3 ms·

Or maybe "fixed-time". I don't like "isochronous" because it introduces an obtuse neoligism.

• mehrdadn 7y ago
  Yes, fixed-time! I like it.
• zimpenfish 7y ago
  > I don't like "isochronous" because it introduces an obtuse neoligism. Obtuse, perhaps, but neologism? http://etymology.enacademic.com/20730/isochronous http://etymology.enacademic.com/20730/isochronous meaning "equal time" dating back to the early 1700s.
  • moron4hire 7y ago
    Case in point. I'm not an etymologist, nir should we expect people to have to research the words they use. If a word is that old and not in common parlance, it is a failure of a word and it really shouldn't be used.
    • zimpenfish 7y ago
      > not in common parlance, it is a failure of a word Harsh but not entirely unfair (it is, after all, how language evolves.) Although I'd counter that "isochron" isn't uncommon in travel-related situations (cf [1]) and "isochronous" is easily understandable by extension. [1] e.g. in the UK parliament, #7927, "the resident population within the Woolwich 20-minute isochron area was about 60,000" https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmcross/235/6051003.htm https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmcr...