[General] discovered /rediscovered/unveiled?

[Kumar Nadimuthu]

Ajanta caves were accidentally rediscovered on 1819 by a Britisher on a hunting party. These caves were constructed between BC 2nd and AD 6th Century. These caves were covered by jungle and not known to anyone untill 1819.

What is the correct word should I use? discovered/rediscovered/unveiled

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

If, as you write in the last sentence, the caves were not known to anyone until 1819, then that is when they were discovered. There are a number of mistakes in this text, though. Britisher is wrong. Only Nazi officers in B movies use this word, or old fashioned Americans. The second sentence is completely wrong. We'll call 'untill' a typo, shall we?

It isn't a very good text, I'm afraid.

 

[Kumar Nadimuthu]

Sorry for my poor English. I did some corrections. Are you able to legible now?

Ajanta caves were accidentally rediscovered on 1819 by a British officer John Smith on a hunting party. These caves were constructed between 200 BCE and AD 600. No one knows that there were caves until he had discovered. There is no history available between AD 600 and 1818 CE. These caves were covered by grass and plants.

The rock-cut caves were constructed by so many generations using chisels, there are 30 caves. The one cave size is approximately (30x30)m and height would be around 3 metres. Ajanta caves are Buddhist monuments which includes extraordinary sculptures and paintings. Archaeological survey shows that Buddhist monks were lived in those caves.

One of the most intellectual property 'Wikipedia' shows that 'rediscovered' by John Smith on 1819. Ajanta caves had been resorting for tigers, birds and bats for 1200 years. I dont know that Why it was written as 'rediscovered?' Are the tigers/birds/bats discovered first?

I heard about " Columbus discovers America," we don't say "America was rediscovered by Columbus.'

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

There is no need to apologise for your English.

I still prefer 'discovered' to 'rediscovered'. I don't think discoveries made by wildlife count. The Wikipedia article that I read says, as you do, that the caves were built and worked on over a period of centuries. They were then abandoned and became overgrown until they were discovered by the British officer.

There are still several mistakes in what you have written. You mix up two different conventions for placing years in a normal chronology. BCE (Before Common Era) goes with CE (Common Era), and BC (Before Christ) goes with AD (Anno Domini).

No one [STRIKE]knows[/STRIKE] knew that there were caves until he [STRIKE]had[/STRIKE] discovered them.
The [STRIKE]one cave size[/STRIKE] size of one cave…
Buddhist monuments which include[STRIKE]s[/STRIKE]…
Archaeological surveys show[STRIKE]s[/STRIKE] that Buddhist monks [STRIKE]were[/STRIKE] lived in those caves.
I dont know [STRIKE]that[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]W[/STRIKE]why…
[STRIKE]Are[/STRIKE]Did the tigers/birds/bats discover[STRIKE]ed[/STRIKE] them first?

 

[Kumar Nadimuthu]

There are still several mistakes in what you have written. You mix up two different conventions for placing years in a normal chronology. BCE (Before Common Era) goes with CE (Common Era), and BC (Before Christ) goes with AD (Anno Domini).

1. These caves were constructed between 200 BC and AD 600.
2. There are no records available between AD 600 and AD 1818.

Could you please check it now? When we link BC/AD with Common Era , is it required to specify CE?

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

1. is much better. Many people would accept it as it is, but the convention is that the number precedes BC, as in 200 BC, but follows AD, as in AD 600.

2. presents a couple of problems. 'History' is a mass noun and takes the singular, so it should be, 'There is no history available…' However, it's not very natural. You probably mean something like, 'There are no records available…'
Also, you've mixed up the two systems again. AD and CE are the same thing, so pick one and stick to it. Since in 1. you use AD you should continue with that.

 

[Kumar Nadimuthu]

Archaeological surveys show[STRIKE]s[/STRIKE] that Buddhist monks [STRIKE]were[/STRIKE] lived in those caves.

It is the past event. "Monks" is plural, why can't I use "were'' here?

 

[Rover_KE]

'...monks were lived' is ungrammatical.

 

[MikeNewYork]

"but the convention is that the number precedes BC, as in 200 BC, but follows AD, as in AD 600."

Roman, I have never heard that. Perhaps that is true in BrE, but it is not true in AmE. I would say 600 AD.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

The Ajanta caves were accidentally discovered in 1819 by a Briton on a hunting party. These caves were constructed between the second century BCE and the sixth century CE. These caves were covered by jungle and not known to anyone until then.

What is the correct word to use? discovered/rediscovered/unveiled

Interesting!

"Rediscovered" means they were discovered earlier and then lost again.

"Unveiled" refers to new works:

- She unveiled her masterpiece at a press conference yesterday.
- Volvo unveiled its new spacecraft to great fanfare.

 

[Roman55]

Roman, I have never heard that. Perhaps that is true in BrE, but it is not true in AmE. I would say 600 AD.

I'd probably say, 'six hundred AD' too. I don't know whether it's just a BrE thing, but since AD means 'Anno Domini', I doubt it.

Have a look at this, or this.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I assume opinions vary, but I am not convinced. Look here: https://www.google.com/search?q=600...&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q="600+AD"

If I had the time enter more numbers, the hits would grow.