LL-L: "Y2K" LOWLANDS-L, 13.DEC.1999 (03) [E]

Tue Dec 14 00:11:19 UTC 1999

 ========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 13.DEC.1999 (03) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/~sassisch/rhahn//lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 =========================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =========================================================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =========================================================================

From: Gerry Mak [Gerry.Mak at aspentech.com]
Subject: Y2K [E]

Ian James Pareley wrote
>
> My understanding of it was always that the first year of our
> era was known
> as "Annus Domini" / "The Year of Our Lord".

I always thought that it refered to "Anno Domini" which translated from
Latin meant (as Ian pointed out) "In the year of our Lord"

Gerrit Mak

----------

From: Edwin Michael Alexander [edsells at idirect.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Y2K" LOWLANDS-L, 13.DEC.1999 (02) [E]

At 08:37 AM 12/13/99 -0800, Ian wrote:
>My understanding of it was always that the first year of our era was known
>as "Annus Domini" / "The Year of Our Lord". Then the second year was known
>as the "Second Year of Our Lord" and so on, which explains why there is no
>year zero. It also explains how next year is the "2000th Year of Our Lord",
>which would indicate the third millennium does not properly start until
>2001. It also gives a lie to the German "n. Chr.", because the counting is
>not actually "after Christ" but rather "of Christ".

Well, you're right - except that it doesn't explain why there is no year
zero.  The word "zero" itself (moving slowly back to the subject of
language) comes from the Arabic word <sifr>, and came along with the
adoptation of the system (originally from India).  The fact that the only
numeral system in use in the 6th century in the West was the Roman Numeral
System is quite sufficient to explain the "no year zero" puzzle.  Perhaps
someone like Floor could correct me, but I think the Roman system is what
we would call "natural numbers" nowadays.

You're right about the new year being March 25 - at least in the year 600
AD.  In think in 1 AD, it was January 1, since that was the official date
used throughout the Empire at that time.

However, it was customary back in those days to number years from the
ascension to the throne of the latest Caesar.  This made the change in the
calendar quite radical, as it changed the common counting from the secular
to the spiritual realm.  If Caesar ascended to the throne in, say,
September, then the first year of his realm would start on the January 1
next following, but the celebrating would begin during the previous year
following the actual date of ascension.  Thus celebrating "the new
millennium" AFTER January 1, 2000, is not totally inappropriate, as long as
one understands that it is only the beginning of a party that will only end
the following December 31, 2000.

>Of course this whole thing is made irrelevant by the fact that historians
>know King Herod died in 4BC, and in fact it is thought from Roman writing
>that Jesus was probably born around September 6 or 7BC.

I strongly suspect that Dionysius Exiguus was aware that his calendar was
inaccurate on that end of things (he was otherwise such a careful guy), but
it did such a good job of predicting the future dates of Easter (the other
main reason his scheme was adopted by the Church), that they chose to
ignore it.

Ed Alexander
JAG REALTY INC.
80 Jones Street Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8R 1Y1
Pager: 905-545-0177  Fax: 905-525-6671 Email: edsells at idirect.com
Jag Realty Inc.: http://www.deerhurst.com/jag/
Ontario Ultra Series:  http://ous.kw.net/
Burlington Runners Club: http://www.deerhurst.com/brc/

----------

From: Peter Stornebrink [frlboppe at direct.ca]
Subject: From AD/BC to an incorrect date

This is getting way off topic but a correction is required to what was
stated in the following message.

The feast of the Immaculate Conception is celebrated by the Catholic Church
on December 8, only a few days ago. (For details about how this became a
mandatory part of our Catholic faith I refer to the website at:
http://listserv.american.edu/catholic/church/papal/pius.ix/ineffab.htm). It
is really worth reading, even though this AD-1854 document contains about a
half dozen typographical errors, because it gives you a good idea about the
process through which a truth like this has been revealed.
This belief is about Mary being conceived by her mother, Anne, in the
normal physiological manner. However, she was, uniquely so, conceived from
conception without the stain of original sin which all other human beings
inherit from Adam and Eve. That is what made her a worthy "vessel" for the
incarnate God.

On the 25-th of March we celebrate the feast of the Annunciation of Mary.
Exactly nine months before the birth of Christ an angel came to announce
that Mary was to conceive a child "by the power of the Holy Spirit". ("How
can this be, I know no man" she had said.)

I hope this corrects and clarifies the issue at least for those who are
fortunate enough to be able to believe this.

Respectfully to all,

Peter Stornebrink, Victoria B.C., Canada

Ian James Parsley wrote,

>Subject: LL-L: "Y2K" LOWLANDS-L, 12.DEC.1999 (06) [E]
>
>Ed and co.,
>
>My understanding of it was always that the first year of our era was known
>as "Annus Domini" / "The Year of Our Lord". Then the second year was known
>as the "Second Year of Our Lord" and so on, which explains why there is no
>year zero. It also explains how next year is the "2000th Year of Our Lord",
>which would indicate the third millennium does not properly start until
>2001. It also gives a lie to the German "n. Chr.", because the counting is
>not actually "after Christ" but rather "of Christ".
>
>To add to the complication, the Christian calendar actually ran from the
>"immaculate conception", supposedly on 25 March. So according to that
>calendar, Jesus wasn't actually born until nine months into 1AD. So his
>2000th birthday wouldn't in fact be until 25 December 2001. If you see what
>I mean...
>
>Of course this whole thing is made irrelevant by the fact that historians
>know King Herod died in 4BC, and in fact it is thought from Roman writing
>that Jesus was probably born around September 6 or 7BC.
>
>Best,
>-------------------------------
>Ian James Parsley
>http://www.gcty.com/parsleyij
>"JOY - Jesus, Others, You"

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Y2K

Dear Lowlanders,

Being in a somewhat festively magnanimous mood, or trying to be, I had allowed
the beginning of this thread to slide by in the hope that something at least
vaguely Lowlandic would develop from it.  Obviously, this is not happening, and
it is therefore necessary to let this thread fizzle out now, unless there is a
dramatic (and genuine) turn for the Lowlandic.  I invite you to continue it
privately, off the List, if this is something you wish to explore and discuss
further.

This is an opportunity to remind everyone that posting submissions are expected
to be relevant to Lowlands languages and cultures.  If they are not, I am likely
to bounce them back to the originator without posting them, especially if they
are beginnings of threads.

Best regards,

Reinhard "Ron" Hahn
Administrator, Lowlands-L

==================================END======================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =========================================================================