kizolk
Indecisive 
Posts: 5,517
|
Post by kizolk on Sept 6, 2023 22:57:09 GMT
Holder of a political office?
|
|
|
|
Post by terentiusfaber on Sept 6, 2023 22:57:35 GMT
Female?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifica on Sept 6, 2023 23:10:23 GMT
Holder of a political office? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifica on Sept 6, 2023 23:10:40 GMT
|
|
kizolk
Indecisive
Posts: 5,517
|
Post by kizolk on Sept 6, 2023 23:15:31 GMT
Native speaker of Arabic?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifica on Sept 6, 2023 23:16:33 GMT
Yes.
|
|
kizolk
Indecisive
Posts: 5,517
|
Post by kizolk on Sept 7, 2023 8:33:56 GMT
Real human dead male, born between 1900 and 1945, died in the 21st century, native speaker of Arabic who held a political office. Correct?
By the way, since the question came up before: how do you use ordinal numbers for centuries? Does the 20th century go from 1901 or 2000 for you, or 1900-1999? Like I said, I use the former convention (and would use "the 1900s" if I meant the latter), but that may not be the one you're using.
Anyway: did he hold his political office in an African country?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifica on Sept 7, 2023 8:40:35 GMT
Real human dead male, born between 1900 and 1945, died in the 21st century, native speaker of Arabic who held a political office. Correct? Yes. I use the former convention Well, that's the correct one, isn't it? Anyway: did he hold his political office in an African country? Yes. |
|
kizolk
Indecisive
Posts: 5,517
|
Post by kizolk on Sept 7, 2023 8:42:33 GMT
Well, that's the correct one, isn't it? I'd say yes, but Etaoin seemed to say it wasn't universal and possibly pedantic. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifica on Sept 7, 2023 8:43:08 GMT
Well, that's the correct one, isn't it? All right, I'm questioning that now. It's the one I learned, but I'm not sure it's more logical than the other. |
|
kizolk
Indecisive
Posts: 5,517
|
Post by kizolk on Sept 7, 2023 8:43:31 GMT
Was he elected?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifica on Sept 7, 2023 8:50:36 GMT
I found a reference to an election but this may be misleading.
|
|
kizolk
Indecisive
Posts: 5,517
|
Post by kizolk on Sept 7, 2023 8:51:01 GMT
Well, that's the correct one, isn't it? All right, I'm questioning that now. It's the one I learned, but I'm not sure it's more logical than the other. This is indeed the one I learned, and the only one we were presented as being correct. That said, it comes from the fact that there is no year zero in the Gregorian calendar, so a century necessarily has to begin with a year ending in 1. Because of that, you can say it's logical -- within the Gregorian system, that is. But the other way to count centuries seems to make more intuitive sense. |
|
kizolk
Indecisive
Posts: 5,517
|
Post by kizolk on Sept 7, 2023 8:51:26 GMT
Was he a monarch by birth right?
|
|
kizolk
Indecisive
Posts: 5,517
|
Post by kizolk on Sept 7, 2023 8:57:11 GMT
Also, am I wrong in thinking that more often than not at least, when someone says "the 1900s", they mean the century, but when we say les années 1900, we usually mean the decade? I may be making it up. Of course, with other decades of the 20th century, people will more often say les années 90 for instance, but I think that's more a clipping of les années 1990, as opposed to a rule of its own ("decades have to be referred to by using a two-digit number" or something).
Not sure I'm making much sense.
|
|
