Should a father's first name be used?
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr Blake and his wife Edith.
Is it a better form to express parents' name?
prepositions sentence-construction
edited Feb 9 at 16:25
James K
37.6k13993
asked Feb 9 at 15:54
Kumar sadhuKumar sadhu
1
add a comment |
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr Blake and his wife Edith.
Is it a better form to express parents' name?
prepositions sentence-construction
edited Feb 9 at 16:25
James K
37.6k13993
asked Feb 9 at 15:54
Kumar sadhuKumar sadhu
1
When and where was this written? Until recent years, gender differences like this were very common in the west. But it's considered less respectful of women these days. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still common in places like India, though.
– Barmar
Feb 10 at 2:40
add a comment |
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr Blake and his wife Edith.
Is it a better form to express parents' name?
prepositions sentence-construction
edited Feb 9 at 16:25
James K
37.6k13993
asked Feb 9 at 15:54
Kumar sadhuKumar sadhu
1
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr Blake and his wife Edith.
Is it a better form to express parents' name?
prepositions sentence-construction
prepositions sentence-construction
edited Feb 9 at 16:25
James K
37.6k13993
asked Feb 9 at 15:54
Kumar sadhuKumar sadhu
1
edited Feb 9 at 16:25
James K
37.6k13993
asked Feb 9 at 15:54
Kumar sadhuKumar sadhu
1
edited Feb 9 at 16:25
James K
37.6k13993
edited Feb 9 at 16:25
James K
37.6k13993
edited Feb 9 at 16:25
James K
37.6k13993
37.6k13993
asked Feb 9 at 15:54
Kumar sadhuKumar sadhu
1
asked Feb 9 at 15:54
Kumar sadhuKumar sadhu
1
asked Feb 9 at 15:54
Kumar sadhuKumar sadhu
1
1
When and where was this written? Until recent years, gender differences like this were very common in the west. But it's considered less respectful of women these days. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still common in places like India, though.
– Barmar
Feb 10 at 2:40
add a comment |
When and where was this written? Until recent years, gender differences like this were very common in the west. But it's considered less respectful of women these days. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still common in places like India, though.
– Barmar
Feb 10 at 2:40
When and where was this written? Until recent years, gender differences like this were very common in the west. But it's considered less respectful of women these days. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still common in places like India, though.
– Barmar
Feb 10 at 2:40
When and where was this written? Until recent years, gender differences like this were very common in the west. But it's considered less respectful of women these days. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still common in places like India, though.
– Barmar
Feb 10 at 2:40
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
I could see this used in fiction where the narrator or point of view character had been invited to address Richard's mother by first name, but would not have addressed his father by first name.
In non-fiction, you might do this if you haven't been able to trace the father's first name. However, in that case it would be better to point out that it's because you didn't have that first name.
answered Feb 9 at 17:06
SamBCSamBC
9,7241335
add a comment |
There is nothing wrong in your sentence, but it is slightly odd not to give Richard's father's first name.
I assume that in this context "Richard" is "Richard Blake", and that's known to the reader. So the reader could already guess that Richard's father was "Mr Blake". If Richard's father's name is known to you, then use it. If not I will wonder how come you know his father's family name and his mother's name, but not his father's name.
edited Feb 9 at 16:45
userr2684291
2,59421531
answered Feb 9 at 16:24
James KJames K
37.6k13993
add a comment |
There would be nothing remarkable about this:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. and Mrs. Blake.
This would be particularly unremarkable if we don't yet know Richard's last name.
The only reason that Mr. Blake and his wife Edith is noteworthy is because the mother's first name is given while the father's is not. There may be a deliberate reason for this inconsistency or there may not.
As a point of style, a comment could be made about this sentence that differs from the other answers.
Some people would say that the lack of a comma before Edith (making it restrictive) suggests that Mr. Blake has more than one wife—and that the sentence is making reference to the specific wife who is named Edith. (Whereas using a comma would suggest he has only a single wife, who happens to be named Edith).
In that interpretation, assuming that the story actually does involve a man who has more than one wife, then the use of the mother's first name (or some other delineation) is essential:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr Blake and his wife Edith. A year later, Mr. Blake married his wife Nancy.
But if the story is about a man who (as is far more normal) only has a single wife, then it's more common to make that information nonrestrictive by using a comma:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith.
It's also possible Mr. Blake has a wife and a mistress. In which case the first name might still be mentioned in order to help distinguish between the two—but, again, with a nonrestrictive comma:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith. His mistress, Nancy, wasn't too happy about it.
However, if we discount a plurality of wives and this last possibility, then we return to the other answers in order to explain the inconsistency.
answered Feb 9 at 19:10
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
15.9k22237
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f196014%2fshould-a-fathers-first-name-be-used%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I could see this used in fiction where the narrator or point of view character had been invited to address Richard's mother by first name, but would not have addressed his father by first name.
In non-fiction, you might do this if you haven't been able to trace the father's first name. However, in that case it would be better to point out that it's because you didn't have that first name.
answered Feb 9 at 17:06
SamBCSamBC
9,7241335
add a comment |
I could see this used in fiction where the narrator or point of view character had been invited to address Richard's mother by first name, but would not have addressed his father by first name.
In non-fiction, you might do this if you haven't been able to trace the father's first name. However, in that case it would be better to point out that it's because you didn't have that first name.
answered Feb 9 at 17:06
SamBCSamBC
9,7241335
add a comment |
I could see this used in fiction where the narrator or point of view character had been invited to address Richard's mother by first name, but would not have addressed his father by first name.
In non-fiction, you might do this if you haven't been able to trace the father's first name. However, in that case it would be better to point out that it's because you didn't have that first name.
answered Feb 9 at 17:06
SamBCSamBC
9,7241335
I could see this used in fiction where the narrator or point of view character had been invited to address Richard's mother by first name, but would not have addressed his father by first name.
In non-fiction, you might do this if you haven't been able to trace the father's first name. However, in that case it would be better to point out that it's because you didn't have that first name.
answered Feb 9 at 17:06
SamBCSamBC
9,7241335
answered Feb 9 at 17:06
SamBCSamBC
9,7241335
answered Feb 9 at 17:06
SamBCSamBC
9,7241335
answered Feb 9 at 17:06
SamBCSamBC
9,7241335
9,7241335
add a comment |
add a comment |
There is nothing wrong in your sentence, but it is slightly odd not to give Richard's father's first name.
I assume that in this context "Richard" is "Richard Blake", and that's known to the reader. So the reader could already guess that Richard's father was "Mr Blake". If Richard's father's name is known to you, then use it. If not I will wonder how come you know his father's family name and his mother's name, but not his father's name.
edited Feb 9 at 16:45
userr2684291
2,59421531
answered Feb 9 at 16:24
James KJames K
37.6k13993
add a comment |
There is nothing wrong in your sentence, but it is slightly odd not to give Richard's father's first name.
I assume that in this context "Richard" is "Richard Blake", and that's known to the reader. So the reader could already guess that Richard's father was "Mr Blake". If Richard's father's name is known to you, then use it. If not I will wonder how come you know his father's family name and his mother's name, but not his father's name.
edited Feb 9 at 16:45
userr2684291
2,59421531
answered Feb 9 at 16:24
James KJames K
37.6k13993
add a comment |
There is nothing wrong in your sentence, but it is slightly odd not to give Richard's father's first name.
I assume that in this context "Richard" is "Richard Blake", and that's known to the reader. So the reader could already guess that Richard's father was "Mr Blake". If Richard's father's name is known to you, then use it. If not I will wonder how come you know his father's family name and his mother's name, but not his father's name.
edited Feb 9 at 16:45
userr2684291
2,59421531
answered Feb 9 at 16:24
James KJames K
37.6k13993
There is nothing wrong in your sentence, but it is slightly odd not to give Richard's father's first name.
I assume that in this context "Richard" is "Richard Blake", and that's known to the reader. So the reader could already guess that Richard's father was "Mr Blake". If Richard's father's name is known to you, then use it. If not I will wonder how come you know his father's family name and his mother's name, but not his father's name.
edited Feb 9 at 16:45
userr2684291
2,59421531
answered Feb 9 at 16:24
James KJames K
37.6k13993
edited Feb 9 at 16:45
userr2684291
2,59421531
edited Feb 9 at 16:45
userr2684291
2,59421531
edited Feb 9 at 16:45
userr2684291
2,59421531
2,59421531
answered Feb 9 at 16:24
James KJames K
37.6k13993
answered Feb 9 at 16:24
James KJames K
37.6k13993
answered Feb 9 at 16:24
James KJames K
37.6k13993
37.6k13993
add a comment |
add a comment |
There would be nothing remarkable about this:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. and Mrs. Blake.
This would be particularly unremarkable if we don't yet know Richard's last name.
The only reason that Mr. Blake and his wife Edith is noteworthy is because the mother's first name is given while the father's is not. There may be a deliberate reason for this inconsistency or there may not.
As a point of style, a comment could be made about this sentence that differs from the other answers.
Some people would say that the lack of a comma before Edith (making it restrictive) suggests that Mr. Blake has more than one wife—and that the sentence is making reference to the specific wife who is named Edith. (Whereas using a comma would suggest he has only a single wife, who happens to be named Edith).
In that interpretation, assuming that the story actually does involve a man who has more than one wife, then the use of the mother's first name (or some other delineation) is essential:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr Blake and his wife Edith. A year later, Mr. Blake married his wife Nancy.
But if the story is about a man who (as is far more normal) only has a single wife, then it's more common to make that information nonrestrictive by using a comma:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith.
It's also possible Mr. Blake has a wife and a mistress. In which case the first name might still be mentioned in order to help distinguish between the two—but, again, with a nonrestrictive comma:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith. His mistress, Nancy, wasn't too happy about it.
However, if we discount a plurality of wives and this last possibility, then we return to the other answers in order to explain the inconsistency.
answered Feb 9 at 19:10
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
15.9k22237
add a comment |
There would be nothing remarkable about this:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. and Mrs. Blake.
This would be particularly unremarkable if we don't yet know Richard's last name.
The only reason that Mr. Blake and his wife Edith is noteworthy is because the mother's first name is given while the father's is not. There may be a deliberate reason for this inconsistency or there may not.
As a point of style, a comment could be made about this sentence that differs from the other answers.
Some people would say that the lack of a comma before Edith (making it restrictive) suggests that Mr. Blake has more than one wife—and that the sentence is making reference to the specific wife who is named Edith. (Whereas using a comma would suggest he has only a single wife, who happens to be named Edith).
In that interpretation, assuming that the story actually does involve a man who has more than one wife, then the use of the mother's first name (or some other delineation) is essential:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr Blake and his wife Edith. A year later, Mr. Blake married his wife Nancy.
But if the story is about a man who (as is far more normal) only has a single wife, then it's more common to make that information nonrestrictive by using a comma:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith.
It's also possible Mr. Blake has a wife and a mistress. In which case the first name might still be mentioned in order to help distinguish between the two—but, again, with a nonrestrictive comma:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith. His mistress, Nancy, wasn't too happy about it.
However, if we discount a plurality of wives and this last possibility, then we return to the other answers in order to explain the inconsistency.
answered Feb 9 at 19:10
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
15.9k22237
add a comment |
There would be nothing remarkable about this:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. and Mrs. Blake.
This would be particularly unremarkable if we don't yet know Richard's last name.
The only reason that Mr. Blake and his wife Edith is noteworthy is because the mother's first name is given while the father's is not. There may be a deliberate reason for this inconsistency or there may not.
As a point of style, a comment could be made about this sentence that differs from the other answers.
Some people would say that the lack of a comma before Edith (making it restrictive) suggests that Mr. Blake has more than one wife—and that the sentence is making reference to the specific wife who is named Edith. (Whereas using a comma would suggest he has only a single wife, who happens to be named Edith).
In that interpretation, assuming that the story actually does involve a man who has more than one wife, then the use of the mother's first name (or some other delineation) is essential:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr Blake and his wife Edith. A year later, Mr. Blake married his wife Nancy.
But if the story is about a man who (as is far more normal) only has a single wife, then it's more common to make that information nonrestrictive by using a comma:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith.
It's also possible Mr. Blake has a wife and a mistress. In which case the first name might still be mentioned in order to help distinguish between the two—but, again, with a nonrestrictive comma:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith. His mistress, Nancy, wasn't too happy about it.
However, if we discount a plurality of wives and this last possibility, then we return to the other answers in order to explain the inconsistency.
answered Feb 9 at 19:10
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
15.9k22237
There would be nothing remarkable about this:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. and Mrs. Blake.
This would be particularly unremarkable if we don't yet know Richard's last name.
The only reason that Mr. Blake and his wife Edith is noteworthy is because the mother's first name is given while the father's is not. There may be a deliberate reason for this inconsistency or there may not.
As a point of style, a comment could be made about this sentence that differs from the other answers.
Some people would say that the lack of a comma before Edith (making it restrictive) suggests that Mr. Blake has more than one wife—and that the sentence is making reference to the specific wife who is named Edith. (Whereas using a comma would suggest he has only a single wife, who happens to be named Edith).
In that interpretation, assuming that the story actually does involve a man who has more than one wife, then the use of the mother's first name (or some other delineation) is essential:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr Blake and his wife Edith. A year later, Mr. Blake married his wife Nancy.
But if the story is about a man who (as is far more normal) only has a single wife, then it's more common to make that information nonrestrictive by using a comma:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith.
It's also possible Mr. Blake has a wife and a mistress. In which case the first name might still be mentioned in order to help distinguish between the two—but, again, with a nonrestrictive comma:
Richard was born in 1885 to Mr. Blake and his wife, Edith. His mistress, Nancy, wasn't too happy about it.
However, if we discount a plurality of wives and this last possibility, then we return to the other answers in order to explain the inconsistency.
answered Feb 9 at 19:10
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
15.9k22237
edited Feb 9 at 19:17
answered Feb 9 at 19:10
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
15.9k22237
answered Feb 9 at 19:10
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
15.9k22237
answered Feb 9 at 19:10
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
15.9k22237
15.9k22237
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f196014%2fshould-a-fathers-first-name-be-used%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
When and where was this written? Until recent years, gender differences like this were very common in the west. But it's considered less respectful of women these days. I wouldn't be surprised if it's still common in places like India, though.
– Barmar
Feb 10 at 2:40