was born a son Andrei

  • User With No Name

    Senior Member
    English - U.S. (Texas)
    That whole sentence sounds formal and stilted (as translations often do), but as far as I can tell, it's perfectly correct. Certainly "a son Andrei" is correct in that context.
     

    Chasint

    Senior Member
    English - England
    "a local Finnish woman was born a son" :cross:

    The above is grammatically incorrect. The son was born, not the woman. We can say that the son was born to the woman.

    The following are correct:

    "a local Finnish woman gave birth to a son" - This is current English

    " a local Finnish woman bore a son" - Somewhat out of date but correct

    "a son, Andrei, was born to a local Finnish woman" - Correct but not common these days

    "to a local Finnish woman was born a son" - Correct but archaic
     

    Dictatortot

    Senior Member
    English - American South
    "a local Finnish woman was born a son" :cross:

    The above is grammatically incorrect. The son was born, not the woman. We can say that the son was born to the woman.

    The following are correct:

    "a local Finnish woman gave birth to a son" - This is current English

    " a local Finnish woman bore a son" - Somewhat out of date but correct

    "a son, Andrei, was born to a local Finnish woman" - Correct but not common these days

    "to a local Finnish woman was born a son" - Correct but archaic
    I have to disagree. "To" governs both "him" and "a local Finnish woman." "To him and to a local Finnish woman" would also be possible, but isn't required.
     

    güey

    Senior Member
    Ukrainian, Russian
    However, is this wording acceptable in formal, archaic English only, or can one say in contemporary English something like, She gave birth to a son Michael.
     

    exgerman

    Senior Member
    NYC
    US English
    The English for Riurykovyches (descendants of Rurik) is Rurikids.

    To (him and a Finnish woman) was born a son
    is perfectly normal English, albeit a bit formal. You might use this inverted sentence structure to keep the focus on Yurii Dolgorukii, if he is going to be the subject of the next following sentence. If the next sentence is going to be about his son, you are better off with a simpler sentence: he and a Finnish woman had a son, Andreii.... This Andreii did such and such, etc.
     
    Last edited:

    Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    What I found a bit odd is "a son X, called Y". Surely when we say "a son X" (with or without comma), we mean he's called X.
    So was his name X, or was it Y? Well it turns out it was actually "X Y", but the father and son having different surnames seems odd too, though of course different cultures have different customs concerning names (Icelandic is a case in point). I wonder whether Y was the mother's surname.
     

    PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    What I found a bit odd is "a son X, called Y". Surely when we say "a son X" (with or without comma), we mean he's called X.
    So was his name X, or was it Y?
    The "called X" is somewhat archaic. It usually means, "who will be known (among the people) by the sobriquet "X""

    Matt:1:23: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
     

    Chasint

    Senior Member
    English - England
    Looking back to the first post, I see that I missed the "To" at the beginning of the sentence. So I was wrong in saying the sentence is ungrammatical in that sense.

    My 'correction' now, would be to add a comma, as mentioned by LVRBC

    To him and a local Finnish woman was born a son, Andre, called ‘Bogoliubskii’.

    The meaning is clear without the comma though.
     
    Top