4 ms·

I agree it is not a good comment, but I did want to see if somebody else thought as I did. It should start with the time, e.g.: '2700 years ago people in presen

I agree it is not a good comment, but I did want to see if somebody else thought as I did. It should start with the time, e.g.: '2700 years ago people in present-day Austria drank beer and ate blue cheese'. Should probably also be more specific and say 'inhabiting' rather than 'in'.

goto11 5y ago
The phrase "present-day Foo" is used all the time by people writing about history as a way of indicating a geographical area. I don't see the problem.
- eliasmacpherson 5y ago
  "50 years ago people in present-day New York consumed three times as many cigarettes". Present-day is not the problem. There's an ambiguity there because in can refer to at least three things if not more: people in the location of the present-day New York fifty years ago (as intended) people in present-day New York right now, physically and fifty years ago people in present-day New York right now, but not fifty years ago on closer inspection 'inhabiting' is not much better on these counts
  - goto11 5y ago
    Yes but that was not what was written. What was written was unambiguous. You use the phrase when the name of a geographical area did not exist, or wasn't the same at the time you are referring to. So you wouldn't say "People in present-day Austria 50 years ago...", you just say "People in Austria 50 years ago." But you could very well say "People in present-day Austria 200 years ago..." since Austria then and now are different geographical areas. You can say "Mozart was born in Salzburg in present-day Austria" and nobody would think it means he was born today. Communication is about context.
    - eliasmacpherson 5y ago
      Agree that my example was bad at least. The phrase 'present-day x' is also used to denote the setting in a script, novel, or magazine piece completely independent of this historical usage. The context does not arrive until the end of the sentence and so I feel it is more like a punchline than a well written description.
    - dahart 5y ago
      The title is only indirectly unambiguous through context and logic. It could still be improved and made less ambiguous through better word choice. The fragment “People in present day Austria” does not alone indicate the past, it requires “2700 years ago” to know for sure. If you say “People in present day Austria drink beer”, it automatically implies people there today drink beer. If you say “People in present day Austria drank beer”, it implies they drank beer recently. “People in present day Austria drank beer 2700 years ago”, while eventually unambiguous that it means the past, still leads the reader on an unnecessary roller coaster of first implying the present and then clarifying it means the past.

goto11 5y ago

The phrase "present-day Foo" is used all the time by people writing about history as a way of indicating a geographical area. I don't see the problem.

eliasmacpherson 5y ago
"50 years ago people in present-day New York consumed three times as many cigarettes". Present-day is not the problem. There's an ambiguity there because in can refer to at least three things if not more: people in the location of the present-day New York fifty years ago (as intended) people in present-day New York right now, physically and fifty years ago people in present-day New York right now, but not fifty years ago on closer inspection 'inhabiting' is not much better on these counts
- goto11 5y ago
  Yes but that was not what was written. What was written was unambiguous. You use the phrase when the name of a geographical area did not exist, or wasn't the same at the time you are referring to. So you wouldn't say "People in present-day Austria 50 years ago...", you just say "People in Austria 50 years ago." But you could very well say "People in present-day Austria 200 years ago..." since Austria then and now are different geographical areas. You can say "Mozart was born in Salzburg in present-day Austria" and nobody would think it means he was born today. Communication is about context.
  - eliasmacpherson 5y ago
    Agree that my example was bad at least. The phrase 'present-day x' is also used to denote the setting in a script, novel, or magazine piece completely independent of this historical usage. The context does not arrive until the end of the sentence and so I feel it is more like a punchline than a well written description.
  - dahart 5y ago
    The title is only indirectly unambiguous through context and logic. It could still be improved and made less ambiguous through better word choice. The fragment “People in present day Austria” does not alone indicate the past, it requires “2700 years ago” to know for sure. If you say “People in present day Austria drink beer”, it automatically implies people there today drink beer. If you say “People in present day Austria drank beer”, it implies they drank beer recently. “People in present day Austria drank beer 2700 years ago”, while eventually unambiguous that it means the past, still leads the reader on an unnecessary roller coaster of first implying the present and then clarifying it means the past.