for a while.

Sure, but you also have to remember the order the kanji came in and how long each era was. If someone was born in Showa 59, how old are they? You can't just subtract–you have to know that Showa was immediately before Heisei and how long Showa lasted before you can do the math.

[webny99]

Sure, but you also have to remember the order the kanji came in and how long each era was. If someone was born in Showa 59, how old are they? You can't just subtract–you have to know that Showa was immediately before Heisei and how long Showa lasted before you can do the math.

I'm going to make a totally absurd and totally random connection between this and the "mileage vs. sequential" exit number debate. One requires memory (or contextual knowledge), the other doesn't. Obviously, we prefer not to use our memories unless we have to