Talk:Die Schöpfung (The Creation) (Joseph Haydn): Difference between revisions
(The Creation?) |
(→English title: "The Creation" seems to be the generally accepted English title) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== English title == | == English title == | ||
Much as I agree that English should serve as a <i>lingua franca</i> on cpdl, I'm not quite sure this instance is the most adequate translation. <i>Die Schöpfung</i> takes an article in German, but even as a non-native English speaker (just an obnoxious teacher of it), I'm not quite sure the article is warranted in English. A noun of general reference doesn't usually take an article, in my understanding: "<b>[---]</b> Traffic is very busy at that time of day" or "<b>[---]</b> People think it's easy to live a life like that". No English speaker would contemplate using an article in those cases, I think. Putseys (1994) says <i>"omission of the overt the-form of the classifiying definite article is possible with a singular count noun when the NP [...] denotes a unique role"</i>, which I think applies to Creation. [[User:Jkelecom|joachim]] 18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | Much as I agree that English should serve as a <i>lingua franca</i> on cpdl, I'm not quite sure this instance is the most adequate translation. <i>Die Schöpfung</i> takes an article in German, but even as a non-native English speaker (just an obnoxious teacher of it), I'm not quite sure the article is warranted in English. A noun of general reference doesn't usually take an article, in my understanding: "<b>[---]</b> Traffic is very busy at that time of day" or "<b>[---]</b> People think it's easy to live a life like that". No English speaker would contemplate using an article in those cases, I think. Putseys (1994) says <i>"omission of the overt the-form of the classifiying definite article is possible with a singular count noun when the NP [...] denotes a unique role"</i>, which I think applies to Creation. [[User:Jkelecom|joachim]] 18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
: In almost all English language references that I've checked, this oratorio is indeed referred to as ''The Creation'', whether the definite article is warranted or not. -- [[User:CHGiffen|Chuck]][[User talk:CHGiffen|<sub><small>'''talk'''</small></sub>]] [[User:Charles H. Giffen|Giffen]][[Charles H. Giffen|<sub>'''♫'''</sub>]] 18:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:19, 2 October 2009
English title
Much as I agree that English should serve as a lingua franca on cpdl, I'm not quite sure this instance is the most adequate translation. Die Schöpfung takes an article in German, but even as a non-native English speaker (just an obnoxious teacher of it), I'm not quite sure the article is warranted in English. A noun of general reference doesn't usually take an article, in my understanding: "[---] Traffic is very busy at that time of day" or "[---] People think it's easy to live a life like that". No English speaker would contemplate using an article in those cases, I think. Putseys (1994) says "omission of the overt the-form of the classifiying definite article is possible with a singular count noun when the NP [...] denotes a unique role", which I think applies to Creation. joachim 18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)