(I tried to search for this, but couldn't think of words to search for that were specific enough to find anything similar.)
In American English, we often use the construct "then-x" or "then x" to indicate that the subject was at the time of the action, but is no longer, a certain thing. For example, we might say, "On August 6, 2001, then-governor Gray Davis said that..." to indicate that Mr. Davis was at the time the Governor of California, but is no longer so.
I propose that we use the reversed form of this construct. For example, in order to note that in 1682 the Tihua (sp?) tribe helped build the first Christian church in what is now, but was not then, called Texas, we might say: "In 1682, the Tihua Indians established the first Christian church in now-Texas."-- disbomber, May 06 2005 So, the purpose of this form is to indicate that the event occured in a place before that place had the name it has today... okay.
Maybe combine the two pieces of infomation. Down in "now then texas tihua" or "now texas then tihua"... Cover all the bases, makes for good storytelling.-- daseva, May 06 2005 "In 1682, the Tihua Indians established the first Christian church in what is now Texas."Given [10clocks] grievance against apostrophes, I don't think it's wise to start introducing wild hyphens willy-nilly.-- Basepair, May 06 2005 WICKA - What Is Currently Known As
Gets confusing when on topics of Paganism and Witchcraft.-- zen_tom, May 06 2005 Bugger. What I meant was "Given [10clock]'s grievance against apostrophes...".Just thought I should get in first with that one.-- Basepair, May 06 2005 I don't think there's anything wild about this particular hyphen. It doesn't seem to violate any rule of English language, unlike wild apostrophe's (sic) that come and go when they please. (Yeah, those drive me crazy too).
The "what is now Texas" form has always felt unwieldy to me. It's like using an AK-47 to hunt ducks: you can, and it's not like it's going to hurt anything (well, other than the duck), but why not just bring a .22? It can also get confusing depending on the context and the language used. "Now-Texas" is clear, succint and AFAIK doesn't violate a rule so much as it dictates usage in a place where there isn't an applicable rule.
BTW, to [daseva], this construct (and this example) extend further than names. Texas's state of being was fundamentally different in 1682 than it is today: it was not really carved into a state with borders, I'm pretty sure (although I'd have to do some quick research to verify) it wasn't a part of Mexico yet, and at most it was a loosely if at all defined part of territory held by Spain throughout the Americas. It wasn't just not-called-Texas, it was fundamentally not-Texas (or !Texas) although it was on the land that now *is* Texas.-- disbomber, May 06 2005 Like: "In the late 1700's, the US Constititution was authored in now-America?"
now-earth? When you are referring to PLACES, it's almost always better to use the current names. There is no place on earth that had exactly the same name since humans first set foot on it.-- sophocles, May 06 2005 Ahh, clarity.-- daseva, May 06 2005 //Like: "In the late 1700's, the US Constititution was authored in now-America?"//
Nope. America was already a nation of WASPs with (essentially) an organized government and military which was in the progress of establishing the rule of law.
BTW, you misspelled and tittillated "Constitution".
//now-earth? When you are referring to PLACES, it's almost always better to use the current names. There is no place on earth that had exactly the same name since humans first set foot on it.//
You missed the point. As I explained to [daseva], this is *not about names*. It is about a fundamentally different state of being--just like "then-President". It doesn't indicate a change of name or title--indeed, President William Clinton will always be President William Clinton--instead, it indicates a fundamental difference in the life and importance of Mr. Clinton. Similarly, this construct does not refer to that land not being *called* Texas--it refers to that land not *being* Texas. At the time, it had no Constitutional rule of law, was shakily (if at all) governed, didn't have a name at all, did not function as the State of Texas under the United States of America as today (nor as the State of Texas under Mexico as before the US-Mexico War); it was a massive collection of Native American tribal lands which weren't interrelated in any way. Today there is a definite line between El Paso, Texas and Chihuahua, Mexico where rule of law and (to a significant extent) culture, language and race shift. There is a particular stretch of land which is Texas. At that time, no such thing existed. Now-El-Paso was similar to now-Chihuahua and now-Milwaukee, and the *idea* of Texas, not just the *word* Texas, was at its core utterly meaningless. That's what "now-Texas" means.-- disbomber, May 06 2005 Don't people already say, "in what is now Texas" ?-- JesusHChrist, May 07 2005 //Don't people already say, "in what is now Texas"?//
The point is being missed. Would you say "Gray Davis, who was then Governor of California"? I'd bet you agree that "then-governor Gray Davis" sounds better, or at least more concise.-- disbomber, May 07 2005 random, halfbakery