English translation: between the mid-eighteenth and the mid-nineteenth centuries
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.
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.)
Spanish to English translations [PRO] Social Sciences - History
Spanish term or phrase:Entre mediados de los siglos XVIII y XIX
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
Explanation: 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.
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
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:
-------------------------------------------------- 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.
Good advice, though it should be borne in mind that practice in (quality) journalism and in academic publications is sometimes different. The default academic style guides (in the humanities) are Chicago in the US and MHRA in the UK. The Oxford Manual, reflecting practice at OUP, is also influential in the UK and must obviously be followed in Oxford books and journals. I can't see whether it has an explicit rule on centuries, but it always spells them out in words (eighteenth, nineteenth, etc.). I would have been very surprised if it had been otherwise; "18th" etc. is strongly frowned on in British academia. On the other hand, although Oxford hyphenates "mid" with months ("mid-July"), it does not do so with centuries (the mid nineteenth century). This is a curious idiosyncrasy, which conflicts with standard academic practice as stipulated both by Chicago and MHRA. But Oxford, of course, has always been prone to idiosyncrasy.
I asked a medieval historian friend about this and she said publishers often ask her to write centuries as words, etc. Academia has its rule. It would have been simpler as a museum style label where you could put "mid C18 - mid C19"..
are invaluable for this type of issue. Many publishers show marked preferences for the use of figures or fully written numbers. If your publisher doesn't have its own guide, it's worth consulting the Oxford Manual of Style or the Guardian Style Guide which are popular among publishers in the UK at least.
The translation workplace 
peer agreement (net): +3
