B-A-C-H, I have often performed in concerts

LV4-26

Senior Member
Hello,

My question is about language registers.

My text is an interview. That means it's spoken language.
However, it is never informal.

Context:
The interviewer has just asked the interviewee (an organist) why he didn't put the Fugue on the name of Bach (otherwise called B-A-C-H fugue) by Liszt on his last record. The object sentence is the organist's answer.

My question
I could write
I have often performed B-A-C-H in concert.

But, because it's supposed to be spoken and because it's a direct reference to something recently mentioned, I'm tempted to write...
B-A-C-H, I have often performed in concerts.

But I wonder if it's too informal.
What do you think?

Regards
JM
 
  • MilkyBarKid

    Senior Member
    British English
    No, it's fine. I can well imagine the full reply to be:
    B-A-C-H, I have often performed in concerts. For the CD, I took the opportunity to record some lesser known works from the organ repertoire.
     

    entangledbank

    Senior Member
    English - South-East England
    Object preposing is sometimes colloquial, as in 'That I like', but is also used in writing above a certain modest level of formality. This composition we now know to be by Liszt's predecessor at Cöthen, Orlando di Lasso.
     

    PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    Well, I have to say that absent any real context, e.g. the question that elicited the response, I find the inversion B-A-C-H, I have often performed in concerts. to be strange and unnatural.
     

    LV4-26

    Senior Member
    Well, I have to say that absent any real context, e.g. the question that elicited the response, I find the inversion B-A-C-H, I have often performed in concerts. to be strange and unnatural.
    Thanks, Paul and entangledbank.

    Here's more detailed context then...

    Q: You didn’t record the Fantasy and Fugue on the Theme B-A-C-H, which is often associated with two other great works, namely the Fantasy and Fugue on the chorale Ad nos, ad salutarem undam, and the Weinen, Klagen variations…Why?

    A: You’re right that those three are often recorded together. B-A-C-H, I have often performed in concerts.

    [What follows, I haven't translated yet]


     

    Bevj

    Allegra Moderata (Sp/Eng, Cat)
    English (U.K.)
    I agree with PaulQ. Even with the benefit of the added context, I don't see any reason for inverting the order of the words.
     

    PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    Ah! That's much clearer. I can now 'hear' the pause between together and B-A-C-H that creates:

    A: You’re right that those three are often recorded together.
    [As far as] B-A-C-H [is concerned], I have often performed [this] in concerts.
     

    LV4-26

    Senior Member
    Thanks Bevj
    I agree with PaulQ. Even with the benefit of the added context, I don't see any reason for inverting the order of the words.
    No other benefit than put the current subject of the discussion pride of place, I guess. I thought that could be natural in a spoken conversation.

    The idea being "Since you're talking about B-A-C-H, (before I forget) I have a few things to say about it".

    Maybe I should have added that he then devotes 5 more lines to that particular piece.

    But then, I'm not making a point about it....
    Just wanted to try it on you guys. :)

    EDIT: I wrote this before seeing Paul's last answer.
     

    PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    My text is an interview. That means it's spoken language.
    However, it is never informal.
    I would disagree; in view of the inversion, I see this as additional evidence that the interviewee habitually enunciates language precisely.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top