Discussion on question by KI.: Is the phrase ~in x years inclusive or exclusive?

Feeds

12:13

0

Q: Is the phrase ~in x years inclusive or exclusive?

Is the phrase ~in x years, such as "The first revenue drop in x years," inclusive or exclusive of the last year there was a revenue drop? For instance, given this scenario: 2000 - revenue decrease 2001 - revenue increase 2002 - revenue increase 2003 - revenue increase 2004 - revenue increase 2005...

GArthurBrown

Just like the last two days means yesterday and today, the last two years is last year and this year, and may or may not refer to literal 365-day increments (possibly extending some months into the year before last year).

KannE

Was that the actual scenario? Because people often get years confused when discussing tax years. I would guess they were discussing 2005 revenues in 2006, for example, and worded it poorly. But I would start with rereading it first. Welcome to ELU.

@GArthurBrown - Not necessarily (search this site for more on that), esp. when discussing tax years.

GArthurBrown

@KannE Do you mean a fiscal year?

BoldBen

It might depend on when in 2000 the revenue decrease took place and when the comparison was being made. If the comparison was being made between the ends of financial years then it would be the first decrease in five years. If the last decrease was in the first quarter of 2000 and the comparison was being made in the second quarter of 2006 then it would be the first decrease in six years.

Michael Harvey

@GArthurBrown - in the UK, the financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March for the purposes of government financial statements. For personal tax purposes the fiscal year starts on 6 April and ends on 5 April of the next calendar year. This is what Brits, and maybe others, call the 'tax year'. That is not an error.

GArthurBrown

12:13

@MichaelHarvey I understand that. I'm not sure it changes the fact that in 5 years still includes this (tax) year as year 5 and then counts backward (and may or may not be literally 365 days, as some fiscal years in the US can be 52 or 53 weeks).

Michael Harvey

@GArthurBrown Tell me about it. We have to keep our finance documents for 6 full tax years following the year they relate to. This seems very simple to me, but it cause some folks a lot of trouble.

KannE

@GArthurBrown - No. I meant "tax year" (IRS term, US).

GArthurBrown

@KannE In IRS lingo, that's just a year (or fiscal year) you are paying taxes for. It doesn't change how you count years.

KannE

@GArthurBrown - Okay, that was a little short. Still not over that "jargon" business, I guess, but yes! It's jargon (that's the ticket). And nobody but tax preparers (and the IRS) knows that "fiscal year" falls under tax year, and BTW, the IRS doesn't know what hyponym or hypernym means b/c it's just a written text and some answering machines now. And the tax preparers will all die out. YW. But not yet. So that will be $250. TY.

GArthurBrown

@KannE Do you have a point or are you just interested in being childish? A tax year doesn't change how you count years. A fiscal year that doesn't end on Dec. 31st doesn't change how you count years either, but it could change the actual dates within those years.

KannE

12:13

@GArthurBrown - Okay, I haven't had enough withheld for the last two years. What does that mean? It depends on what "year" means, for starters.

GArthurBrown

@KannE It means you haven't had enough withheld this year or last year. Whether your year is a calendar year or a fiscal year, that doesn't change how you count years. The question is about whether in five years includes the year of the revenue drop or not.

KannE

@GArthurBrown - A "fiscal year" can't end on Dec. 31st. That's the whole point...

GArthurBrown

@KannE Please explain how tax years could change the number of years ago a revenue drop occurred? Because clearly if we are dealing with tax years, then we are talking about tax year 2000 and tax year 2005.

KannE

@GArthurBrown - No, it means for 2019 and for 2020, if "years" means tax years based on the context. Or it means 2019 and 2020 b/c that's how some people would define "the last two years" (but you didn't "search this site for more on that" evidently). Or it means since ~July 2019 or, you're saying, from 1Jan20–20Jul21? Okay. Go with that.

GArthurBrown

@Kanne That has nothing to do with tax years. You are simply saying that the last two years means previous two years. And this makes even less sense when you consider the question.

@KannE And again I'm saying that whatever the measure of the years, 5 years ago means 5 years in the past (from 2005 that would be 2000, whether calendar or fiscal), and in the last five years means means from whatever date in 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, and whatever date in 2000. This isn't going to become, mystically, 6 years because of the tax code.

KannE

12:13

@GArthurBrown - Again, see Boldben's comment (esp. "when the comparison was being made"). Do you think they were discussing 2005's revenue in 2005? Maybe they were projecting or just counting some of it. Wouldn't it be great if we actually had the actual context!

GArthurBrown

@KannE Then what you are saying is that it could be a mistake? What the Q wants to know is what the expression means. Lots of things might be mistakes, but we can still offer guidance on what the language used means.

KI.

18:05

Unfortunately I don't have context for this. The phrase was in a book about Japanese > English Translation that I've been reading. It was brought up as a cautionary point about inclusive / exclusive phrases and how one should be careful when translating.

The original phrase in Japanese would describe the scenario given. The author says that while the phrase can be loosely translated as in the last 5 years, it is strictly speaking, in 6 years. I was under the impression that the above scenario would be the first drop in 5 years, so I'm asking to make sure which is correct.

KannE

19:28

Sorry, the argument regarding "the last two years" was a tangent, not applicable to this question; ignore that. The only reason I addressed it was b/c I didn't want you to think that phrase was so narrowly defined, or even applicable to this.

KannE

19:38

@GArthurBrown - Then why did you bring up "the last two years"? That language was not used. But you brought it up, narrowly defined it, and then it had to be addressed or left as is.

Transcript for

Discussion on question by KI.: Is the…