Glossary entry (derived from question below)
Spanish term or phrase:
Entre mediados de los siglos XVIII y XIX
English translation:
between the mid-eighteenth and the mid-nineteenth centuries
- The asker opted for community grading. The question was closed on 2012-01-12 07:54:09 based on peer agreement (or, if there were too few peer comments, asker preference.)
Jan 8, 2012 17:11
12 yrs ago
7 viewers *
Spanish term
Entre mediados de los siglos XVIII y XIX
Spanish to English
Social Sciences
History
This is part of the title of an article. What would be best?:
-between the mid-18th and the mid-19th centuries
-between the mid-18th century and the mid-19th century
-between the mid-18th and the mid-19th century
Thank you.
-between the mid-18th and the mid-19th centuries
-between the mid-18th century and the mid-19th century
-between the mid-18th and the mid-19th century
Thank you.
Votes to reclassify question as PRO/non-PRO:
Non-PRO (2): Rosa Paredes, Evans (X)
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
+3
28 mins
Selected
between the mid-eighteenth and the mid-nineteenth centuries
Option 1 is the most common, particularly in published sources. Option 2 is not incorrect but would not normally be used. Option 3 is quite often found, but less often than Option 1, particularly in published sources.
"mid-18th" and "mid-19th" in figures are used, but it is much better style, especially in academic prose, to spell them out in words, as in my answer.
As Jenni rightly says, "from [...] to [...]" may be preferable to "between [...] and [...]", depending on what the rest of the title says.
between the mid-eighteenth and the mid-nineteenth centuries
http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&biw=991&bih=601&q="between...
41 results: Note how many of these are from printed books.
between the mid-eighteenth and the mid-nineteenth century
http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&biw=991&bih=601&q="between...
15 results
between the mid-18th and the mid-19th centuries
http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&biw=991&bih=601&q="between...
29 results
between the mid-18th and the mid-19th century
http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&biw=991&bih=601&q="between...
17 results
Note that the number of results announced in these searches is wildly inaccurate.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2012-01-08 18:52:26 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
On "18th" vs. "eighteenth": the Chicago Style Manual, the most authoritative guide to US academic usage recommends words, not figures:
"Centuries. Write out references to centuries, the eighteenth century, the twenty-first century, in lower cased letters."
http://www.docstyles.com/cmscrib.htm
This is also true in British academic style; see the MHRA style guide:
"In references to centuries the ordinal should be spelled out:
the sixteenth century (not the 16th century)"
http://www.mhra.org.uk/Publications/Books/StyleGuide/StyleGu...
In this particular title, I would personally use "between [...] and". It refers to changes that took place between two dates. "From [...] to" will tend to be used when referring to a process with duration. This is not the case here.
The basic argument for "centuries" rather than "century" here is that more than one century is being referred to. The following reference has little or no authority, but it supports "centuries":
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081124152232AA...
In a simpler case such as "the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries", I think few people would use the singular. Grammatically speaking, there is no fundamental difference.
The singular, "century", can be justified here on the grounds of ellipsis: that is, you are saying "from the mid-eighteenth [century] to the mid-nineteenth century", and simply missing out the first "century". It is not wrong; it is less formal, and in a title I think it is less suitable.
"Mid" followed by a century number should be hyphenated; again, the Chicago Manual states this out explicitly in its hyphenation rules:
"mid: midthirties, a midcareer event, midcentury, but mid- July, the mid-1990s, the mid-twentieth century, mid-twentieth-century history"
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/images/ch07_tab01.pdf
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2012-01-08 22:33:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
A couple of further thoughts:
On "century" versus "centuries", I've already expressed my view, but I would just add that to me the preference for the plural is stronger if the second "the" is omitted. You could say "between the mid-eighteenth and the mid-nineteenth century", though I would say "centuries" (and so, apparently, would a majority of published authors), but I think you would be less likely to say "bewteen the mid-eighteenth and mid-nineteenth century". This, to me, really does sound wrong, and I think it should definitely be "between the mid-eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries".
As for "between/and" versus "from/to", I would not rule out the latter. What you have to decide is whether the article is about a series of changes that took place during the period (c. 1750-1850), or a process of change that lasted from about 1750 to about 1850. If it is primarily the former, "between/and" will be more appropriate (and that is how I understand it); if it is primarily the latter, "from/to" will be preferable. You could probably interpret it either way. Neither option would be wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 hrs (2012-01-09 07:21:22 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
And yet another afterthought: I find the ellipsis more convincing with "from [...] to [...]" than with "between [...] and [...]". In other words, Linda's version, "from the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century", sounds OK to me. The reason, I think, is that the sense of implicit plurality is stronger with "between/and", because one is thinking of two different dates, whereas with "from/to" the emphasis is more on a single bounded period.
"mid-18th" and "mid-19th" in figures are used, but it is much better style, especially in academic prose, to spell them out in words, as in my answer.
As Jenni rightly says, "from [...] to [...]" may be preferable to "between [...] and [...]", depending on what the rest of the title says.
between the mid-eighteenth and the mid-nineteenth centuries
http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&biw=991&bih=601&q="between...
41 results: Note how many of these are from printed books.
between the mid-eighteenth and the mid-nineteenth century
http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&biw=991&bih=601&q="between...
15 results
between the mid-18th and the mid-19th centuries
http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&biw=991&bih=601&q="between...
29 results
between the mid-18th and the mid-19th century
http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&biw=991&bih=601&q="between...
17 results
Note that the number of results announced in these searches is wildly inaccurate.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 hr (2012-01-08 18:52:26 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
On "18th" vs. "eighteenth": the Chicago Style Manual, the most authoritative guide to US academic usage recommends words, not figures:
"Centuries. Write out references to centuries, the eighteenth century, the twenty-first century, in lower cased letters."
http://www.docstyles.com/cmscrib.htm
This is also true in British academic style; see the MHRA style guide:
"In references to centuries the ordinal should be spelled out:
the sixteenth century (not the 16th century)"
http://www.mhra.org.uk/Publications/Books/StyleGuide/StyleGu...
In this particular title, I would personally use "between [...] and". It refers to changes that took place between two dates. "From [...] to" will tend to be used when referring to a process with duration. This is not the case here.
The basic argument for "centuries" rather than "century" here is that more than one century is being referred to. The following reference has little or no authority, but it supports "centuries":
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081124152232AA...
In a simpler case such as "the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries", I think few people would use the singular. Grammatically speaking, there is no fundamental difference.
The singular, "century", can be justified here on the grounds of ellipsis: that is, you are saying "from the mid-eighteenth [century] to the mid-nineteenth century", and simply missing out the first "century". It is not wrong; it is less formal, and in a title I think it is less suitable.
"Mid" followed by a century number should be hyphenated; again, the Chicago Manual states this out explicitly in its hyphenation rules:
"mid: midthirties, a midcareer event, midcentury, but mid- July, the mid-1990s, the mid-twentieth century, mid-twentieth-century history"
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/16/images/ch07_tab01.pdf
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2012-01-08 22:33:57 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
A couple of further thoughts:
On "century" versus "centuries", I've already expressed my view, but I would just add that to me the preference for the plural is stronger if the second "the" is omitted. You could say "between the mid-eighteenth and the mid-nineteenth century", though I would say "centuries" (and so, apparently, would a majority of published authors), but I think you would be less likely to say "bewteen the mid-eighteenth and mid-nineteenth century". This, to me, really does sound wrong, and I think it should definitely be "between the mid-eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries".
As for "between/and" versus "from/to", I would not rule out the latter. What you have to decide is whether the article is about a series of changes that took place during the period (c. 1750-1850), or a process of change that lasted from about 1750 to about 1850. If it is primarily the former, "between/and" will be more appropriate (and that is how I understand it); if it is primarily the latter, "from/to" will be preferable. You could probably interpret it either way. Neither option would be wrong.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 hrs (2012-01-09 07:21:22 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
And yet another afterthought: I find the ellipsis more convincing with "from [...] to [...]" than with "between [...] and [...]". In other words, Linda's version, "from the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century", sounds OK to me. The reason, I think, is that the sense of implicit plurality is stronger with "between/and", because one is thinking of two different dates, whereas with "from/to" the emphasis is more on a single bounded period.
Note from asker:
| Thank you, Charles. The complete title is: Cambios de consumo y de gusto de los vinos de Jerez en el Reino Unido y sus consecuencias en la zona de producción entre mediados de los siglos XVIII y XIX |
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
David Hollywood
: you could delete the second "the" but ok
6 mins
|
|
You could; I personally wouldn't, but there are a number of valid variants here. Thanks, David :)
|
|
| agree |
James A. Walsh
46 mins
|
|
Many thanks, James :)
|
|
| agree |
Richard Hill
: There's right and there's Right!!
12 hrs
|
|
That's very kind of you, Rich; many thanks :)
|
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thank you"
45 mins
between the mid 18th and mid 19th century
this is the cleanest version to me!
+3
2 mins
between the mid-18th and the mid-19th century
Option three
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 41 mins (2012-01-08 17:53:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
As Jenni says, "from" and "to" is more widely used.
http://tiny.cc/af5zm "between the mid-18th and the mid-19th century" 3,680 results
http://tiny.cc/gtub5 "from the mid-18th to the mid-19th century" 31,400 results
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 45 mins (2012-01-08 17:57:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
and as David suggests, there are plenty of hits without the second "the.
http://tiny.cc/qhsdq "from the mid-18th to mid-19th century" 13,600 results
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 41 mins (2012-01-08 17:53:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
As Jenni says, "from" and "to" is more widely used.
http://tiny.cc/af5zm "between the mid-18th and the mid-19th century" 3,680 results
http://tiny.cc/gtub5 "from the mid-18th to the mid-19th century" 31,400 results
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 45 mins (2012-01-08 17:57:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
and as David suggests, there are plenty of hits without the second "the.
http://tiny.cc/qhsdq "from the mid-18th to mid-19th century" 13,600 results
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Jenni Lukac (X)
: or from as best fits the situation
1 min
|
|
Yes, from the mid-18th to the mid-19th century works fine. Thanks Jenni
|
|
| agree |
David Hollywood
: and maybe without the second "the"
34 mins
|
|
Thanks David
|
|
| agree |
Annie Sapucaia
20 hrs
|
|
Thanks Annie
|
4 hrs
Linda Grabner
United States
United States
Native in English
Works in field
United States
Need it perfect? Need it fast? Call me!
Native in: English (Variant: US) 
Works in: Spanish to English, English to Spanish
From the mid-eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century
This option basically makes concrete all the input of everyone so far.
In the context of the full title (as listed in the asker's response to Charles Davis's contribution: "Cambios de consumo y de gusto de los vinos de Jerez en el Reino Unido y sus consecuencias en la zona de producción entre mediados de los siglos XVIII y XIX"), I would say that "from/to", as Jenni suggests, is the most appropriate, at least for American English. In that sense, I guess I must differ with Charles, because to me, the title DOES sound like something that is being delimited by two dates.
Regarding singular vs. plural "century," I concur with Charles on the singular due to ellipsis.
Finally, I've spelled out eighteenth & nineteenth here, but with regard to a title (which tends to be easier to absorb the briefer it is), a case could also be made for using the numbers.
In the context of the full title (as listed in the asker's response to Charles Davis's contribution: "Cambios de consumo y de gusto de los vinos de Jerez en el Reino Unido y sus consecuencias en la zona de producción entre mediados de los siglos XVIII y XIX"), I would say that "from/to", as Jenni suggests, is the most appropriate, at least for American English. In that sense, I guess I must differ with Charles, because to me, the title DOES sound like something that is being delimited by two dates.
Regarding singular vs. plural "century," I concur with Charles on the singular due to ellipsis.
Finally, I've spelled out eighteenth & nineteenth here, but with regard to a title (which tends to be easier to absorb the briefer it is), a case could also be made for using the numbers.
Discussion