Language desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 31[edit]

Correct form to write a proper noun in English[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages

– Nardog (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. ¿The correct form, in English lenguage, is Pensylvania Avenue, Union Station, and Hudson River, or Pensylvania avenue, Union station and Hudson river? I have seen these and other examples in both forms. Thanks for yours answers. Soy Juampayo (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct forms are Pensylvania Avenue, Union Station, and Hudson River Erinius (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Pennsylvania Avenue. --Viennese Waltz 09:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except on the Liberty Bell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soy Juampayo: Note that those correct forms do not necessarily apply to other names of similar objects. For instance, you should write "the Rhine river", not "the Rhine River"; and "London Paddington station", not "London Paddington Station". Bazza (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So is there a rule for when to use which of these forms? — Kpalion^(talk) 09:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Generally, in Europe, many (but not all) bodies of water, including rivers, are known as "the Whatever", so "the Rhine" or "the Danube", and in those cases, where there is a clarifying word, it isn't capitalized (So "Danube river", because the river is clarifying what Danube is and not considered part of its proper name"). In the UK specifically, the general (but not always) convention is to name rivers "the River Whatever" (note capitalization), so "the River Thames" or "the River Severn". In the U.S. the general (but not always) convention is to name rivers "the Whatever River" (note capitalization), so "the Mississippi River". In those cases, the word "River" is considered part of the proper name. Yes, it is confusing. Yes, it is arbitrary and has no rationale. No, it isn't consistent. --Jayron 32 10:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I think many North Americans would say that "the Rhine River" or "the Danube River" is correct, on the basis that rivers must have names that end in "River". I have certainly seen forms like that used in reference to those rivers in Europe. --142.112.220.65 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the context of North American English, you may be correct. That isn't universal. --Jayron 32 14:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, Australia and New Zealand, which generally follow British naming conventions, have Murray River, Swan River, Whanganui River etc. I'm struggling to think of a major British example which is that way around. List of rivers of England only finds a few minor tributaries such as Whitelake River or Little Avon River. Alansplodge (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Australians say River Murray, River Torrens etc. for their own, and even River Darling which is in New South Wales (Darling River sounds excessively affectionate). Doug butler (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That never stopped Australian PM Bob Menzies. Back in the days when formal-ish letters would start out "My dear <surname>", whenever Menzies had to write to the Chairman of the ABC, Sir James Darling, he'd commence with "My dear Darling". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So was the Chairman the Angel Earth, then? --Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

I disagree with "no rationale". The names Rhine, Danube, Thames, Severn, Nile, Ganges, Volga belong, without question, primarily to rivers; at least, if any of them was named for something else, that eponym is lost to human memory. The Hudson River is known to be named for a man, and the component River is a relic of that transfer. (Ohio, Mississippi and Colorado are awkward for this argument, as the bare names – sans article – always mean the States which were named for the rivers.) —Tamfang (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last assertion assumes the text is written in English. In a language without a definite article, such as Turkish, we can read about Lincoln sailing down "Mississippi" to New Orleans in a flatboat,^[1] where bare "Mississippi" refers to the river. --Lambiam 09:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That you invent some pattern your brain made up using your own imagination is not a rationale. It's just you trying to invent something to make sense of the world. That's not the reason why U.S. uses the word "River" after the names of various rivers. It's a thing which is true given the specific rivers you have picked, but it is not, in itself, a reason. Being true does not makes something a reason. --Jayron 32 14:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By way of a reference, Grammarphobia says:

Many of the Oxford English Dictionary’s earliest citations for names of rivers, dating from the late 1300s, include “of.” Chaucer in 1395, for example, wrote of “the ryuer of Gysen.” This practice of including “of” in river names, the OED says, wasn’t the only way of naming rivers, but it was “the predominant style before the late 17th cent.” At that point, “of” began to drop out of river names, and British and American practices started to diverge. In proper names, the word “river” commonly came first in Britain, but last in the American Colonies. In other words, most English speakers simply dropped “of,” but Americans reversed the word order as well. While “river” has occasionally appeared at the end in British writing, this was “uncommon,” the OED says. Most of Oxford’s citations for “river” in last place are from the mid-1600s and after, and most are from North American sources.

Alansplodge (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]