[Grammar] between

[savs]

Should it be "between the 13th and the 14th century" or "between the 13th and 14th centuries"?
Thanks in advance

 

[Rover_KE]

Hi, Savs, and welcome to the board.

Should it be "between the 13th and the 14th century" or "between the 13th and 14th centuries"?
Thanks in advance

Neither.

There was never any time between the 13th and 14th centuries. As one ended the next began.

You could say 'During the 13th and 14th centuries....'

Or 'Between the 11th and 15th centuries....'

In either case, use centuries.

Rover

 

[birdeen's call]

Hi, Savs, and welcome to the board.



Neither.

There was never any time between the 13th and 14th centuries. As one ended the next began.

You could say 'During the 13th and 14th centuries....'

Or 'Between the 11th and 15th centuries....'

In either case, use centuries.

Rover

Would the turn of the 13th century be OK? I guess that is what the original poster had in mind.

 

[Barb_D]

I never know if the turn of the century means the end or the beginning. Does the turn of the 13th mean 1299-1301 or so, or 1399-1401 or so?

 

[birdeen's call]

I also have problems with it, but I checked before posting. It's the latter, if I checked correctly.

 

[emsr2d2]

I never know if the turn of the century means the end or the beginning. Does the turn of the 13th mean 1299-1301 or so, or 1399-1401 or so?

To me, the "turn of the century" would mean around the end of the year 1299 and the beginning of the year 1300.

 

[bertietheblue]

'at the turn of a [specific] century' usually means at the beginning of that century, so 'at the turn of the 13th century' means 1200 or slightly later. But, it seems, there is no common agreement about usage and some may interpret it to mean at the end of the 13th century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_of_the_century

 

[birdeen's call]

'at the turn of a [specific] century' usually means at the beginning of that century, so 'at the turn of the 13th century' means 1200 or slightly later. But, it seems, there is no common agreement about usage and some may interpret it to mean at the end of the 13th century:

Turn of the century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you! I had no idea. Before I posted I'd just looked it up in only one place, where it said "the turn of the twentieth century" to refer to the latest period. So, if it's so amiguous, what would you say make it clear? I can't find proper words...

 

[Rover_KE]

... what would say to make it clear?

Here are two ways to avoid any ambiguity:

'At the beginning of the twentieth century. . . .'

'In the early years of the eighteenth century. . . .'

Rover

 

[birdeen's call]

Here are two ways to avoid any ambiguity:

'At the beginning of the twentieth century. . . .'

'In the early years of the eighteenth century. . . .'

Rover

Alright, but what if I'm talking about a war that spanned the period between 1593 and 1612? It's not the early years of any century...

 

[bhaisahab]

Alright, but what if I'm talking about a war that spanned the period between 1593 and 1612? It's not the early years of any century...

In that case, to be unambiguous, "it spanned the latter part/the end of the 16th century and the early part/beginning of the 17th century".

 

[birdeen's call]

In that case, to be unambiguous, "it spanned the latter part/the end of the 16th century and the early part/beginning of the 17th century".

Ouch, that's long Thank you!

 

[emsr2d2]

Ouch, that's long Thank you!

You could probably get away with "It spanned the 16th and 17th centuries" but there's a danger that readers might think it ran from 1501-1699!

 

[euncu]

You could probably get away with "It spanned the 16th and 17th centuries" but there's a danger that readers might think it ran from 1501-1699!

It spanned the late 16th and early 17th centuries.

Would it solve the problem so we don't have to get away?

 

[birdeen's call]

Good to have one word for it in one's language, I must say

 

[bertietheblue]

It spanned the late 16th and early 17th centuries.

:up:

 

[Rover_KE]

Alright, but what if I'm talking about a war that spanned the period between 1593 and 1612? It's not the early years of any century...

Let's be realistic.

Anybody writing about a war whose exact dates are historically factual will state those dates.

Nobody would ever write 'The First World War lasted for a few years fairly early on in the twentieth century, and there was a Second World War a bit later, finishing towards the middle of the century'.

But talking about feudalism, though, one would have to say that it started to develop in the eighth century and only began to decline during the course of the sixteenth.

Rover

 

[birdeen's call]

Let's be realistic.

Anybody writing about a war whose exact dates are historically factual will state those dates.

I don't think I wasn't being realistic... As I said, we have one handy word that we can use on such occasions, not only for centuries but also years, and months, and some other. We use it very often, and my example was a typical example of such a situation. When a writer does not want to bore his readers with unnecessary dates, they will just use this word. So what can seem unrealistic for you is not for milions of Poles