at the turn of * centuries vs at the turn of * century

[White Hat]

I'm looking at the article 'The Widow and the Ward: The Perils of the Dunstanvilles at the Turn of the 12th and 13th Centuries' by K. Thompson. In the abstract, it says: "The history of the Dunstanville family at the turn of the 13th century provides a Sussex case study of two issues that ...". Do 'at the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries' and 'at the turn of the 13th century' mean the same thing?

 

[White Hat]

Here it says: "Out of nowhere, on the cusp of the 15th and 16th centuries, Brumel conceived a work on a scale that had never before been tried ...". Would 'on the cusp of the 15th and 16th centuries' and 'at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries' mean the same thing?

 

[jutfrank]

I would ask the same question as you!

I would imagine that 'at the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries' simply means 'at the turn of the 13th century'. The writer is talking about the time during the transition from the 12th to the 13th century. You could read the article to find out for sure.

Would 'on the cusp of the 15th and 16th centuries' and 'at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries' mean the same thing?

If it's right what I'm saying above, then yes, more or less. The phrase 'on the cusp' generally refers to the boundary between two time zones, but it's a bit more likely to mean something like 'just before' rather than 'just after' the boundary line. So I'd first presume it to be talking about, say, the last few years of the 1400s.

It may well be quite commonplace to write 'at the turn of' and then put two centuries instead of one, but my view is that it's at best unnecessary and at worst incorrect. The fact that we're both asking the same question supports that view. If the writer had written, say, 'at the turn from the 12th to the 13th century', it would have been clear.

 

[White Hat]

If the writer had written, say, 'at the turn from the 12th to the 13th century', it would have been clear.

Would 'at the turn from the 12th to the 13th centuries' also be correct? What about 'at the turn from the 12th to 13th centuries' (without 'the' before '13th')?

 

[jutfrank]

Would 'at the turn from the 12th to the 13th centuries' also be correct?

I thought about that for half a minute when I wrote my post. In fact, that's what I wrote originally before changing my mind and correcting it. I'll argue that it's not strictly correct. If you expand it, you can see why:

at the turn from the 12th (century) to the 13th century
at the turn from the 12th (century) to the 13th centuries

What about 'at the turn from the 12th to 13th centuries' (without 'the' before '13th')?

I still think that's wrong. You turn from one single thing to another single thing.

If the phrase were compounded with 'and', then the plural would work. For example:

at the transition between the 12th and 13th centuries

 

[Tarheel]

I would avoid any confusion and simply mention the year or years involved.