Discussion:
"in Boulder in Colorado"
Add Reply
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-23 15:49:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American city of Boulder in Colorado."

The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between
city and state name.

Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under
the system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the
cultural, so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever,
you're merely giving a vague indication of its location. But in the US,
the state is an integral part of the name of the place. There are dozens
of "Springfield"s scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s and
"Lincoln"s. The state cannot be dropped.

Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than
once, I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City,
USA" in a book edited in England. There is probably only one Jersey
City in the USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City, N.J.," with the
"USA" optional.
Bebercito
2021-03-23 18:09:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American city of Boulder in Colorado."
The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between
city and state name.
Would US media likely refer to an equivalent small-to-middle sized
English city as just its name followed by its county name,
e.g. "Oldham, Greater Manchester"? (That seems highly improbable.)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under
the system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the
cultural, so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever,
you're merely giving a vague indication of its location. But in the US,
the state is an integral part of the name of the place. There are dozens
of "Springfield"s scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s and
"Lincoln"s. The state cannot be dropped.
Neither can the county for homonymous English towns, which are
referred to as e.g. "St. Ives, Cornwall" and "St. Ives, Cambridge".

The simplified identification only denotes greater familiarity
with the towns or cities concerned, in the US and UK alike.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than
once, I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City,
USA" in a book edited in England. There is probably only one Jersey
City in the USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City, N.J.," with the
"USA" optional.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-23 19:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American
city of
Boulder in Colorado."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between
city and state name.
Would US media likely refer to an equivalent small-to-middle sized
English city as just its name followed by its county name,
e.g. "Oldham, Greater Manchester"? (That seems highly improbable.)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under
the system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the
cultural, so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever,
you're merely giving a vague indication of its location. But in the US,
the state is an integral part of the name of the place. There are dozens
of "Springfield"s scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s and
"Lincoln"s. The state cannot be dropped.
Neither can the county for homonymous English towns, which are
referred to as e.g. "St. Ives, Cornwall" and "St. Ives, Cambridge".
The simplified identification only denotes greater familiarity
with the towns or cities concerned, in the US and UK alike.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than
once, I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City,
USA" in a book edited in England. There is probably only one Jersey
City in the USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City, N.J.," with the
"USA" optional.
Well, there he is being prescriptive again.

Wellington

I'm sure we've done this before; Newcastle NSW etc.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-23 19:26:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American
city of
Boulder in Colorado."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between
city and state name.
Would US media likely refer to an equivalent small-to-middle sized
English city as just its name followed by its county name,
e.g. "Oldham, Greater Manchester"? (That seems highly improbable.)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under
the system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the
cultural, so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever,
you're merely giving a vague indication of its location. But in the US,
the state is an integral part of the name of the place. There are dozens
of "Springfield"s scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s and
"Lincoln"s. The state cannot be dropped.
Neither can the county for homonymous English towns, which are
referred to as e.g. "St. Ives, Cornwall" and "St. Ives, Cambridge".
The simplified identification only denotes greater familiarity
with the towns or cities concerned, in the US and UK alike.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than
once, I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City,
USA" in a book edited in England. There is probably only one Jersey
City in the USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City, N.J.," with the
"USA" optional.
Well, there he is being prescriptive again.
Is that what you call it when the BBC is being unnatural, contrary
to custom, etc. etc.?
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Wellington
I'm sure we've done this before; Newcastle NSW etc.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Sigh. Does the BBC routinely say "the Australian city of Newcastle
in New South Wales"?
Tony Cooper
2021-03-23 19:34:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:26:03 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American
city of
Boulder in Colorado."
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between
city and state name.
Would US media likely refer to an equivalent small-to-middle sized
English city as just its name followed by its county name,
e.g. "Oldham, Greater Manchester"? (That seems highly improbable.)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under
the system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the
cultural, so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever,
you're merely giving a vague indication of its location. But in the US,
the state is an integral part of the name of the place. There are dozens
of "Springfield"s scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s and
"Lincoln"s. The state cannot be dropped.
Neither can the county for homonymous English towns, which are
referred to as e.g. "St. Ives, Cornwall" and "St. Ives, Cambridge".
The simplified identification only denotes greater familiarity
with the towns or cities concerned, in the US and UK alike.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than
once, I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City,
USA" in a book edited in England. There is probably only one Jersey
City in the USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City, N.J.," with the
"USA" optional.
Well, there he is being prescriptive again.
Is that what you call it when the BBC is being unnatural, contrary
to custom, etc. etc.?
How is the BBC being "contrary to custom" when BBC's custom is
"constantly insert a pointless 'in'"?
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-23 20:30:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:26:03 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American
city of Boulder in Colorado."
The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between
city and state name.
Would US media likely refer to an equivalent small-to-middle sized
English city as just its name followed by its county name,
e.g. "Oldham, Greater Manchester"? (That seems highly improbable.)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under
the system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the
cultural, so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever,
you're merely giving a vague indication of its location. But in the US,
the state is an integral part of the name of the place. There are dozens
of "Springfield"s scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s and
"Lincoln"s. The state cannot be dropped.
Neither can the county for homonymous English towns, which are
referred to as e.g. "St. Ives, Cornwall" and "St. Ives, Cambridge".
The simplified identification only denotes greater familiarity
with the towns or cities concerned, in the US and UK alike.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than
once, I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City,
USA" in a book edited in England. There is probably only one Jersey
City in the USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City, N.J.," with the
"USA" optional.
Well, there he is being prescriptive again.
Is that what you call it when the BBC is being unnatural, contrary
to custom, etc. etc.?
How is the BBC being "contrary to custom" when BBC's custom is
"constantly insert a pointless 'in'"?
Well, genius moron, if what you call "their custom" is contrary
to the custom of the country where the place names are in use,
should they maintain that custom?

Go "wind up" someone else.

Go have another fight with Lewis or Quinn or someone. You have
no trouble finding people to fight with.
Tony Cooper
2021-03-23 22:32:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 13:30:52 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 12:26:03 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American
city of Boulder in Colorado."
The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between
city and state name.
Would US media likely refer to an equivalent small-to-middle sized
English city as just its name followed by its county name,
e.g. "Oldham, Greater Manchester"? (That seems highly improbable.)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under
the system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the
cultural, so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever,
you're merely giving a vague indication of its location. But in the US,
the state is an integral part of the name of the place. There are dozens
of "Springfield"s scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s and
"Lincoln"s. The state cannot be dropped.
Neither can the county for homonymous English towns, which are
referred to as e.g. "St. Ives, Cornwall" and "St. Ives, Cambridge".
The simplified identification only denotes greater familiarity
with the towns or cities concerned, in the US and UK alike.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than
once, I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City,
USA" in a book edited in England. There is probably only one Jersey
City in the USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City, N.J.," with the
"USA" optional.
Well, there he is being prescriptive again.
Is that what you call it when the BBC is being unnatural, contrary
to custom, etc. etc.?
How is the BBC being "contrary to custom" when BBC's custom is
"constantly insert a pointless 'in'"?
Well, genius moron, if what you call "their custom" is contrary
to the custom of the country where the place names are in use,
should they maintain that custom?
Surely, this is not the first time you've noticed that the custom of
the BBC is to write/speak in the custom of the country in which the
BBC is located. They are not expected to explain that a first floor
flat is not an apartment at ground level. In writing, they sprinkle
in a few more "u"s than you might expect. The say "laboratory"
differently than you do.

They don't expect an American news report of an event in Peterborough
to be listed as "Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK".
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-23 20:34:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is that what you call it when the BBC is being unnatural, contrary
to custom, etc. etc.?
A UK broadcaster fails to follow a US custom.
Will the outrages never cease?
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-23 20:47:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is that what you call it when the BBC is being unnatural, contrary
to custom, etc. etc.?
A UK broadcaster fails to follow a US custom.
Will the outrages never cease?
How do you react when a prestigious American media outlet
gets wrong something that comes so naturally to any Brit --
such as the nuances of royal or peer titles?

Why do you continue to insist that the British way is the best
-- or the only -- way?
charles
2021-03-23 21:09:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Is that what you call it when the BBC is being unnatural, contrary
to custom, etc. etc.?
A UK broadcaster fails to follow a US custom.
Will the outrages never cease?
How do you react when a prestigious American media outlet
gets wrong something that comes so naturally to any Brit --
such as the nuances of royal or peer titles?
Why do you continue to insist that the British way is the best
-- or the only -- way?
For the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation it is correct
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-23 19:23:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American
city of Boulder in Colorado."
The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between
city and state name.
Would US media likely refer to an equivalent small-to-middle sized
English city as just its name followed by its county name,
e.g. "Oldham, Greater Manchester"? (That seems highly improbable.)
Haven't the foggiest. If that's the correct form, then that's what should
be used.

Are you saying that "Greater Manchester" is a name on a level
equivalent to "Shropshire" or "Essex"?
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under
the system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the
cultural, so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever,
you're merely giving a vague indication of its location. But in the US,
the state is an integral part of the name of the place. There are dozens
of "Springfield"s scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s and
"Lincoln"s. The state cannot be dropped.
Neither can the county for homonymous English towns, which are
referred to as e.g. "St. Ives, Cornwall" and "St. Ives, Cambridge".
Homophony has nothing to do with it. It's either "Boulder, Colorado"
or "Boulder," but the latter wouldn't be used until a second mention.
Post by Bebercito
The simplified identification only denotes greater familiarity
with the towns or cities concerned, in the US and UK alike.
What is a "simplified identification"?

"Boulder in Colorado" is simply wrong.

You could say "Boulder, which is in Colorado," but you wouldn't.
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than
once, I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City,
USA" in a book edited in England. There is probably only one Jersey
City in the USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City, N.J.," with the
"USA" optional.
Bebercito
2021-03-23 20:09:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American
city of Boulder in Colorado."
The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between
city and state name.
Would US media likely refer to an equivalent small-to-middle sized
English city as just its name followed by its county name,
e.g. "Oldham, Greater Manchester"? (That seems highly improbable.)
Haven't the foggiest. If that's the correct form, then that's what should
be used.
But my point is precisely that the usage seems to be correlated to
familiarity with the cities.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are you saying that "Greater Manchester" is a name on a level
equivalent to "Shropshire" or "Essex"?
Yes, all three are counties.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under
the system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the
cultural, so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever,
you're merely giving a vague indication of its location. But in the US,
the state is an integral part of the name of the place. There are dozens
of "Springfield"s scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s and
"Lincoln"s. The state cannot be dropped.
Neither can the county for homonymous English towns, which are
referred to as e.g. "St. Ives, Cornwall" and "St. Ives, Cambridge".
Homophony has nothing to do with it.
?? So why mention 'There are dozens of "Springfield"s scattered about,
and lots of "Washington"s and "Lincoln"s'?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
The simplified identification only denotes greater familiarity
with the towns or cities concerned, in the US and UK alike.
What is a "simplified identification"?
One that's reduced to its bare bones: name of town/city, followed by
comma, followed by name of state/county.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Boulder in Colorado" is simply wrong.
You could say "Boulder, which is in Colorado," but you wouldn't.
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than
once, I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City,
USA" in a book edited in England. There is probably only one Jersey
City in the USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City, N.J.," with the
"USA" optional.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-23 20:38:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American
city of Boulder in Colorado."
The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between
city and state name.
Would US media likely refer to an equivalent small-to-middle sized
English city as just its name followed by its county name,
e.g. "Oldham, Greater Manchester"? (That seems highly improbable.)
Haven't the foggiest. If that's the correct form, then that's what should
be used.
But my point is precisely that the usage seems to be correlated to
familiarity with the cities.
That's just nonsense. I don't need to know anything at all about
Wymore, Nebraska, or Marysville, Missouri (I simply zoomed the
Google Map out and clicked somewhere in the middle of the US
and zoomed in to find a nearby locality) to know how to list and
punctuate their names.
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Are you saying that "Greater Manchester" is a name on a level
equivalent to "Shropshire" or "Essex"?
Yes, all three are counties.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under
the system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the
cultural, so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever,
you're merely giving a vague indication of its location. But in the US,
the state is an integral part of the name of the place. There are dozens
of "Springfield"s scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s and
"Lincoln"s. The state cannot be dropped.
Neither can the county for homonymous English towns, which are
referred to as e.g. "St. Ives, Cornwall" and "St. Ives, Cambridge".
Homophony has nothing to do with it.
?? So why mention 'There are dozens of "Springfield"s scattered about,
and lots of "Washington"s and "Lincoln"s'?
Because nitpickers like you want to have a reason for doing anything.

I had already pointed out that there is (probably) only one Jersey City,
but it's always "Jersey City, NJ" at first mention.
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
The simplified identification only denotes greater familiarity
with the towns or cities concerned, in the US and UK alike.
What is a "simplified identification"?
One that's reduced to its bare bones: name of town/city, followed by
comma, followed by name of state/county.
Then why throw in the otiose "in"? It's both unnecessary and wrong.
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"Boulder in Colorado" is simply wrong.
You could say "Boulder, which is in Colorado," but you wouldn't.
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than
once, I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City,
USA" in a book edited in England. There is probably only one Jersey
City in the USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City, N.J.," with the
"USA" optional.
charles
2021-03-23 21:06:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American
city of Boulder in Colorado." The way cities are identified in
American English is as in "Boulder, Colorado," but the BBC
constantly inserts a pointless "in" between city and state name.
Would US media likely refer to an equivalent small-to-middle sized
English city as just its name followed by its county name, e.g.
"Oldham, Greater Manchester"? (That seems highly improbable.)
Haven't the foggiest. If that's the correct form, then that's what should
be used.
Are you saying that "Greater Manchester" is a name on a level equivalent
to "Shropshire" or "Essex"?
Yes. It is a Metropolitan County.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
What is a "simplified identification"?
"Boulder in Colorado" is simply wrong.
to your ears
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-23 21:31:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bebercito
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American city
of Boulder in Colorado.">> The way cities are identified in American
English is as in "Boulder,> Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a
pointless "in" between> city and state name.
It's not pointless, but the question has an implication that any
difference between British and American practice is incomprehensible.
For us it's just weird that Americans often write "New York, New York",
to distinguish it from the 17 other New Orks scattered around the
country.
Post by Bebercito
Would US media likely refer to an equivalent small-to-middle sized
English city as just its name followed by its county name,
e.g. "Oldham, Greater Manchester"? (That seems highly improbable.)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under>
the system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the>
cultural, so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever,>
you're merely giving a vague indication of its location. But in the
US,> the state is an integral part of the name of the place. There are
dozens> of "Springfield"s scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s
and> "Lincoln"s. The state cannot be dropped.
Neither can the county for homonymous English towns, which are
referred to as e.g. "St. Ives, Cornwall" and "St. Ives, Cambridge".
The simplified identification only denotes greater familiarity
with the towns or cities concerned, in the US and UK alike.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the>
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than>
once, I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey
City,> USA" in a book edited in England. There is probably only one
Jersey> City in the USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City,
N.J.," with the> "USA" optional.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-23 20:27:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American city of
Boulder in Colorado."
The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between city
and state name.
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under the
system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the cultural,
so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever, you're merely
giving a vague indication of its location. But in the US, the state is an
integral part of the name of the place. There are dozens of "Springfield"s
scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s and "Lincoln"s. The state
cannot be dropped.
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than once,
I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City, USA" in
a book edited in England. There is probably only one Jersey City in the
USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City, N.J.," with the "USA"
optional.
Your American provincialism is playing up again.
There is only one correct way, and that is the American way.
The BBC otoh is informing British viewers, in their way.

BTW, do you think that the USA is the only country in the world
in which different places have the same name,
needing further specification for disambiguation?

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-23 20:42:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American city of
Boulder in Colorado."
The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between city
and state name.
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under the
system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the cultural,
so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever, you're merely
giving a vague indication of its location. But in the US, the state is an
integral part of the name of the place. There are dozens of "Springfield"s
scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s and "Lincoln"s. The state
cannot be dropped.
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than once,
I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey City, USA" in
a book edited in England. There is probably only one Jersey City in the
USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City, N.J.," with the "USA"
optional.
Your American provincialism is playing up again.
There is only one correct way, and that is the American way.
The BBC otoh is informing British viewers, in their way.
How are Dutch places named in English texts? If you're familiar
with English texts, would it rub you the wrong way if they were
consistently named according to some alien scheme?

Perhaps not, since it would give you another opportunity to
bitch about what you revel in thinking of as American imperialism.
If the BBC did it, you'd welcome it?
Post by J. J. Lodder
BTW, do you think that the USA is the only country in the world
in which different places have the same name,
needing further specification for disambiguation?
No. I think the USA is a place where "in" is not inserted between
town name and state name.

In the 19th century, some states had more than one town or
village with the same name, so letters sent to such places
included specification of the county. They didn't use "in" there,
either.
Quinn C
2021-03-23 23:38:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
In the 19th century, some states had more than one town or
village with the same name, so letters sent to such places
included specification of the county. They didn't use "in" there,
either.
So now you don't know anything about New Jersey, either. There's four
extant places named "Franklin Township" there - and more than 20 in
Ohio.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Township>
--
Some things are taken away from you, some you leave behind-and
some you carry with you, world without end.
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.31
CDB
2021-03-23 20:54:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American
city of Boulder in Colorado."
The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between
city and state name.
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under
the system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the
cultural, so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever,
you're merely giving a vague indication of its location. But in the
US, the state is an integral part of the name of the place. There are
dozens of "Springfield"s scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s
and "Lincoln"s. The state cannot be dropped.
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than
once, I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey
City, USA" in a book edited in England. There is probably only one
Jersey City in the USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey City,
N.J.," with the "USA" optional.
Still, they afforded you an hour or two of pleasant occupation
and innocent merriment in their persecution.

A role we now play.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-23 21:38:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The BBC in reporting the latest outrage referred to "the American city
of Boulder in Colorado."
The way cities are identified in American English is as in "Boulder,
Colorado," but the BBC constantly inserts a pointless "in" between city
and state name.
Clearly this is carried over from the way places are identified under
the system where the "counties" have little significance beyond the
cultural, so when you say "Sherwood in Nottinghamshire," or whatever,
you're merely giving a vague indication of its location. But in the
US, the state is an integral part of the name of the place. There are
dozens of "Springfield"s scattered about, and lots of "Washington"s
and "Lincoln"s. The state cannot be dropped.
Sometimes a List of Contributors at the front of a book, or even the
byline of a chapter, gives nothing but a name and a city. More than
once, I had to object to being listed as "Peter T. Daniels, Jersey
City, USA" in a book edited in England. There is probably
I like this "probably". As it happens Google Maps agrees that there is
only one Jersey City (who would want more than one?), but it only took
a second to check, so the "probably" was redundant.
Post by CDB
Post by Peter T. Daniels
only one Jersey City in the USA, but it _must_ be listed as "Jersey
City, N.J.," with the "USA" optional.
Still, they afforded you an hour or two of pleasant occupation
and innocent merriment in their persecution.
A role we now play.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Loading...