Sorry, I have to disagree. In Italian ''essere a guardia'' is a fixed expression meaning ''to be protecting/to stay in protection'' of something, so in this case 'a' does not indicate a transition. What the jokey tattoo will express is that from the very moment of the person's birth, Rome acquired a protecting 'guard'. And according to the questioner's explanation (#4: this guy…) the person is a male friend.preposition that shows this transition
Excuse me, but "Anno Domini" does not mean "After Christ", which would mean the years after Christ left the earth and ascended into Heaven. It means "In the year of the Lord", which means the years from Christ's notional birth date, approximately 33 years earlier.Yes, I think it is.
I feel that 'ab + number/numeral' would not comply with Latin usage.
Please note that I already omitted ''Domini'' (normally, ''anno Domini'' would indicate 'after Christ' in Latin texts, but it's too long in a tattoo…).
Better suggestions could come to you from real experts (I am only an amateur as concerns the Latin language). I therefore recommend you to wait a few more days for other members' responses.
No need to apologize, yours is a very precise remark.Excuse me
Well, quite simply, "A.D." are the initials for "Anno Domini", which means "in the year of the Lord". We translate it literally. I don't know about other forms of English, but in BrE, to say that something occurred "after" somebody would be taken to mean after that person had come and gone.No need to apologize, yours is a very precise remark.
However (in this country at least) we commonly understand 'after Christ' as a time obviously starting from Christ's birthdate, and likewise 'before Christ' as previous to Ch.'s birth date. That's why I thought that 'anno Domini' would coincide with 'after Christ', and I'm a bit surprised to see that for you (in the UK?) it is different.
You would have been better not to post that. It contains inaccuracies, but it would be off-topic for me to reply.Greetings all
A note of clarification. The fixture, in what has become universal chronometry, of AD 1 as the year of Christ's birth was the intellectual progeny of the 4th-century Christian historian and biographer of Constantine, Eusebius, fossilised in our history-books by Jerome in the Vulgate. But it is wholly incompatible with the secular historical record, which sets the death of Herod and the Augustan census, associated in the Gospel narratives with the Nativity, between 6 BC and 4 BC (Sir Ronald Syme, Roman Papers III, 881ff.). Eusebius was doubtless trying his best to calculate, and must be forgiven for this minor error. Academic historians of the Early Church are these days agreed about this mistake, and will concede that Jesus was born ca. 6-4 BC, and crucified about AD 29.
And I should add: there is no evidence whatever about the date within the year of Christ's birth. But in the course of the 2nd-4th centuries 'AD' it came to be associated with the ancient Roman Saturnalia, a winter-solstice festival to greet the re-arising sun (much-needed, doubtless).
I'll PM you about it soon.saluete omnes, praesertim KevinB et bearded
If I have offended, profound apologies. Yes I realise this may constitute 'Topic Drift'. I will dismount my post when I have heard from a Moderator. But for my own improvement, I would like to know what what the 'inaccuracies' are.