Language desk
< April 5	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 7 >

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.

April 6

becoming a conference interpreter without a degree?

I am an American but also fluent in Hungarian, and after doing all my studies in America, where I grew up (taking French in school) I returned to Hungary and did some education here. So, I now speak English and Hungarian at a native level and French at a very high level. The problem is I never got my degree. So...how would I go about becoming a freelance interpreter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.110.205 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably been to our articles on Interpreting and Translation with their many links that might give you some idea about the scope. The bodies arranging conferences might like some proof of your skills and starting in other areas with less formal requirements might be a first step. Otherwise, if you qualify as a special case, there's possibly a way to have university entrance or credits awarded in some other way. Did you start your degree and didn't finish, or are you looking to skip the degree? In that case there may be a non-university qualification you could do. Speaking to a careers advisor at a university or training college can help. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a warning to you: being fluent is never enough to be an interpreter. There are specific techniques that make you a good interpreter, real time spoken translation is very tricky, even if you are completely bilingual. --Lgriot (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Can not" vs. "cannot" in the 1860s

Can anyone tell me if the correct spelling of "cannot" has changed since the mid-19th century? I’d better explain why I’m asking this. Two years ago I raised an issue on the Gettysburg Address talk page – here, and Clio’s recent post on the Humanities desk (with which I entirely agree btw) about the most moving and important political speeches in history, reminded me that it went nowhere. It deserves revisiting.

After reflection, I still think it’s quite wrong to record Lincoln as having said "... we can not dedicate ... we can not consecrate ... we can not hallow ...". It’s not that "can not" is not a valid sequence of words; it's quite valid in some contexts (I can not only tell you what this Urdu word means, but also speak the language fluently) but it means something entirely different from "cannot" (I cannot speak Urdu at all). The "can not" spellings may have appeared in Lincoln’s handwritten drafts, but the sense of what he intended the listeners to understand can only properly be conveyed in writing by "cannot"s.

However, this speech was spoken in 1863, and maybe we need to honour the spelling conventions of the time. One poster said "Perhaps you've simply discovered that common usage of that era often spelled out "cannot" as "can not"". It's become common usage these days too, but that doesn't make it correct any more than spelling "a lot" as "alot" is correct, ubiquitescent as it now seems to be.

So, would Lincoln’s schoolma'am have corrected his drafts to change all the "can not"s to "cannots"? -- JackofOz (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about? "closed" form, cannot, is just a stylistic choice. it's not a special grammatical construction. your style guide will tell you to prefer it, but that's it. you don't have to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.24.203 (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has citations for "cannot" going back to 1400. Its only citation of "can not" is from 1451. Its latest citation, from 1827, also the closest to Lincoln's time, also uses "cannot." -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting because I vaguely recall seeing something about newspapers combining words to save white space but can't remember anything about it except that it was some kind of wartime (as in first or second ww) economy – maybe it was just newspeak. Is "alot" all over now? For no reason I've always written it that way, inviting heaps of correcting from other people. Now will just say with confidence, it's ubiquitescent like the ubiquitous drunk. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really just a stylistic choice, 79.122? The two forms mean quite different things. Just as you can't use "cannot" in "I can not only tell you what this Urdu word means ...", you can't use "can not" in "I cannot speak Urdu at all". Any well-written encyclopedia article, newspaper, novel or thesis will not use "can not" except in special contexts, and they use varying styles. If all the style guides agree on this, then it's not a style issue but a spelling issue. (Btw, I'm tempted to take with a grain of salt any written advice on spelling that spells the first word of its sentences without capitalising the first letter.) -- JackofOz (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's right about it being a stylistic choice. The OED calls "cannot" "the ordinary modern way of writing 'can not.'". -Elmer Clark (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm a bit thick today, but I remain very unconvinced. There's a world of difference between one's inability to do something (I cannot do X), and a person's prerogative or freedom to not do something that they're capable of doing (I can not do X). How does style enter into such a choice? -- JackofOz (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better way of clarifying the distinction, as I see it, is that the "not" in "cannot" negates the "can"; whereas the "not" in "can not" not only doesn't negate the "can", it has nothing whatever to do with it, since it refers to whatever word follows "not". -- JackofOz (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, are you proposing cannot not? There's a place for that, definitely. Although it's beginning to look like "carrot" Julia Rossi (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julia, can you not see that I'm not proposing cannot not? :) However, you've identified yet another valid form of words. (This movie is absolutely superb. You simply cannot not see it! - to which a rebellious type might respond I can not see it if I so choose). -- JackofOz (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider:

"I can NOT only tell you what this Urdu word means, but also speak the language fluently." and

"I can tell you what this Urdu word means, as I speak the language fluently." or

"I can only tell you what this Urdu word means because I speak the language very poorly."

"I canNOT tell you what this Urdu word means because I do NOT speak the language at all."

The word "not" in the first sentence negates the "only". The speaker clearly can tell and will tell what the translation is. The "not" implies that s/he can do more than just (only) translate a single term.

In the last case the "not" negates the "can" as the speaker is illiterate in the specific language. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's exactly what I'm on about. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be one meaning or the other? Sure, there are times when "not" can follow "can" without meaning "to be unable to," but there's really no reason to believe "can not" doesn't also sometimes simply have the same meaning as "cannot" (whew!). Language isn't that logical. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this beginning to be about the not-Urdu word for carrot not in a can or not carrot-can? Because I can't... not as in cannot see it. PS Elmer Clark can't not be valiant in this attempt to stick with it, the not of it. Nor the can. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's question is really about spelling, which was catch-as-catch-can back then. I think the comparison with "a lot" is valid; the adverb should be "alot", I love you alot, but we stubbornly spell it like the noun. Spelling is arbitrary and has no correlation with meaning. It is true that we can now make the distinction between "can not" and "cannot", a distinction ably if necessarily confusingly described above, but it should come as no surprise that it was not always so. It is a simple matter to construe "can not" the way we now construe "cannot". As for Lincoln, it was a speech, and it doesn't matter how he would have spelled it or how it would have been spelled in his day because it isn't a written thing. It has to be spelled so as to make sense to the reader now, and "can not" has come to mean something other than "cannot". It is no longer a stylistic choice; "cannot" is not a spelling option but a separate word. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it was a speech, I would suspect that Lincoln's drafts reflect how he intended to deliver the speech, emphasizing the "not" in "cannot" by pronouncing the two words distinctly, rather than trying to be grammatically correct. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, Lewis Carroll was fond of the spelling "ca'n't" with TWO apostrophes... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, let's delve into this a bit more.

@ Elmer Clark: You're saying that when we read "I can not understand <whatever>", we automatically interpret it as a statement about my inability to comprehend something, not as anything else. Your mind isn't tricked, even momentarily, into thinking it's going to be about something I can do? Well, I have to tell you that my mind is tricked. Maybe that's because it was thoroughly ingrained in me in my younger halcyon days that "cannot" must be used in statements of inability or incapacity (or, as in Lincoln's speech, statements about what we must not do), and "can not" is reserved for other meanings. Maybe I would have been tricked anyway; I'll never know now. I never momentarily misinterpret "I do not understand ..." as if it's going to be about something I do (rather than something I am failing to do). "I can not understand ..." is a different ball game, though. I suppose people who were never taught this rule are lucky not to have become its psychological hostages, and maybe I'm just an inflexible old git.
@ Julia: I'm speechless. (I'd have said that in Urdu, but I cannot speak the language.)
@ Milkbreath: I think you're agreeing with me, that the text of the Gettysburg Address should use "cannot"s rather than "can not"s. Welcome to the team. You'll receive your instructions shortly.
@ Laura Scudder: Normally, in a neutral context, I pronounce "cannot" with a slight stress on the "can". But it's curious that when I want to emphasise my inability to do something, I tend to stress the CAN part, not the NOT part. The more fervently I deny my capacity, the more I stress the CAN part. I know it isn't logical, but we're all agreed logic has no role here. Perhaps the NOT part is normally stressed in the USA. If a writer wishes to stress a particular syllable, there are ways of doing this. We underline, we highlight, we use stress marks, we capitalise the syllable etc; but we never simply separate the syllable, except maybe in a rough handwritten draft of something. If your theory is correct, I cannot think of any other case where the way of stressing the final syllable of a word is to separate it out as an independent word.
If the advocates of the style theory are right, "cannot" and "can not" are just different ways of spelling the same thing, and if one uses both versions in the same text, all they're guilty of is stylistic inconsistency, not of any spelling error. Well, try re-spelling the example I gave above: A - This movie is absolutely superb. You simply can not not see it!. B - I cannot see it if I so choose. That doesn't work for me, I'm afraid. This proves, if nothing else, that are cases where you have to use "cannot", and there are cases where you have to use "can not". Is that not sufficient to demonstrate they're different in nature and meaning, and not simply spelling variants of each other? -- JackofOz (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wunnerful, Jack. Just wunnerful. Use and choice is everything. I'm glad to have a lot cleared up, too. ; ) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the spelling difference with cannot, with can not meaning "able to not do", but I'm not sure it would be enough on its own to get the point across. In other cases you need italics or some other form of emphasis: "I'm not talking to my brother. Well, I'm not not talking to him, I'm just not talking to him." kwami (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be wrong in using the word "reinstatement" to recall an employee who resigned the job voluntarily

where does the word "reinstatement" orginate in employment law? (or) what is the meaning of the word "reinstatement" in employment law? (or) One of my employee resigned from the job voluntarily and I want him to come back and do the same kind of work in the same position he held before. Can I write to him telling that the company is offering you "reinstatement"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.143.21 (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The good old dictionary gives the definition of reinstate as "to put back into a position formerly held" Looks like the right word to use in your situation. I'd doubt that the word originates from employment law though, as that is a relatively new concept. D0762 (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or use Plain English and write: "We are offering you your old job back." 64.228.89.112 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Reinstatement" doesn't sound quite right to me - it has overtones of the situation where someone has been unfairly or illegally fired and gets their job back. I'd agree with 64.228 in recommending plain English in this case. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it suggests a rank, standing or other capacity in which the person was first instated, but which was revoked. Dictionary.com has this example of use: to reinstate the ousted chairman.[1]. Since your company does not "instate" its employees, they can't be "reinstated", even if they were "ousted". If you really want the former employee to return, why not use warmer language: "We miss you and would be happy to see you come back." --Lambiam 23:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lambian. Can you please explain the meaning of instate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.143.21 (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again from the good old dictionary, instate: "to put or place in a certain state or position; to establish in office; to install" D0762 (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"whose" or "of which" - when referring to inanimate objects

What's more grammatically correct: "a house whose door is red", or "a house the door of which is red"?
What sounds better: "a house the door of which is red", or "a house of which the door is red"?

HOOTmag (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the grammar of the particular construction, but "a house with a red door" sounds best to me. 64.228.89.112 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but (in my first question) I would like to know whether "a house whose door is red" is grammatically wrong. HOOTmag (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A house whose door is red" is perfectly acceptable standard English. I've occasionally seen this usage hypercorrected to (for example) "a house that's door is red", but that is just plain wrong (IMHO) . AndrewWTaylor (talk)

P.S. to answer your questions more specifically : (1) they are equally 'correct', but the construction with 'whose' is more natural and flows better; (2) I find both of these quite ugly: the second perhaps slightly less so, again on grounds of 'flow'. Use 'whose'. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I still don't know why Collins Dictionary (being a british dictionary) translates "Whose": "Of whom" (rather than: "Of whom, of which"), and gives examples all of which are for persons rather than for inanimate objects.

However, See "COMMOM ERRORS IN ENGLISH AND HOW TO AVOID THEM" (1943, the auther being american), p. 90:

"Of which is commonly applied to things; whose to persons. Thus: my farm, the acreage of which, etc; Tenth Street, at the end of which I live. whose may be used of any object that has life...whose may also be used of objects in personification...To avoid awkward constructions, whose may be used for of which in speaking of inanimate objects. Thus: a city, whose builder and maker is God, a cube whose sides are made of metal."

Do you agree? HOOTmag (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use "whose" to refer to inanimate objects in professional writing and have never been corrected. I think things have changed since 1943. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clear response. HOOTmag (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was originally the neuter-gender form of who. That is, these were inflections of the same root. The genitive of both was whose, which was later extended to cover which as well. Later still, when gender was lost in English and who and what came to be seen as distinct words, whose was reanalyzed as the genitive of who, leaving what as defective, without any genitive form at all. There have been various ways of remedying this, none of which have been fully accepted: whats, thats, or re-extending whose.

The OED says that whose is "The genitive case of WHO (and in [Old English] of neuter WHAT)", but then goes on to give modern example of neuter whose, from

1382 The loond of oyle and of hony, ... whos stones ben yren, to

1981 There were pictures whose context she understood immediately.

BTW, the same relationship held between he and it (originally hit), the genitive of both was his. That's why you get his referring to inanimate objects in the King James bible. Paralleling whose, his was reanalyzed as the genitive only of he, but in this case a new form was universally accepted for it: its. "Whats", on the other hand, doesn't even make it into the OED.

—kwami (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx a lot. HOOTmag (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"London, England". D'oh!

Why do American films invariably say "London, England" when indicating by a title where a scene is? This seems absurd, since surely even Americans know where London is, they cannot be that ignorant can they? They never say "New York, USA" (or "Washington, USA" if you like) or "Paris, France". Even if there is some Canadian place called London, its unlikely an audience is going to confuse them. And from a film title I understand there is a "Paris, Texas". Yet I've never seen "Paris, France" as a title. 80.0.106.237 (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a London, Kentucky and a London, Ontario. Don't want to confuse the viewers. Of course, they usually show an establishing shot pf the Big Ben tower, too. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that Americans in movies virtually always do say "Paris, France". I've heard that far more often than "London, England". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I'm picturing a movie, scene change, stock long shot of Big Ben and the Thames, caption says "London, England". That seems right. I think you don't appreciate how insular America is. If it simply said "London", it's not that we wouldn't know which London is meant, it's that it would give too much weight to a city not ours. When a Brit sees the caption "London", the name resonates with lost dreams of empire, with the tolling of that stentorian bell, the very grandfather's clock of history. When an American sees that caption, he thinks, "Just like a Brit; they still think they're the center of the universe." "London, England" takes it down a peg. Same goes for "Paris". Not "Moscow", so much, oddly. I don't know why that should be unless it's the prosaic infelicity of USSR or the importance accorded an enemy. In newer films I'd expect "Moscow, Russia". --Milkbreath (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Moscow" as a personification of the USSR is like "Washington" as a personification of the US. You get the same with "Tokyo" in WWII films, or these days "Bagdad". Us vs. them: there's no possibility of confusion. You'll see "Moscow, Russia" when it's just a city. And once the scene is set, you no longer need the country: meanwhile, in London, ...

I don't think anyone would think "just like a Brit" if "London" appeared without "England". Hardly anyone in the US knows or cares whether Brits think they're the center of the world, anymore than whether the Chinese or French do. But you're right, Usonians tend to think they are the center of the world. Not including the country wouldn't be so much a problem of ambiguity (hardly any Usonians have heard of London, Ontario), but of people getting lost: "Wait, we're in England now?" Either that, or the city isn't mentioned at all, and the audience has to deduce where the scene is set. kwami (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to Berlin, Rome, Paris and Vienna without ever leaving a 30-mile area of Ohio. So if you're standing in, say, Newton Falls, Ohio, you really have to give the country name when mentioning a foreign city. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am from the Canadian London (we even have a fake Thames!), and the local newspaper always puts "London, England" when necessary. Elsewhere in Ontario, newspapers just say London, and "London, Ontario" if necessary. This reminds me of the Jeopardy contestant a couple of weeks ago, who said she travelled from California (or something) to London to see some band...but she meant London, Ontario, har har. (By the way, I could go to London and Paris and Delaware and Melbourne in the same day!) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't London, Ontario, residents sometimes refer to the city in England as "The Other London?" Anyway, to flip the original question on its head, one can accuse Britons of erring by not including an "England" or "UK" when they speak geographically. For example, when I saw that Wikipedia had a featured article called List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cleveland, I assumed it would talk about the site of the Michelson–Morley experiment at Case Western Reserve University or the salt mines where they count neutrinos. Instead, it's a list of stuff in England. British people also talk about "Manchester," "Birmingham" and "Bristol" without a qualifier, perhaps unaware that those words mean different things to different people. (As does "Boston," I guess.) To me, Birmingham, unless otherwise differentiated, is in Alabama, Manchester is in New Hampshire and Bristol is in Connecticut or Virginia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it "the other London". Adam Bishop (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note: 'Site of Special Scientific Interest' is a designation awarded to, ahem, Sites of Special Scientific Interest 'including National Nature Reserves, Ramsar Sites, Special Protection Areas, and Special Areas of Conservation.' (for example my beloved Chessel Bay) in the UK. (And in Hong Kong, apparently). --Joe^Talk_Work 12:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In "Glitter and Be Gay", Cunegonde sings "Here I am in Paris, France", which usually gets a laugh because although it's an American musical, the character is, after all, French herself. But the "France" is required for a rhyme with "bitter circumstance". —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 04:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can imagine how being in Paris, France, would be a bitter circumstance. Or anywhere in France, for that matter. --ChokinBako (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it the habit of many Americans when naming US cities to add the name of the state for clarity, as in "Nashville, Tennessee", or "Tucson, Arizona", and mightn't the "London, England" simply be an extension of this? Koolbreez (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Americans say "Nashville, Tennessee" (not "Nashville, USA") and "London, England" (not "London, UK"), then I would also expect them to say "Paris, Île-de-France", "Rome, Lazio" and "Berlin, Brandenburg". For some reason, I've never heard them saying that. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. In the Usonian mind, at least, European states are more-or-less equivalent to US states. Paris, France is entirely equivalent to London, England and Nashville, Tennessee. Saying Paris, Île-de-France would be like saying Nashville, Davidson County.

You hit on the difference yourself, by linking Île-de-France, which tells me you understand that most people aren't going to know what that is. Having to look the clarification up in an atlas defeats its whole point. kwami (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Koolbreez is on the money. They distinguish the Ohio Springfield from all the other Springfields in the USA by saying "Springfield, Ohio". They distinguish the French Paris from the Texan Paris by saying "Paris, France". That does the job, and there's no need to get as specific as Kpalion suggests. If there were another Paris in France, say in Provence, then they'd need to specify which French Paris they're talking about. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original question needs a big "citation needed" banner. --LarryMac | Talk 13:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Many areas around the world with historical British influence use English and European place names. For example, there's Paris, Ontario, Delhi, Ontario, and Lucknow, Ontario, and there used to be a "Berlin, Ontario", before it was renamed Kitchener in WWI. Also, many place names in England adn elsewhere in Europe are street and town names in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, such as Abbotsford, Aberdeen, Adelaide, Amsterdam, Arthur, Bathurst, Birmingham, Brant, Brisbane, Bristol, Britannia, Brock, Buckingham, Burnaby, Caledon, Camelot, Cambridge, Canterbury, Charleston, Cochrane, Cockburn, Darlington, Delaware, Denmark, Don, Dorchester, Dublin, Durham, Edinborough, Essex, Exeter... you get the picture. In fact, a large percentage of formerly-British places have such names. Checking my atlas, there's at least 4 Londons, 4 Berlins, and 7 Parises. Hope this helps. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucknow is European? —Tamfang (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, while from non-Americans "Washington" is usually sufficient, people in the U.S. will invariably write "Washington, D.C." to distinguish it from Washington state or the many small towns also named Washington. --D. Monack | talk 01:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my American experience London and Paris by default mean the ones in England and France, unless there's a local context. And to add to the list of placename duplicates -- there is the fun example of Vancouver (British Columbia) and Vancouver, Washington. The wikipedia page names tell you something about which tends to be the default, yet the Washington Vancouver is quite a bit older and seems to harbor a low-level, semi-fun resentment of that upstart Vancouver up north. And to add to confusion, if you get onto I-5 in Washington you can go north to Vancouver or south to Vancouver. I have even heard about people who have driven for hours before realizing they were going the wrong way. Pfly (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the original question – my guess is that if American movies consistently say "London, England" (can't say I've noticed!) it's not so much because the audience might otherwise mistake it for one of the many lesser Londons, as because the writer thinks the audience needs to be reminded just which foreign country London is in. It's less likely to occur in dialogue, I think, because each syllable takes time while a longer written title does not. — By the way, I live in California, but I visited New York once, and found it closed for Sunday. —Tamfang (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]