μετά Ὀλυμπιάδα (μ.Ὀ.) -> post-Olympiad

[gregroz]

• Tweet

ἔζησε τὸν 9ον αἰ. μ.Ὀ.
12ος αἰ. μ.Ὀ.
τοῦ 18ου αἰ. μ.Ὀ.
22ος αἰ. μ.Ὀ.
2 3 Σεπτεμβρίου 1681 μ.Ό.

How does the fully spelled out version of this abbreviation look like? And what centuries/years count formula is that? Because I know it's not the Roman "C.E" (earlier than that).

[billberg23]

Are all of these items in the same document, or are they from separate sources?  And what is the nature of the document(s)?  Are they written or printed texts, or inscriptions on stone, wood, pottery?
If "1681" is a date, and contemporary with the other items in your list, then we're looking at modern Greek, not ancient Greek.  The abbreviation "αἰ." is of course for αιώνας, "century."  The abbreviation "μ.Ό." may (or may not) have something to do with Olympiads, which might explain the odd "22ος αἰ. μ.Ὀ."
But you'll probably find the most help by posting your questions in "Modern Greek -> English" on this site.

[spiros]

That is probably the case
"μετά Ὀλυμπιάδος"

The following is an important example of his use of the Olympiad dating system. He wrote that Herod was first given his title as king by Rome on the 184th Olympiad, which translates anywhere between 44/43 and 41/40 BC.
https://charlesasullivan.com/2535/the-olympiad-calendar-and-the-birth-year-of-christ/

One thing to be wary of with reckoning by Olympiad is that writers calculated the start of the year by their local convention (spring, summer, winter, or fall). For example Ol. 1,1 correspond to Fall, 777 - Fall 776 BCE by Macedonian reckoning. Byzantine writers who use Olympiads take the year to begin on September 1
http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=calhistory/earlier/greek

Τὸ φαινόμενον τῆς μεταπτώσεως τῶν ἰσημεριῶν τεκμηριώθη μαθηματικῶς ἀπὸ τὸν Ἴππαρχον Ῥόδιον (7ος αἰ. μ.Ὀ. / -2ος αἰ.).
http://kopais.blogspot.com/2016/04/

Τὸ ΑΣΤΡΟΛΟΓΙΚΟΝ - ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΑΣΤΡΟΛΟΓΙΑ (ἐν συντομίᾳ "Ἀστρολογικὸν"), ἀναρτήθη ἐπὶ διαδικτύου τὴν κα' Μεταγειτνιῶνος τοῦ α' ἔτους τῆς χϙε' Ὀλυμπιάδος (13 Αὐγούστου, 2777 μ.Ὀ. / 2001 CE).
https://www.astrologicon.org/permanent-content/copyright-info.html

τοποθετεῖ τὴν πρώτην παράστασιν τραγωδίας τὸ 3ο ἔτος τῆς 61ης Ὀλυμπιάδος (240 μ.Ὀ.), ὑπὸ τοῦ Θέσπιδος.
https://forum.index.hu/Article/showArticle?go=82333834&p=1&t=9083973

[wings]

Σπύρο, η γενική που έβαλες στον τίτλο σημαίνει έτος που είχε ολυμπιακούς αγώνες, πράγμα που δεν ισχύει για το 1681 του αρχικού μηνύματος. Το μετά συντάσσεται με αιτιατική για να δείξει ότι κάτι έγινε ύστερα/μετά από κάτι άλλο, π.χ. μετά Χριστόν. Ίσως εδώ εννοούν μετά την πρώτη ολυμπιάδα.

[spiros]

Στο site τους, οι εν λόγω, αναφέρουν χρονολογίες με το "σύστημα" του προηγούμενού μου σχολίου και -βασικά- παραπέμπουν στο αττικό ημερολόγιο(*), στο οποίο, χονδρικώς (x4 έτη), επίσης η χρονολόγηση γίνεται με ολυμπιάδες. Με πρώτη ολυμπιάδα το 776 π.Χ., ο δεκέμβριος του 2018 θα αριθμούταν ως το 2o έτος της 699ης ολυμπιάδας (Ol. 699.2) ή 2794 μ.Ο ("μετά ολυμπιάδα") (ή ΟΕ/ΟΧ). https://www.lifo.gr/now/greece/220979/ypato-symvoylio-ellinon-ethnikon-xristianoi-epitethikan-se-dodekatheistes-se-teleti-stin-eleysina

[wings]

Συμφωνούμε σε όλα. Τη γενική που είχες χρησιμοποιήσει αρχικά αφορούσε η μόνη ένστασή μου.

[billberg23]

So "1681" is not the year 1681 C.E., but instead the one thousand, six hundred and eighty-first year after the first Olympiad in 776 B.C.E., in other words, circa 905 C.E.?  Or do we skip the years when they weren't holding Olympic Games?

[wings]

Bill, I really can't understand how they are thinking. :-)

[gregroz]

The dates are from the same text. And actually from one of the websites quoted above, but a different article (mainly: https://www.astrologicon.org/dorotheus/dorotheus-intro.html) and this article did not compare these dates with C.E. dates (like the one cited above).
I thought it must a genuine custom (otherwise why the use of abbreviations).
The text is by a modern scholar of Hellenistic mathematics, if I'm not mistaken, and appears to use Ancient Greek spelling style at least, though it is obviously typed in contemporary modern years. By the way is this a more-or-less clean "Ancient Greek" or something more "contaminated" like the notorious 19th century so-called Ancient Greek?

I suspected something like "after Olympics" but Google won't give me any examples. Are there some good places to look for Ancient Greek abbreviations next time?

In this text:
* I know the "correct" modern dates should be around the late 1st century CE for the main discussed original source text ("Ὁ Δωρόθεος ἔζησε τὸν 9ον αἰ. μ.Ὀ.")
* "Φιρμίκος Ματέρνος (12ος αἰ. μ.Ὀ.)" is Firmicus Maternus of middle of the 4th century CE
* earlier "Μανέθων (τέλη 9ου αἰ.)" is Manetho of around 120 CE; "Ἀνουβίων (10ος αἰ.)" is Anubio assessed for 1st century CE without certainty; " Ἡφαιστίων ὁ Θηβαῖος (ἀρχαί 13ου αἰ. μ.Ὀ.)" is Hephaistio of Thebes (early 5th century CE). But all these dates can be speculatory (no direct datings of their work), and different sources can vary on that.
* and onwards for Pahlavi/Arabic translations (say up to 8th-12th century CE, depending on the scholars, for example Pingree says only briefly "We know in fact that Dorotheus was named as king of Egypt in a Pahlavi work made from a translation of the Pahlavi book of Zoroaster dating from about 750" (CE implied) and "It is commonly known that Arabs at the end of the 8th century used the work of Dorotheus")
* "Μιχαήλ Ἰταλικοῦ (20ος αἰ. μ.Ὀ.)" is Μιχαήλ Ἰταλικός; fl. 1136–66
* and "Πάλχος (22ος αἰ. μ.Ὀ.)" is Palchus that was "active in 479 AD" according to one source
How does that answer the question of how this counts the years from the supposedly Olympics?
Thanks so much for many resposes!

[spiros]

That text is katharevousa Greek in polytonic script. You'd be surprised how many niche approaches/philosophies use abbreviations only a select few know about... apparently this one is mainly used by modern Dodekatheon devotees.

[gregroz]

That text is katharevousa Greek in polytonic script.

I see katharevousa defined quite loosely as either 18th-19th century construct or as having evolved naturally from Koine Greek (alongside the dimotike evolving on its own). The latter almost seems a less scholary but more popular in the internet.
My question to you is, how could this specific author's language be compared to Hellenistic Egyptian Greek and early Koine (early few centuries CE, up to let's say 8-10th CE). Or is this purely 18th-19th type of "Ancient" Greek that is this entirely new kind of animal (like I believe the book "Ὁμιλεῖτε Ἑλληνικά;" (Do you Speak Greek) from 1894 (USA, I saw it on Google Books) is becuase it uses εἶνε instead of ἐστί/εἰσί, δὲν εἶνε instead of οὐκ ἔστι and ὄχι instead of οὔ in the first lesson, but I don't know enough, maybe it's actually some late koine, until now I thought the distinction is clear and 18th-19th century teach-books of Ancient Greek are a mistake to look at, but now it seems less clear to me)

[spiros]

GIYF

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-features-of-classical-Koine-Greek-that-were-not-taken-over-to-Katharevousa-What-are-features-of-Katharevousa-that-are-not-in-classical-Greek-Are-there-any-Katharevousa-features-that-are-neither-in