Geographical timezones cover the Earth in such a way that two timezones never overlap; hence, they are non-overlapping. But is there a better (shorter, without negation) word for this?

"Unfortunately he's travelling, possibly to a non-overlapping timezone, so I'm not sure when he can take the call."

Distinct and discrete come to mind, but they miss the nuance of continuously covering a surface and would not work in the sentence above (although just plain old different would).

  • 1
    How about "disjoint"? – Hot Licks Mar 8 '17 at 23:25
  • I would think "distinct" covers it pretty much perfectly. – Rocky Mar 8 '17 at 23:25
  • 4
    Given that overlapping timezones would be somewhat less useful than chocolate teapots, I don't really see any reason to even mention the fact that they're "non-overlapping". Just as we don't normally refer to "non-melting teapots" - they're just teapots. – FumbleFingers Mar 8 '17 at 23:39
  • I travel to different timezones myself. The non-overlapping part is assumed. If you mean more than one apart, then nonadjacent works. Disjoint might also be used, but is too math oriented for casual English. People will not understand you. – Wayfaring Stranger Mar 9 '17 at 0:19
  • 1
    You could try contiguous if you really want to make the point. – Ronald Sole Mar 9 '17 at 0:37

The timezones partition the globe (planet). That means that they do not overlap, that they are contiguous, and that they cover the entire globe.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.