Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Working as an English translator/editor in Brussels, I am daily exposed to the oddities of Euroenglish and the quirks of English as spoken by non-native speakers. Given all the talk of misplaced modifiers, I wonder about the correct positioning of certain adjectives/modifiers.
For instance, non-native speakers tend to put the modifier(s) before a proper noun in constructions such as
"the Belgian beer company InBev"
"the accounting firm KPMG"
"the international think-tank Carnegie" (the latter from the EUobserver, an ENglish-language EU online news site with often atrocious English).
It seems to me that "Carnegie, the international think-tank," would be more natural in English, but that option isn't always possible where the noun is itself a complex construction, or where the modifier is longer.
Is there a rule/guideline for this sort of usage? Do the three examples above sound natural to uncontaminated anglophone ears?
Many thanks,
Monica Sandor
Hi, Monica.
I'm not sure how uncontaminated I am, since in America we hear so many influences around us every day. But your examples sound perfectly fine to me either way. Your examples with the name last do have the ring of a news style.
I'm going to venture a possible tendency without any hard facts. This is by no means a rule, because both placements are perfectly fine to my ear. The order with the name following the description is more likely to occur in writing or formal, scripted speech. Informal conversation would probably be more likely to use the name, followed by the description in apposition, as your instinct is.
If I were to venture a further guess, I might guess that the newsy ring comes from the legal need to avoid misunderstanding or ambiguity. There might be a park, a company, a college, a person, a foundation, a concert hall, all called “Carnegie.†By classifying the reference first, the named reference is unambiguous upon naming. Again, I suspect in conversation we would tend to name first, then clarify.
But that is not to say the order of name first is somehow inappropriate or less appropriate for formal writing or speech. Either can be used properly.
I hope this helps.
Journalists are also likely to drop the article and put, for example, "American brewer Anheuser Busch was bought by Belgian beer company InBev."
When the description follows, it has to be surrounded by commas, as in "Anheuser Busch, an American brewer, was bought by InBev, a Belgian beer company."
If you read the examples aloud, you'll hear that the first version is very quick and clipped, a style journalists prefer, while the second version is slowed down by all those commas. Either version is correct. The choice is based entirely on rhythm.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)