3 ms·

I had to read the title several times to make sense of it. It could have been clearer. For example, “2,700 years ago in present day Austria, people drank beer a

I had to read the title several times to make sense of it. It could have been clearer. For example, “2,700 years ago in present day Austria, people drank beer and ate blue cheese.” The order of the title makes it sound like present-day Austrians were around 2,700 years ago. The “present day” is applied to the wrong object.

Spooky23 5y ago
Most people intuitively understand that people do not live for 3,000 years.
School-Cotton 5y ago
> The order of the title makes it sound like present-day Austrians were around 2,700 years ago. I simply don’t agree: there was only one possible meaning, and it was obvious to me. I can’t prove it in any other way than citing my intuition as a native English speaker. To my eyes your rewritten title has the same meaning and is no more or less clear.
- vidarh 5y ago
  I agree it's clear in this case, but it's clear only because the specific details makes the other interpretation impossible, and that's poor writing.
  - danparsonson 5y ago
    Well no, it's clear because it's a stock phrase in native English - no doubt unclear to non-native English speakers, but that doesn't necessarily make it poorly written.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      The fact that there are people in this thread that found it ambiguous is to me sufficient evidence that it is poorly written, even though the context in this specific case makes it possible to reliably infer what was actually meant. Especially given that there are several trivial ways of reordering the sentence that makes it unambiguous. The problem is not "present-day X". The problem is the position of "present-day X" within the sentence.
dahart 5y ago
I agree with you the title could be clearer, and I agree with the sibling comment that your re-wording doesn’t quite fix it. Maybe “2700 years ago in the region that is now present day Austria…”. Even just “People [who lived] in present day Austria…” would be slightly better (but not great) by inserting the past-tense verb. As it stands the title reads like “People [who are currently] in present day Austria…” Context, i.e., the rest of the sentence, immediately fixes this interpretation, but it’s still momentarily jarring. “Present day” is indeed a common phrase, but contrary to a few claims here, it is not normally used to place the subject of a sentence in the past. It is normally used opposite of that, to identify the time period as the present. Example: people in present day Babylon often drink beer. It would be weird to assume these people were drinking beer 3300 years ago and that I was talking about the past.
- School-Cotton 5y ago
  > Example: people in present day Babylon often drink beer. I have never seen anyone use the phrase like this. "present-day Babylon" is meaningless because there is no "Babylon" in the present day. "People drank beer thousands of years ago in present-day Iraq" would be valid, though.
  - dahart 5y ago
    > I have never seen anyone use the phrase like this Maybe look around? If you google “present day Babylon”, you will find many examples of exactly this usage. Present-day Babylon is referring to the region that used to be called Babylon, it has a perfectly clear meaning. I think this usage is in fact more common than referring to something current using the phrase “present day”. You don’t need to clarify present-day Iraq, because Iraq is the name of a current region, so it would be automatically assumed that you mean today’s borders, and far less confusing in your example if you left out “present day”. Your example has the same primary problem as the article title, it’s mixing two time periods in a confusing way. The term “present day” is normally meant to signify that the sentence is discussing the present, not to invoke the past. That said, your example is slightly better than the title because it starts with “thousands of years ago”, and it’s clear the people drank beer thousands of years ago before you say “present day”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_day Edit: BTW, the term “present day” is not really the issue, we don’t need to debate the meaning of those two words. The problem is the larger fragment “people in present day Austria”, which implies by correct and common usage the same thing as “people presently in Austria”. The article title only becomes clear later on, when it clarifies 2700 years ago.

Spooky23 5y ago

Most people intuitively understand that people do not live for 3,000 years.

School-Cotton 5y ago

> The order of the title makes it sound like present-day Austrians were around 2,700 years ago. I simply don’t agree: there was only one possible meaning, and it was obvious to me. I can’t prove it in any other way than citing my intuition as a native English speaker. To my eyes your rewritten title has the same meaning and is no more or less clear.

vidarh 5y ago
I agree it's clear in this case, but it's clear only because the specific details makes the other interpretation impossible, and that's poor writing.
- danparsonson 5y ago
  Well no, it's clear because it's a stock phrase in native English - no doubt unclear to non-native English speakers, but that doesn't necessarily make it poorly written.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    The fact that there are people in this thread that found it ambiguous is to me sufficient evidence that it is poorly written, even though the context in this specific case makes it possible to reliably infer what was actually meant. Especially given that there are several trivial ways of reordering the sentence that makes it unambiguous. The problem is not "present-day X". The problem is the position of "present-day X" within the sentence.

dahart 5y ago

I agree with you the title could be clearer, and I agree with the sibling comment that your re-wording doesn’t quite fix it. Maybe “2700 years ago in the region that is now present day Austria…”. Even just “People [who lived] in present day Austria…” would be slightly better (but not great) by inserting the past-tense verb. As it stands the title reads like “People [who are currently] in present day Austria…” Context, i.e., the rest of the sentence, immediately fixes this interpretation, but it’s still momentarily jarring. “Present day” is indeed a common phrase, but contrary to a few claims here, it is not normally used to place the subject of a sentence in the past. It is normally used opposite of that, to identify the time period as the present. Example: people in present day Babylon often drink beer. It would be weird to assume these people were drinking beer 3300 years ago and that I was talking about the past.

School-Cotton 5y ago
> Example: people in present day Babylon often drink beer. I have never seen anyone use the phrase like this. "present-day Babylon" is meaningless because there is no "Babylon" in the present day. "People drank beer thousands of years ago in present-day Iraq" would be valid, though.
- dahart 5y ago
  > I have never seen anyone use the phrase like this Maybe look around? If you google “present day Babylon”, you will find many examples of exactly this usage. Present-day Babylon is referring to the region that used to be called Babylon, it has a perfectly clear meaning. I think this usage is in fact more common than referring to something current using the phrase “present day”. You don’t need to clarify present-day Iraq, because Iraq is the name of a current region, so it would be automatically assumed that you mean today’s borders, and far less confusing in your example if you left out “present day”. Your example has the same primary problem as the article title, it’s mixing two time periods in a confusing way. The term “present day” is normally meant to signify that the sentence is discussing the present, not to invoke the past. That said, your example is slightly better than the title because it starts with “thousands of years ago”, and it’s clear the people drank beer thousands of years ago before you say “present day”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Present_day Edit: BTW, the term “present day” is not really the issue, we don’t need to debate the meaning of those two words. The problem is the larger fragment “people in present day Austria”, which implies by correct and common usage the same thing as “people presently in Austria”. The article title only becomes clear later on, when it clarifies 2700 years ago.