# The use of BC instead of a Latin acronym **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [July 26, 2000, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-use-of-bc-instead-of-a-latin-acronym/26887 "2000-07-26T08:00:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2000, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-use-of-bc-instead-of-a-latin-acronym/26887/1 "2000-07-26T08:00:03Z")
In the current Classic, [“Why is BC an English abbreviation while AD is a Latin one?”](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940930.html), Cecil states the following when browsing around in some foreign languages: > [@](#): > > **Dutch, vC, vChr, voor (before) Christus; AD, anno Domini. OK, so the Dutch are as retro as we are.** Not nearly as retro, I’m afraid. As some of you might know, I _am_ Dutch, and thusly I can be concidered the closest thing to a Dutch Language Expert these boards have 😉 **vChr** , or more commonly, _v.Chr._ is used just as much as _n.Chr._. The latter means _na Christus_, after Christ. In non-religious texts, _n.Chr._ is the normal abbreviation to use. In spoken word (documentaries on TV, bar conversations), the full term _na Christus_ is most common. But that’s not all of it. The abbreviation **AD** _is_ still in use, but it’s a little bit more complex than just a religious term. It is -to this day- used on buildings, to signify the year of construction (“AD 1965”, although most of the times, just the year is used). Also, some (pretentious?) writers seem to like it to end their books’ introductions with. Mind you, these are not necessarily religious books: they could be anything (“_How to cook clams with beer_, **Jan Pietersen** , Amsterdam, AD 1994”. You’re damn straight I made that one up, but it does occur). Again, this would not be the most used method: usually, book dates are printed in Arab or Roman numerals. So I guess Cecil was only partially right on this one. Yes, **AD** is still being used, but not nearly as widely as **n.Chr.** ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2000, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-use-of-bc-instead-of-a-latin-acronym/26887/2 "2000-07-26T13:19:20Z")
IMO, one of the most annoying tendencies on the part of certain mass-market natural sciences authors, mainly in the fields of paleontology and archaeology, has been to start using “BP” to mean “before the present”. This means that you have to mentally subtract 2,000 years from all the radiocarbon dates they give you, which is tedious. “BCE” is bad enough, but at least you can say, “Oh, well, it’s politically correct.” But “BP” is just dumb, not to mention the fact that, as far as I’m concerned, it stands for British Petroleum. ---
**Author:** ![agent\_cockroach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@agent\_cockroach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/agent_cockroach)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2000, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-use-of-bc-instead-of-a-latin-acronym/26887/3 "2000-07-26T14:29:13Z")
about Christ not being born in 1 AD (or whatever you wanna call it)… i remember a teacher in grade school telling us the he was born in 4 AD and the world was gonna end in 1996 not 2000. my point is, in all those religious-end-of-the-world-prophesy movies they keep saying ‘the thousand years are over’. what do they mean by that? and when is the starting point if the years are infact numbered wrong? not that im obsessed w/this stuff, im just curious. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2000, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-use-of-bc-instead-of-a-latin-acronym/26887/4 "2000-07-26T20:25:32Z")
Agent cockroach, you perhaps might want to read [The millennium approacheth. Will it start Jan. 1, 2000, or Jan. 1, 2001?](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_130.html) or perhaps [Why was the millennium considered such a big deal?](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_062.html) or maybe [What year numbering system was used in the time of Christ?](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_376.html) and also, repeat of above (2 versions, any difference?) [Why is the millennium such a big deal?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/980703.html) Let me know when you find the answer. (link corrected by Arnold Winkelried) [Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 07-26-2000 at 04:13 PM] ---
**Author:** ![agent\_cockroach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@agent\_cockroach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/agent_cockroach)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-use-of-bc-instead-of-a-latin-acronym/26887/5 "2000-07-27T19:57:24Z")
thank you! that was very helpful. i never looked thru the bible. i went to catholic skool but i could never stomak the thing. it honestly gave me willies. think of it this way, if you were a small impressionable child and you came across a book filled w/violence and constance references to death and the end of the world and you were told the person responsible for all this will punish you for eternity and you can’t see him/her/it, wouldn’t you be a little be suspicious? granted it’s an oversimplified view of catholism but’s my view. ---
**Author:** ![ren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@ren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ren)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-use-of-bc-instead-of-a-latin-acronym/26887/6 "2000-07-27T21:33:53Z")
> [@](#): > > he was born in 4 AD and the world was gonna end in 1996 not 2000 Wouldn’t that have made it 2004 instead of 2000? (Hey, there’s still time for the prophecy to be true! Get your tickets now!!) ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2000, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-use-of-bc-instead-of-a-latin-acronym/26887/7 "2000-07-27T22:38:59Z")
I messed up a link? I thought I checked them. :sniff: ren, that would be true, except the date is 4 **BCE** , not **AD**. Good catch. ---
**Author:** ![agent\_cockroach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@agent\_cockroach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/agent_cockroach)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2000, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-use-of-bc-instead-of-a-latin-acronym/26887/8 "2000-07-28T17:47:40Z")
ok ok so i made a small error, but it’s not nearly as big as the one made by the calendar people. what year is it anyway! anyone see gundam wing or titan AE? they’re both cartoons about the future. gundam wing is set in ‘the year after colony 159’ and titan AE ends w/ the year ‘after earth 1’. in both cases it’s a huge event they’re basing off of and it’s documented fact. presently, aren’t there three calendars floating around? the muslim one which i belive is set by muhamed’s pilgrimage to mecca but i could be wrong (im not muslim so im not sure) then there’s the jewish one but i have no idea what it’s set by, and of course the christian one. can’t we just find a date a stick to it!? ---
**Author:** ![Saltire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saltire/32/553_2.png) [@Saltire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saltire)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2000, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-use-of-bc-instead-of-a-latin-acronym/26887/9 "2000-07-28T18:54:20Z")
If you want to bring in science fiction, Asimov once did a short story (_The Last Trump_) in which the Almighty was going to destroy the world on a certain date (I think it was in 1957, it was an old story) until one of the angels pointed out that only some people would agree on that date. God couldn’t end it while there were multiple calendars, because dates were ambiguous. The story ends with Satan preparing a new calendar based on the beginning of the Atomic Age. He figures if he has 1,927 years, he can convince everyone to use this calendar and abandon the others. P.S. I figured that based on the Atomic Age starting in 1942CE, as I think that’s the year Fermi managed the first controlled chain reaction. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2000, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-use-of-bc-instead-of-a-latin-acronym/26887/10 "2000-07-28T19:48:31Z")
There are lots of calendars. The French made up a totally new calendar at the time of the revolution, but it never caught on. The Western (“Christian”) calendar is by far the most widespread - terminology of the date notwithstanding. I think from a simplicity standpoint it makes most sense to keep that date and not try to make new ones, simply because you’ll forever be converting between the two. “Let’s see that’s 200 B.A. (before atomic age)… that works out to 1742 C.E. (or is that A.D.?)… no wait, carry the 2…” And then there’s BCE dates. Yikes. Okay, maybe that’s just the math-phobes. ---
**Author:** ![Coldfire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2000, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-use-of-bc-instead-of-a-latin-acronym/26887/11 "2000-07-28T20:24:09Z")
Here I thought hijacks didn’t take place in the more “respected” areas of the board (i.e.: not the Pit, not MPSIMS ;)). Guess I was wrong! Notwithstanding how insightful this all is, I started the thread as a linguistic insight, if any. And -cough- to point out a slight, shall we say, matter-that-needs-further-attention on Cecils behalf. (I smart enough not to use the dreaded “E-word”, thank you very much!)