4 ms·

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

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.

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.