5 ms·

So people in present-day Austria are time-travelers?

d13 5y ago
Terrible, broken title that confused me too. They meant to suggest something last like “ people who lived a part of the world which is now called Austria”.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > part of the world which is now called Austria The phrase "present day Austria" is commonly understood to mean exactly that. I see nothing wrong with the title. Surely the ambiguity caused by the possibility that Austrians might be using their time machines to eat ancient cheese didn't cause you too much confusion?
iso1631 5y ago
It's odd, I had no problem parsing the title. It's clearly not talking about present day Austrians as it's 2700 years ago, and as Austria is a new country, and its name as a region only dates back c. 1000 years, it's clearly not talking about Austrians from 5000 years ago, as there weren't any, but it is talking about people from the region currently known as Austria. I wonder if it's a language difference between English and American.
- VortexDream 5y ago
  It is a confusing title. It took me a good 30 seconds to recognize what was actually meant. I'm not sure how else it could've been expressed though. I think it just took a while to connect "people in present day Austria" with "this person lived in the area that is now known as Austria, but wasn't back then".
  - School-Cotton 5y ago
    "Present-day X" is a common stock phrase in English to talk about a place in the past while identifying it, for convenience, with today's political borders. "Julius Caesar ruled over territory in present-day Italy, Tunisia, Spain, Turkey, (...etc)" is a perfectly normal sentence.
    - VortexDream 5y ago
      I know, but your sentence has additional context 1) ruled is in past tense 2) "over territory in" establishing geographical context The title starts with "People in present-day Austria" (implies the people there now) then switches to past tense and adds 2700 years ago.
      - School-Cotton 5y ago
        > The title starts with "People in present-day Austria" (implies the people there now) No, I don't think it implies this. That would just be "people in Austria"; or if you want to make the presentness explicit, "people in Austria now". > then switches to past tense It's not a switch. "People in present-day Austria" doesn't have any tense (there are no verbs).
        VortexDream 5y ago
        It implies present tense with "People in present-day". At least that's what confused me. Honestly, I don't care what you think. It confused me. What more do you want from me?
  - werdnapk 5y ago
    I didn't realize the title was confusing until I saw some of the comments in here. I suppose the title could say "People in the region of present-day Austria" to clear things up to those confused by it.
  - iso1631 5y ago
    It is confusing to you, and more. It's not confusing to me, and more. I find that interesting.
    - VortexDream 5y ago
      It is interesting, yeah. I had to laugh when I finally "got" it. Sort of makes you think about how our experiences, expectations, etc shape how we interpret even simple things like this.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Even the briefest of glances at TFA shows the full title, too long for HN's submission form: "Ancient poop shows people in present-day Austria drank beer and ate blue cheese up to 2,700 years ago". Describing places, times, and people is difficult over long intervals. Both titles are reasonable efforts under constraints, and there is far more interesting content in the article to discuss: saline preservation, copralytic analysis, genetic sequencing, the discovery and persistence of fermantation, and more. In Comments ... Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

d13 5y ago

Terrible, broken title that confused me too. They meant to suggest something last like “ people who lived a part of the world which is now called Austria”.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> part of the world which is now called Austria The phrase "present day Austria" is commonly understood to mean exactly that. I see nothing wrong with the title. Surely the ambiguity caused by the possibility that Austrians might be using their time machines to eat ancient cheese didn't cause you too much confusion?

iso1631 5y ago

It's odd, I had no problem parsing the title. It's clearly not talking about present day Austrians as it's 2700 years ago, and as Austria is a new country, and its name as a region only dates back c. 1000 years, it's clearly not talking about Austrians from 5000 years ago, as there weren't any, but it is talking about people from the region currently known as Austria. I wonder if it's a language difference between English and American.

VortexDream 5y ago
It is a confusing title. It took me a good 30 seconds to recognize what was actually meant. I'm not sure how else it could've been expressed though. I think it just took a while to connect "people in present day Austria" with "this person lived in the area that is now known as Austria, but wasn't back then".
- School-Cotton 5y ago
  "Present-day X" is a common stock phrase in English to talk about a place in the past while identifying it, for convenience, with today's political borders. "Julius Caesar ruled over territory in present-day Italy, Tunisia, Spain, Turkey, (...etc)" is a perfectly normal sentence.
  - VortexDream 5y ago
    I know, but your sentence has additional context 1) ruled is in past tense 2) "over territory in" establishing geographical context The title starts with "People in present-day Austria" (implies the people there now) then switches to past tense and adds 2700 years ago.
    - School-Cotton 5y ago
      > The title starts with "People in present-day Austria" (implies the people there now) No, I don't think it implies this. That would just be "people in Austria"; or if you want to make the presentness explicit, "people in Austria now". > then switches to past tense It's not a switch. "People in present-day Austria" doesn't have any tense (there are no verbs).
      - VortexDream 5y ago
        It implies present tense with "People in present-day". At least that's what confused me. Honestly, I don't care what you think. It confused me. What more do you want from me?
- werdnapk 5y ago
  I didn't realize the title was confusing until I saw some of the comments in here. I suppose the title could say "People in the region of present-day Austria" to clear things up to those confused by it.
- iso1631 5y ago
  It is confusing to you, and more. It's not confusing to me, and more. I find that interesting.
  - VortexDream 5y ago
    It is interesting, yeah. I had to laugh when I finally "got" it. Sort of makes you think about how our experiences, expectations, etc shape how we interpret even simple things like this.

dredmorbius 5y ago

Even the briefest of glances at TFA shows the full title, too long for HN's submission form: "Ancient poop shows people in present-day Austria drank beer and ate blue cheese up to 2,700 years ago". Describing places, times, and people is difficult over long intervals. Both titles are reasonable efforts under constraints, and there is far more interesting content in the article to discuss: saline preservation, copralytic analysis, genetic sequencing, the discovery and persistence of fermantation, and more. In Comments ... Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html