4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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 agoWell 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 agoThe 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.