[jolmg]

> that's why they call it present

The etymology is interesting[1]. It seems the common idea is being right in front of something as with something "being presented" or a person that "is present". "The present", as in the time, is short for "the present time" (the time that's with you), and "the present", as in the gift, is short for "the presented thing".

It seems the 2 diverged from Latin "praesens", which meant "being there", and then reunited into 1 word with 2 definitions. The meaning of "present" for time seems to be more in-line with the original "praesens", and it was the meaning for gift that saw more change: "being there" -> "in the situation in question" -> "face to face" -> "place before" -> "to offer" -> "gift"

Anyway, I feel saying stuff like "that's why they call it present" is neat, but, at least in my mind, it invalidates the whole thing you're trying to say when you realize that it's false.

[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/present#etymonline_v_19454

[bloodorange]

It's not meant to be read so literally. Going further on that route, "yesterday" is definitely not "history" and what comes tomorrow may be a mystery at some level but "tomorrow" itself is not a mystery. It's just the following day.

If you look at the spirit of the message instead, you'll see that it does have something valuable to say.

[jolmg]

I agree that it's a valuable thing to say. It's just that particular piece on present, the time, being named after present, the gift, that doesn't resonate with me. I understand that it's neat that they coincidentally share the same word and I'm sure that it does resonate with other people. I'm just sharing my own perspective.

Yesterday is history in that it forms part of past events. My browser history includes stuff I visited yesterday, for example. Tomorrow can also very well be mystery. That's why, again from my perspective, I have no issue with those parts.

It's the reasoning, like saying "that's why there's no 'I' in 'team'". Like, ok that's neat, but it's not valid reasoning.

[kleer001]

> ok that's neat, but it's not valid reasoning

Don't forget that more has been done in the history of men by the art of rhetoric than by a dialectic, that emotion moves people in force, not reason.

...

Also, that nature is not limited by human imagination.