Θus saiθ UCD: Overcome QWERTY

Time for a terrific labor-saving device: a single letter for θe "th" sound. Wiθ one more letter and one more key, we will have one less key stroke per "θ." Not only θat, θere already exists θe Greek θeta letter which stands for θe "th" sound. Let's rip it off!

And, we could let θ standing alone represent θ word "the."

We have θ capital Θ and θ lower case θ ready to hand.

Universal Copy Desk understands that QWERTY inertia is built into yo lazy ass. But, θ aim is to reach θ Cool Crowd of hackers and tweakers who will gin up θeir keyboards to include θ upper and lower case θeta key. After a while, θere will be an exponential demand for θ as FaceBook and Twitter users go for θ hip new θing.

If θ two theta's above are too similar, we can always use anoθer version: ϑ -- along wiθ Θ.

It should be a snap to add θat key to smartphones, and later laptop and computer keyboards will catch up. Touch typing courses will have to be revised.

Revolution now!

---

Time at the Ω point, or make that ∇, or just [D]

I have consulted the Online Etymological Dictionary and find that A.D. showed up in the 1570s, as an abbreviation of the Latin Anno Domini (=Year of Our Lord). This system of counting years was put forth by Dionysius Exiguus in 527 or 533, but used at first only for Church business. It was introduced in Italy in the seventh century and in France in the eighth century. In England, it is first found in a charter of the year 680 and in 816 was required for all ecclesiastical documents.

The resistance to A.D. might have come in part because Dionysius chose 754 A.U.C. [see note 1 below] as the birth year of Jesus, while many early Christians would have thought it was 750 A.U.C. There is a use of a simple a for anno domini in an English document from ca. 1400.  A.C. for Anno Christi, also was common in the 17th century.

That excellent resource also informs us that the English phrase Before Christ -- as in, "708 years Before Christ" -- was in use by the 1660s. The abbreviation B.C. is attested by 1823. I suppose had consistency been an objective, the Latin Ante Anno Domini (=Before the Year of Our Lord) would have been better, though the abbreviation A.A.D would have been a deuced nuisance.

Of course, now it has become fashionable to use C.E. and B.C.E. in order to steer clear of religious overtones. According to the Online Etymological Dictionary, C.E. abbreviates "Common Era" or "Christian era" and is "attested from 1838 in works on Jewish history." Companion B.C.E. is attested from 1881.

Wikipedia tells us that "Common Era" is traceable to 1615, when it first appeared in a book by Johannes Kepler as the Latin usage annus aerae nostrae vulgaris, and to 1635 in English as Vulgar (=Common) Era. The term Common Era can be found in English as early as 1708, though it became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish religious scholars. In the latter 20th century,  CE and BCE were promoted by academic and scientific publications with the idea that the terms were culturally neutral.

Hold up a moment. Is "Common Era" really culturally neutral? Well, maybe -- if we go back centuries when government and church year-keeping differed from that of the common people. But the phrase picked up speed when Jewish scholars did not wish to refer to "Our Lord" (and who can blame them?). Yet, for them, "common era" would have meant the era of the Gentiles, when the Jews were dispersed from their homeland. "Before the common era" then implies the period when Jews were in their homeland, not sharing much with the common lot, but able to hold onto their basic identity in a more pristine manner.

Well, we could plug in "Christian," giving "before the Christian era." But why bother? For non-Christians, that's a non-starter also.

I have a PLAN.

Let's get people used to the use of the positive and negative signs. Everyone has learned about negative numbers in school. "0" remains not a year, but a point on a timeline -- just as in the A.D./B.C. system. That 0 point is the same one as in the A.D./B.C. system. But the signs would be in super or sub position, either before or after the year.Or, even simpler: capital Y for A.D. and lower case y for B.C.

Jesus is believed to have been born in y4 or y6. He is believed to have died in Y27.

Or ...born in 4^--. ...died in 27⁺

Hmmm... that negative doesn't reproduce very well. Maybe a tilde?

~4 or 4^~, along with +27 or 27⁺

Think positive! And negative!

Well, I like the Y,y idea best.



Oh wait! What if someone reads Y to mean "Yid"?

Nuther idea: Let's use the Greek omega.

Jesus is thought to have died in Ω27 and to have been born in ω4 or ω6.

---

Dang!

What was I thinking? The Christian book of Revelation describes Jesus/God as the Alpha and the Omega. Well, back to the drawing board. Maybe Greek uncial (=capital) psi for A.D. or c.e.? As in, ...died in Ψ27. And Greek miniscule psi for B.C. or bce? As in, ...born in ψ4 or ψ6.

Of course everyone would want to know how to pronounce it. That should be easy to get the public to accept. Just say "sigh." But then there will be the stick-in-the-mud's who will demand to know the word it stands for, or what it means! We will have to convince them that it is the same as plus or minus, but applies only to two eras. That will take a while for people to accept. But they don't like C.E. and B.C.E. either.

Or, we may wish to avoid potential confusion by using two different Greek uncial letters. Though beta comes immediately to mind for B.C., it is our own capital B, as alpha is our own capital A, so that's out. So let's keep psi for the positively counted years and try the uncial delta for the negatively counted years.



Now we have

...died in Ψ27 and born in Δ6 or Δ4.

But maybe the nabla symbol -- which is an inverted delta -- would be better for A.D.? As in

Died ∇27

Born Δ6 or Δ4.

Teach the public to read the delta as "delta" and the nabla as either "nabla" or "del." Over a period of time they will come to know automatically what those symbols mean in context.

But we don't have such characters on our keyboards. So though Greek letters and whatnot are fine for formal publishing, they ain't gonna fly in emails and in informal text. Well, how 'bout a cap D and a small d set off in braces? As in

[D]2019 is almost over. [D]2020 is nigh. Julius Caesar was slain on the Ides of March [d]44. And, if someone wants to know what "D" means, just say "date."

This post updated as of 11.30.∇2019 or, if you prefer, [D]11.30.2019.

---

1. From Wikipedia, we have:

Ab urbe condita, or Anno urbis conditae (abbreviated AUC) is a convention used in antiquity and by classical historians to refer to a given year in Ancient Rome. Ab urbe condita literally means "from the founded city", while anno urbis conditæ means "in the year of the founded city." Therefore, the traditional year of the foundation of Rome, 753 BC, would be written AUC 1, while AD 1 would be AUC 754. The foundation of the Empire in 27 BC would be AUC 727.

Usage of the term was more common during the Renaissance, when editors sometimes added AUC to Roman manuscripts they published, giving the false impression that the convention was commonly used in antiquity. In reality, the dominant method of identifying years in Roman times was to name the two consuls who held office that year. In late antiquity, regnal years were also in use, as was the Diocletian era in Roman Egypt after AD 293, and in the Byzantine Empire after AD 537, following a decree by Justinian.

---

---

Note May 9, 2020: My preference now is to write 70 A.D. as 70 or as +70 and 6 B.C. as –6.

Wouldn't have it otherwise

I have long been a stickler in preferring  the idiom one another for interaction between three or more, while reserving each other for interaction between exactly two.

Even though this little nicety supposedly harks back to fussbudgets of the 18th Century, I reject my former preference on grounds of logic. The phrase one another appears to be a contraction of "one and other," which, when applied to three individuals, must have arisen as a slurring of "one and others."

Observe that often modern translations of John 13:35 tell Christians to "love one another." But the King James Bible has

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

That is, "...if you show love from one to an other. " Logical. And it means the same as "if you have love for each other."

Each other seems to imply two by virtue of the minor distinctions among each, every and all,^1a which are not worth going into here but which anyone who has taken a bit of set theory knows are distinctions that don't amount to much. This is why the phrase each and every might convey an impression of two kinds of procedure but the distinction is so trivial as to make the phrase a pompous redundancy.

Moreover, consider that we might prefer, "He spoke to every other person" but would be hard put not to accept, "He spoke to each other person." The point is that in this case each other could well apply to three or more.

Now if we say, "They spoke with each other," we are talking about members of a group. We have not specified that the group is limited to two persons. What is happening with the purists is that they can only imagine that one person holds a dialogue (di=two) with one and only one other, and vice versa. But why does this exclude various pairs of persons interacting at different times? The time element is usually left implicit, being conveyed by the context.

So to me, "They spoke with (or "to") one another" is less logical and less precise than "They spoke with each other." Of course, if you are used to the idea that the latter sentence implies only one pair, then that locution is less precise.

In any case, I prefer to use between when two individuals hold something in common, whether in a spatial, temporal or personal sense. For three or more I would ordinarily use among. "There was love between the two of them" but "There was love among the three of them."

The etymology of between supports my preference, as does normal usage. The word in Old English means literally “by the two, near both.”

But, hold up! According to Wiktionary, the Old English forms betwēonan, betwēonum were  also used for the concepts among, amid, in the midst, meanwhile.

Yet, says Wiktionary, among derives from Old English amang, onġemang. It is equivalent to a- +‎ mong (crowd, group, throng).¹ So on that basis, I think it safe to preserve custom of assigning between to a twosome of some sort, while reserving among for groups of three or more.

---

1. Thus I guessed that monger meant, not salesperson but rather was closer to someone who works the crowd. Wiktionary reports however that the word tracks back to Middle English mongere, mangere, which in turn harks back to Old English mangere (merchant, trader, dealer), which is related to Old English mangian (to trade, to traffic). Looking farther back, we have from Proto-Germanic mangōną, the Latin mangō (dealer, trader). It is conjectured that the lineage extends through the Ancient Greek μάγγανον (pronounced mánganon and meaning contrivance, means of enchantment), to the Proto-Indo-European mang (to  embellish, dress, trim).
¶ Even so, it is not impossible that a number of Old English speakers made the association of monger and crowd. 

---

1a. In his book Logic for Mathematicians (Chelsea Publishing 1978, McGraw Hill 1953), J. Barkley Rosser cautions against the word any. "Sometimes any means each and sometimes it means some. Thus, sometimes "for any x..." means (x) and sometimes "for any x..." means (Ex)."
¶ [Note: (x) is an old-fashioned way to denote ∀x and (Ex) is Barkley's way of denoting ∃x.]
¶ After giving an ambiguous example, Rosser says, "If one wishes to be sure that one will be understood, one should never use any in a place where either each or some can be used. For instance, "I will not violate any law." The statement "I will not violate each law" has quite a different meaning, and the statement, "I will not violate some law" might be interpreted to mean that there is a particular law which I am determined not to violate.
"Nonetheless," says Rosser, "many writers use any in places where each or some would be preferable."

---