Naming conventions for individual works

[Peter J. King]

I've just come across [[Symphony No. 3 (Nørgård)]], and my first reaction was one of surprise and doubt.  Perhaps I'm wrong, though; is it a good idea to have a series of articles ([[Symphony No 3 (Arnold)]], [[Symphony No 3 (Beethoven)]], [[Symphony No 3 (Brahms)]], [[Symphony No 3 (Bruckner)]], etc., etc.)?  Perhaps that is the best approach, but I think that it's best to discuss it as early as possible in the process of expansion.

Peter

[Derek Harkness]

My preference it to keep things in plain English. I don't see why we need all the parenthesis when we could have simply [[Beethoven's symphony No. 3]].

[Peter J. King]

My preference it to keep things in plain English. I don't see why we need all the parenthesis when we could have simply [[Beethoven's symphony No. 3]].

I don't think that using parentheses is a departure from plain English...  Still, there are various problems that would need to be taken account with regard to the example I gave and to your example.  First, it raises - unnecessarily - the difference between British & U.S. English; the former places a full stop after abbreviations only when the word has been truncated -- thus "street" is abbreviated "st." while "saint" is abbreviated "st".  "Number" is "no" in British English.  I'd therefore prefer "third symphony".  Secondly, is only the surname to be used?  Sometimes that won't be enough, of course.

Peter

[Derek Harkness]

I don't think that using parentheses is a departure from plain English...

It is the general custom in plain prose to have the possessive noun coming first. I'm sure you can see it would be odd to write like this: "The boy put book (his) on the desk (teacher)."

As for 'No.' versus 'No' Versus 'Number' versus 'no'; this is more open to interpretation. I only added the . after No because that's my habit when typing (British English). As far as I am aware, No. is an abbreviation of 'Numerou' not 'Number' though the meaning is not changed by this. I don't think the dropping of the . in abbreviations is a significant differential between American and British English. It is uncertain whither there is a current standard practice in either country. Certainly, the use of the period has changed since I went to school. The text books I currently use with my students, of both British and American origin, do not use any periods, nomater how the abbreviation was formed.

With respect to 'No. 3' or 'third' or '3rd' I think I would say in normal speach, 'Beethoven's third symphony' rather than 'number three' so I would entitle the article to match what I would pronounce.

Secondly, is only the surname to be used?  Sometimes that won't be enough, of course.

This is in part similar to discusions in geography about use of full or abreviated country names, discusions in biology about wither to use scientific or common names for animals, and other related discussions in other workgroups.

[Peter J. King]

It is the general custom in plain prose to have the possessive noun coming first. I'm sure you can see it would be odd to write like this: "The boy put book (his) on the desk (teacher)."

But, first, titles of articles aren't normally written as if they were ripped out of a normal sentence, and secondly, this sort of use of parentheses is pretty common in academic prose (e.g. Works such as An Essay concerning Human Understanding (Locke) and A Treatise of Human Nature (Hume) have often been...").

As for 'No.' versus 'No' Versus 'Number' versus 'no'; this is more open to interpretation. I only added the . after No because that's my habit when typing (British English). As far as I am aware, No. is an abbreviation of 'Numerou' not 'Number' though the meaning is not changed by this. I don't think the dropping of the . in abbreviations is a significant differential between American and British English. It is uncertain whither there is a current standard practice in either country. Certainly, the use of the period has changed since I went to school. The text books I currently use with my students, of both British and American origin, do not use any periods, nomater how the abbreviation was formed.

I'm surprised -- looking at my shelves there's a fairly consistent usage of full stops in the British and no full stops in the U.S. books, and I believe (though I don't have copies to hand) that the main manuals of style and guides to printed English echo (or cause) this.

With respect to 'No. 3' or 'third' or '3rd' I think I would say in normal speach, 'Beethoven's third symphony' rather than 'number three' so I would entitle the article to match what I would pronounce.

Again, titles (and written forms in general) are often written very differently from spoken forms.

Peter

[Amazzing5]

If anyone is interested, the Library of Congress authority subject heading for the example that is under discussion is as follows:

Beethoven, Ludwig van, 1770-1827. Symphonies, no. 3, op. 55, E♭ major

This is not particularly practical for a title but still gives some ideas for American formatting standards.