# university/college called X university



## meijin

Hi, I think this question was not asked in any of the threads on _college/university_ (I'm aware of the differences between these two words). Please see the following examples I created. 

_1. "So, how was your trip?" "It was great. First, I went to a university called X to meet my old friend who works there, and..."_ 
(Conversation between colleagues)

_2. "Tell me more about your problems. When did things start going wrong?" "OK. First, I went to a university called X, where I studied..."_ 
(Conversation between friends)

The X part is "X University" or "The University of X".

Does the "university + university" combination work in both 1 and 2? Also, especially in AmE, can the underlined "university" be replaced with "college"?


----------



## Nickle Sydney

I must be missing something here. Are you asking us if it's possible to say "I went to a universirty called The University of Cambridge" / "I went to a university called Cambridge University"?

I don't understand your question.


----------



## JulianStuart

I am confused: why not just say "I went to a university called X university (or university of X) "


----------



## meijin

Let's say the universities are not well known. In such as situation, at least we Japanese say "a university called X university" (in Japanese).


----------



## JulianStuart

meijin said:


> Let's say the universities are not well known. In such as situation, at least we Japanese say "a university called X university" (in Japanese).


In English we would not need "a university called" in such a sentence.


----------



## Nickle Sydney

Even if they aren't well known, the structure you're suggesting doesn't seem to address the issue. In other words, you're just repeating "university" two times in a row.


----------



## sdgraham

meijin said:


> Let's say the universities are not well known. In such as situation, at least we Japanese say "a university called X university" (in Japanese).





JulianStuart said:


> In English we would not need "a university called" in such a sentence.


We would never slip into that sort of redundancy. We would, however, in the case of such institutions as the Mayo Clinic (without " university" in the name) point out that they offer university degrees.
(On the other hand, the full name is _Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science_ so if the full name is used, we'd let it go at that.)


----------



## meijin

Interesting difference between Japanese and English. 
We would prefer to say "a university called X university" if it were not well known, and it would address the issue.

I modified the sentences a bit to see if the combination would work.

_1a. "So, how was your trip?" "It was great. First, I went to a university*, which I think was called X,* to meet my old friend who works there, and..."

2b. "Tell me more about *her* problems. When did things start going wrong?" "OK. First, *she* went to a university*, which I think was called X, *where *she* studied..."_


----------



## dojibear

Your examples are misleading to us. They avoid your key point which is whether "*X*" includes the word "university". If you want to ask about that, you must show that. 

In other words, whether or not "X" contains the word "university" changes the English sentences. That is what you are asking about, right?


----------



## meijin

I clearly said the following.


meijin said:


> The X part is "X University" or "The University of X".


----------



## kentix

Those are very awkward sentences. The name tells you it's a university so you don't have to say it separately.

What makes it even more awkward is putting your friend second. You didn't visit the university, you visited your friend at a university they work at.

_1. "So, how was your trip?" "It was great. First, I visited my old friend, Meijin, at Williamsburg University, where he works, and then..."_

"I went to a university" sounds far too much like "I attended a university". Even though it's clear halfway through the sentence that's not what it means, it's a misleading and awkward start. If you want to put the university first you should at least use "visited".

If the university is not well known and you feel a need to explain it, it would be better to provide additional information. Saying it's a university is not additional information because that is already known from the name.

_1. "So, how was your trip?" "It was great. First, I visited my old friend, Meijin, at Williamsburg University, which is in Williamsburg, Pennsylvania, where he works. Then..."_

The green part would be said as an interruption to the main part of the sentence, in the right tone of voice to indicate it was an interruption.


----------



## kentix

meijin said:


> which I think was called X,


That just doesn't sound like a credible thing to say. If you went there, you would know what it's called.

But if you had to:

_First, I visited my friend at the university he works at*, which I think was called X, *..."_

A more realistic scenario:
_I heard that your littler brother went to *college* out of state somewhere. Is that right? Someone told me it was a place* called Gresham *College*, or Grantham College or something like that._

* there's no need to say "college" three times


----------



## meijin

kentix said:


> Those are very awkward sentences. The name tells you it's a university so you don't have to say it separately.
> 
> What makes it even more awkward is putting your friend second. You didn't visit the university, you visited your friend at a university they work at.


Interesting. Both my version and your version work naturally in Japanese. As always, I find English much more difficult to learn.



kentix said:


> A more realistic scenario:
> _I heard that your littler brother went to *college* out of state somewhere. Is that right? Someone told me it was a place* called Gresham *College*, or Grantham College or something like that._
> 
> * there's no need to say "college" three times


I don't know why you need to include "a place". I would say _"Someone told me *it* was called Gresham *College*,"_ so "college" will be said only twice.


----------



## kentix

Because "went to college" is not a reference to a place. It's a reference to an activity. Remember, "went" means "attended". It doesn't mean go/went in the sense of traveled and it's not a reference to a specific place.

So no noun for the actual college has been introduced yet.

_Someone told me *it* was called..._

There is nothing for "it" to refer to (yet).


----------



## JulianStuart

meijin said:


> Interesting difference between Japanese and English.
> We would prefer to say "a university called X university" if it were not well known, and it would address the issue.


 What is the purpose of inserting "a university called .." in that sentence? Would you omit the phrase if the university in question was well-known ( and well-known by whom?) This is what we are confused by.


----------



## meijin

kentix said:


> Because "went to college" is not a reference to a place. It's a reference to an activity.


Yes, I'm aware of this.



kentix said:


> So no noun for the actual college has been introduced yet.


Yes, but when you say "I went to college", it means you studied at a college or university. So, to me at least, "it" means the college or the university.



JulianStuart said:


> What is the purpose of inserting "a university called .." in that sentence? Would you omit the phrase if the university in question was well-known


Exactly. For example, I would never say "My friend went to a university called The University of Tokyo", because I'm sure the person I'm talking to knows the university. It's like saying "I went to a country called the United States". On the other hand, it someone said to me "My friend went to Shubun University", I would say in my mind "Why do you assume I know the university? I've never heard of it". As I said, it's an interesting difference between the two languages.


----------



## Nickle Sydney

By your logic, you’d say “I went to a country called Ukraine country”.


----------



## dojibear

meijin said:


> On the other hand, it someone said to me "My friend went to Shubun University", I would say in my mind "Why do you assume I know the university? I've never heard of it".


This is the part that doesn't make sense to an American. You *do* know that this is a university. What else do you need to know, to understand the sentence? Nothing! The speaker is assuming you know it is a university, because they called it a university.

The also assume you understand that "went to" means "attended", because it is a university.

It is different if the person said to you "My friend went to LaSalle." If you have never heard of LaSalle, you don't know what it is or what "went to" means (unless the context tells you).


----------



## meijin

Nickle Sydney said:


> By your logic, you’d say “I went to a country called Ukraine country”.


No, because the country's name is "Ukraine", not "Ukraine Country”. In Japanese, we call The University of Tokyo simply "Tokyo University", and it is a name. The university's name isn't just "Tokyo".



dojibear said:


> This is the part that doesn't make sense to an American. You *do* know that this is a University. What else do you need to know, to understand the sentence? Nothing! The speaker is assuming you know it is a university, because they called it a university.


Well, it's very difficult for me to explain, but let me try this. I don't know much about cities and towns in the US, but I assume there is a town called "XXX Town" that only the people living in that area or state know. We do have such towns called "XXX Towns". Judging from the responses in this thread, I assume you would say, for example, _"Last week, I traveled to a *place* called XXX Town"_, not _"Last week, I traveled to a *town* called XXX Town"_. In Japanese, both would work, but the difference is that the first sentence (with "place") could mean you traveled to a shop, bar, amusement park, etc. called "XXX Town".


----------



## tunaafi

Try to forget what you do in Japanese.

In English we would not normally say "I went to a place/city/town called Carson City", if the word 'City' were part of the official name of the city.We'd be more likely to say "I went to Carson City ((in) Nevada). 

If 'City' were not part of the name, I'd say I went to Carson ((in) California). If I felt the need to explain that it was a city (rather than a town or village), then I'd say "I went to Carson, a city in California".

If the place were something other than a city, I'd say "I went to_ Carson City_, a bar in central Manhattan"


----------



## meijin

tunaafi said:


> Try to forget what you do in Japanese.


Thanks. I've only been trying to explain why "a university called X University" is a normal phrase in Japanese. I'm not saying it should work in English as well. I think this is impossible to explain. I give up.


----------



## dojibear

Thanks!!! I think I understand your point in post #19. To use an American example:

_Where did you buy your laptop? On-line, or at a store?
I bought it at a store called Circuit City._

The store's name has the word "city" in it, but it isn't a city. So we add "a store called". If we just said "I bought it at Circuit City" (and the listener didn't know about that store), the listener might think we bought it at some store in a city named Circuit, Arizona. Because Circuit City is well-known, we can just say "at".

Based on that, here is my comment:

In America, almost nothing has the name "X University" or "University of X", unless it is actually a college. That is why we think it is redundant. If I want to talk about a store, bar, or amusement park that used that name (but was not an actual university) then I would add words. For example, I might say _You should visit that *new bar called *"Rambling University". _

But we usually don't repeat words if they match: a university called "X university", a pizzeria called "Joe's Pizzeria", a bar called "Larry's Bar".


----------



## meijin

Thanks for understanding (at least part of) what I was trying to say, dojibear.

I couldn't help thinking more, but couldn't come up with better explanations. Let me just add that a sentence like "I went to a bar called X Bar yesterday" is not odd in Japanese. I would only say "I went to X Bar yesterday" when I know or assume that the listener knows the bar.


----------



## JulianStuart

meijin said:


> . Let me just add that a sentence like "I went to a bar called X Bar yesterday" is not odd in Japanese. I would only say "I went to X Bar yesterday" when I know or assume that the listener knows the bar.


This remains confusing - when we in English say "I went to X Bar yesterday", it is not relevant whether the listener has heard of it before - it is clearly a bar and it is identified _by the sentence. _ If the name of the bar did not have the word "bar" in it, then you _would_ need to say "I went to a bar named Lefty O'Doul's" - because it is not obvious it is a bar. Similarly, if the university did not have the name "university" in its official title, we would use it in your sentence.  Still, I will add an entry to my Japanese study notes of this unintuitive (in English) structure   How does one judge whether a listener might have heard of X University?


----------



## dojibear

In English I would write this, showing that _"The University" _is a proper name. Note the difference between these two sentences in writing:

_1. I went to "The University" yesterday. (a nearby restaurant)
2. I went to the university yesterday. (a nearby university)_

In spoken English I would do the same thing. In sentence 1, I would use voice inflection to tell the listener that "The University" was a name, not just 2 words in the sentence. That is a little bit tricky -- sometimes is misunderstood -- but usually the listener understands.

Is there a similar distinction in written and spoken Japanese? If not, that might explain the different use pattern.


----------



## meijin

JulianStuart said:


> Still, I will add an entry to my Japanese study notes of this unintuitive (in English) structure  How does one judge whether a listener might have heard of X University?


For example, only few people know Shubun University which I used in my example in post #16 (I had never heard of it, and found it on a web page talking about unpopular universities). There are many other universities which the speaker _thinks_ only few people know. And it's a little odd to say, for example, "By the way, I went to Shunbun University in Aichi Prefecture yesterday" to someone unless the speaker knows the listener is from the area where the university is (in which case the "in Aich Prefecture" part is unnecessary). I think most people would say "By the way, I went to a university called Shunbun University in Aichi Prefecture yesterday", or  "By the way, I went to Shunbun University in Aichi Prefecture yesterday. Have you heard of it?". Maybe you can ask your Japanese friends why and they can explain better. 



dojibear said:


> Is there a similar distinction in written and spoken Japanese?


In written Japanese, #1 is possible, since we have a mark similar to the double quotation mark. In spoken Japanese, I don't think the distinction is possible, since we don't have articles (a/an/the).


----------



## meijin

I think I've come up with a better example. Imagine your friend saying (not writing) the following.

_1. "By the way, did you know there is a university called EARTH University?" "No, where is it?"_
_2. "By the way, did you know there is EARTH University?" "No, where is it?"_

Judging from the responses in this thread , #1 is odd in English and you would say #2. 
#2 would be VERY strange in Japanese.


----------



## JulianStuart

meijin said:


> For example, only few people know Shubun University which I used in my example in post #16 (I had never heard of it, and found it on a web page talking about unpopular universities). There are many other universities which the speaker _thinks_ only few people know. And it's a little odd to say, for example, "By the way, I went to Shunbun University in Aichi Prefecture yesterday" to someone unless the speaker knows the listener is from the area where the university is (in which case the "in Aich Prefecture" part is unnecessary). I think *most people* would say "By the way, I went to a university called Shunbun University in Aichi Prefecture yesterday".


I presume you mean *most Japanese people* speaking in Japanese.  In English there is NO linkage between whether the speaker thinks the listener knows the institution and inserting the (to us, redundant, and more than a "little odd") phrase "a university called" before the name of "ABC University." "I went to a university called the University of St. Andrews in a city called Fife yesterday". None of the strike-through text would be used in English.
#1 is quite a different structure to your original and is fine. Your new #2 would seem fine if you added "an" before Earth.


----------



## meijin

JulianStuart said:


> I presume you mean *most Japanese people* speaking in Japanese.


Yes.



JulianStuart said:


> #1 is quite a different structure to your original and is fine.


Hmm...why do you not mind the redundancy in _"There is a university called EARTH University"_ but do mind it in _"I went to a university called EARTH University yesterday"_? To me the second sentence seems just a shorter version of _"There is a university called EARTH University, and I went there yesterday"_.


----------



## JulianStuart

meijin said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> Hmm...why do you not mind the redundancy in _"There is a university called EARTH University"_ but do mind it in _"I went to a university called EARTH University yesterday"_? To me the second sentence seems just a shorter version of _"There is a university called EARTH University, and I went there yesterday"_.


The structure is : There is a _________ called Earth University. It is describing the university and calling attention to its rather unusual name, not informing about where you went and the word university is needed and fits in the blank. In the original sentence, the "a university called" is simply, as you say, "quite odd" to include. Just accept the latest difference between Japanese and English


----------



## meijin

Of course I accept it.   
However, despite the long discussion in this thread, I can easily imagine myself making the same mistake and saying _"I went to a city called X City"_ etc. in the future...


----------



## kentix

I agree that the original #1 and the recent #1 are quite different. The recent one has the name as the main topic, so it's natural to speak of it directly.

- There is a university with an unusual name.
- Really? What is its name?
- It's called Earth University.

Shortened:
By the way, did you know there is a university called (by the surprising name) Earth University.

Imagine the original sentence flipped the other way.

Original:
_First, I went to a university called Shubun University, to meet my old friend who works there, and..."_

Flipped:
_First, I went to Shubun University which is a university, to meet my old friend who works there, and..."_

The flipped version is what the original version sounds like to us.

It sounds like "Do you want some cherry pie, which is a kind of pie, for dessert? Or how about some chocolate cake, which is a kind of cake?"

I think the main thing is we wouldn't say it that way if it adds nothing new or additional to our understanding. If it does, we would (or at least could).

These sentences add additional information we don't get from the name alone.

_First, I went to a *small* university called Shubun University, to meet my old friend who works there, and..."

First, I went to an *obscure* university called Shubun University, to meet my old friend who works there, and..."

First, I went to a university *well off the beaten path which hardly anyone has heard of*, called Shubun University, to meet my old friend who works there, and..."_


----------



## meijin

kentix said:


> Flipped:
> _First, I went to Shubun University which is a university, to meet my old friend who works there, and..."_
> 
> The flipped version is what the original version sounds like to us.


Thanks kentix. I'm really seeing the difference. I agree that the flipped version is very odd. And when I read it I thought "No, that's not what we mean", so I analyzed the structure of the original Japanese sentence more and interpreted the sentence as:

_First, I went to a university, whose name was Shubun University, to meet my old friend who works there, and..._

I think this version is much less odd than your flipped version.


----------



## tunaafi

meijin said:


> _First, I went to a university, whose name was Shubun University, to meet my old friend who works there, and..._


Once again that is not natural in English. It doesn't matter how many times you keep trying, you are not going to make sentences like this natural.


----------



## meijin

I didn't say it's natural. I said it's much less odd than the kentix's flipped version. Please pay attention to the _meaning _of the two versions. Kentix's and mine are different. That's my point.


----------



## tunaafi

It is unnatural. It is no less unnatural than Kentix's version.


----------



## meijin

I'll make it easier for you to see.

1. I met John, who was a man. (Kentix's version)
2. I met a man, whose name was John. (Mine)


----------



## tunaafi

You are not comparing like with like.

We do say _Shubun University_. We do not say _Man John._


----------



## kentix

_1. I met John, who was a man. _

I think it's more like:
We met with Archbishop Tutu, who is an archbishop.


----------



## tunaafi

kentix said:


> We met with Archbishop Tutu, who is an archbishop.


----------



## meijin

kentix said:


> I think it's more like:
> We met with Archbishop Tutu, who is an archbishop.


But isn't this natural?
_We met with an archbishop, whose name was Tutu._

If it's natural, then the "Archbishop" part isn't really part of the name (I know little about archbishops, by the way).

But you can't say the following.
_I went to a university, whose name was Osaka._

Because, the institution's name is "Osaka University", not "Osaka" which is a city's name.

I'm not trying to make a natural English version of the original Japanese sentence, so please don't misunderstand. I've been trying to convey what the Japanese sentence means, since it seemed some people in this thread wanted to know why we say like that.


----------



## tunaafi

meijin said:


> I'm not trying to make a natural English version of the original Japanese sentence, so please don't misunderstand. I've been trying to convey what the Japanese sentence means, since it seemed some people in this thread wanted to know why we say like that.


That is beyond the scope of this forum.  We are here to help people produce correct English, not to explain the literal meaning of sentences in other languages.


----------



## meijin

The moderators will judge that and will lock the thread if it's beyond the scope the this forum. I only tried to explain what others wanted to know.


----------



## DonnyB

The original question has been anwered, to the best of members' ability.  Unfortunately, detailed comparisons with parallel grammatical constructions are now taking the thread off-topic and I'm consequently now closing it.  Thanks to everyone for their contributions, which I hope meijin has found useful.  DonnyB - moderator.


----------

