Hello all!
I have met a very shady (IMHO) sentence in my English textbook, which is reported to contain only original English texts by native speakers:
"The 'criticality' of conditions are extremly unstable: a small deviation in one direction will result in the (!) rapid extinction of (!) fission neutrons and, therefore, the cut-off of the nuclear chain reaction, whereas a deviation in another direction will lead to a (!) rapid multiplication of the (!) fission neutrons and the melting of the entire structure".
Who can explain the usage of articles in the places marked by (!) ?
Thanks in advance, Anton
I can't explain it, yet I find the sentences completely natural and I could produce them myself ==> you don't need to be able to explain it. Just imitate.
Of course it would be interesting to see Mxsmanic have a go at these.
They're used because they're referring to a specific rapid extinction and a specific rapid multiplication....in this case as they relate to fission neutrons.
It's like this:
"Ingesting cyanide will result in death." (unspecified)
"Ingesting cyanide will result in a painful death." (not just "death," but a painful death...a certain kind of death as opposed to others)
"The cyanide injection will result in the death of the prisoner." (it's the death of a specific prisoner)
I regularly encounter non-native speakers who want to challenge English usage in their text-books. Surely that is an active with a very low rate of return. There is nothing wrong with the use of articles in this paragraph.
I can find nothing wrong either. I think I can see why you might be confused though especially because in the second (!) they omit the article while in the fourth (!) they use an article with the same word in the same manner. The use or non-use in either position is correct though (as in both ! positions could have had "the" or could have ommitted them). They will mean exactly the same thing
Also, the first (!) uses "the" and third (!) uses "a". These are also interchangeable and will mean the same thing.
mjd makes a good point here:
"Ingesting cyanide will result in a painful death." (not just "death," but a painful death...a certain kind of death as opposed to others)
-- You use the article 'a' to place an adjective before a noun, or to modify it and to make it specific. In this case: "a painful death", and in your other: "a (!) rapid multiplication".
You can modify the noun without an adjective before it, eg. "...a death, linked to a sedentary lifestyle". Otherwise you would write "Ingesting cyanide will result in death" <- no adjective, no modifier and not specific.
Tom wrote:
"...you don't need to be able to explain it. Just imitate".
Even if to follow your advice, the phrases
"the (!) rapid extinction of (!) fission neutrons" and
"a (!) rapid multiplication of the (!) fission neutrons" are indiscernible to me regarding the use of articles. And, therefore, I can't remember them to use them in future. I don't see the difference. What do you think about Tiffany's answer?
On mjd's answer
"They're used because they're referring to a specific rapid extinction and a specific rapid multiplication....in this case as they relate to fission neutrons" (mjd).
You write about both the phrases as if articles were used in the same way in them. But, draw your attention:
"the (!) rapid extinction of (!) fission neutrons" and
"a (!) rapid multiplication of the (!) fission neutrons"
The word 'extinction' is used with the definite article, whereas the word 'multiplication' - with the indefinite one. The same concerns 'fission neutrons'. These phrases are inverse as regards the use of articles, and you write about them altogether. How would you explain the difference? 'A multiplication', but 'the extinction'.
On the answer of Steve K.
He wrote:
"Surely that [using textbooks] is an active with a very low rate of return."
I think the more advanced the learner is, the lower the rate of return. But for beginners it is apparently quite high. And it depends on the quality of every given book.
"There is nothing wrong with the use of articles in this paragraph"
(Steve K)
So, could you explain it, please?
Tiffany write that in both the phrases the articles preceding 'extinction' and 'multiplication' may be either indefinite and definite, and 'fission neutrons' may be used either with and without the definite article. It seems little strange to me. Tiffany, are you a native speaker?
On the answer of Mi5 Mick
I understood mjd's examples. I had known it before. But there are two similar phrases in my initial quotation which have inverse articles ('the' is changed to 'a' and the absence of an article is changed to 'the'). And what did you do? You explained only the third (!): "a multiplication", but what about the first (!), "the extinction"? What causes this difference?
And thank you all for your help,
Anton
You got me... I don't really know how to explain and reconcile all these elements into a unifying theorem. To be honest, I don't feel like "Google"ing for the technical reasons behind the big "article" picture, from the position of a grammarian. :) I'm sure Mxsmanic could give you an elaborate response.
All I can advise is, analyse MANY, MANY passages containing nouns, with and without articles. I can assure you, you will figure out the pattern: (article)+(adj)+noun + preposition + (article)+(adj)+noun.
:)
* I can assure you, you will figure out .... Provided you analyse it avidly!
Yes, I am a native speaker, born and raised in Miami, Florida.
This paragraph would communicate the same meaning to me:
"The 'criticality' of conditions are extremly unstable: a small deviation in one direction will result in a (!) rapid extinction of (!) fission neutrons and, therefore, the cut-off of the nuclear chain reaction, whereas a deviation in another direction will lead to the (!) rapid multiplication of the (!) fission neutrons and the melting of the entire structure".
I now see why they used the before the fourth (!): to specify that they are refering to the same fission neutrons, so yes, that should be there, but the first problem (the articles preceding 'extinction' and 'multiplication') you pointed out still seems interchangeable to me.
I would most likely write this paragraph the first way (the way it was posted), but would not really (or immediately) pick up on anything strange had it been written the way above.
Maybe something I was not taught in my grammar classes.
First, a little correction, fortunately, not concering the problem being discussed:
The first words "The 'criticality' of conditions are..." should be read "The conditions 'criticality' are..."
On the answer of Mi5 Mick
The purposeful search for certain word consequences and their further analysis seems to me to be bad. I do not undarstand what you think the analysis should consist of. Simple remembering? I think no. To grasp English, I prefer to use the most fundamental (low-level) properties of objects rather than the high-level ones (derived from fundamental properties). The latters are more easy to remember, and their amount is fewer. For articles, the fundamental rule is the following. 'A' is used to denote a class or a type of object, whereas 'the' implies that we are referring to a certain object. This rule is directly derived from the 'physical meaning' of articles. Of course, proper use of this rule requires great experience and practice. The way of practice seems to me to be more natural than that of remembering many high-leve rules. Anyway, I have troubles with articles.
Remembering how articles are used in certain word consequences is a high-level rule.
"I can assure you, you will figure out .... Provided you analyse it avidly!" (Mi5 Mick)
I can neither disprove nor prove that. So, will see...
And of course, I'd be glad to know Mxsmanic's opinion, because his opinion is very often followed by a good explanation.
On the answer of Tiffany.
On the second and the fourth places
First, lets consider an example.
"It was a very old and tombledown house. The windows were boarded up."Here I wrote about a house and it's windows. In spite of the fact that I hadn't mentioned it before, the word 'windows' is used with the definite article. This is because I mean certain windows of a certain house. I think this is a correct sentense.
Now let's return to the initial quotation. Here a certain reactor is discussed. The author mentioned it above, but I didn't include it in the quotation (that was my mistake). And, therefore, the neutrons of this reactor are meant in both the phrases. So, I'd use the definite article in either.
About the first and the third doubtful places
I have a very subtle idea. I am not sure about it. Here it is.
In my opinion, articles are used in such a way, being based on the author's perception of the results of different deviations.
'Extinction' is used with the definite article because, for the author, the result of any extinction (more or less rapid) is the same. And' therefore he or she joins all possible extinctions into the single rapid extinction.
But the multiplication is considered (for some reason) as a process which have several degrees (how fast it is). And the author divides it into several alternative multiplications, and referts to it as to anoutcome of many alternative outcomes. I. e. the rate of multiplicaton matters. This maybe caused by some features of the profession. Different multiplications are different from the author's point of view. The rate matters.
What do you think about this explanation?
"I would most likely write this paragraph the first way (the way it was posted), but would not really (or immediately) pick up on anything strange had it been written the way above."
Do you mean that you would choose such a non-obvious way of the use of articles?! Maybe you began feeling so after you had read the initial quotation?
With thanks, Anton
Regarding "fission neutrons": "the" is used when the author is thinking about specific neutrons; otherwise, "the" is omitted. The article depends on what you're thinking about when writing the sentence.
Regarding "rapid multiplication/extinction": "a" and "the" are interchangeable. In my opinion, "the" doesn't make the sentence any more definite than "a" in this case.
>>The first words "The 'criticality' of conditions are..." should be read "The conditions 'criticality' are..." <<
-there's still an apostrophe (to indicate possession) missing somewhere! LOL
>>The purposeful search for certain word consequences and their further analysis seems to me to be bad.<<
-Then why ask: why is it so?
>>I do not undarstand what you think the analysis should consist of. Simple remembering?<<
-Reading, speaking and observing as I did/do. Simple remembering: sometimes.
>>To grasp English, I prefer to use the most fundamental (low-level) properties of objects rather than the high-level ones (derived from fundamental properties). The latters are more easy to remember, and their amount is fewer.<<
-What are they? I never had a preference to learn them and I never encountered such abstract sounding terms. What's this gobbledygook?! Are you hoodwinking me?
>>For articles, the fundamental rule is the following. 'A' is used to denote a class or a type of object, whereas 'the' implies that we are referring to a certain object. This rule is directly derived from the 'physical meaning' of articles.<<
-Oh you know something that I don't, consciously. Why don't you use it if it works for you?
"Of course, proper use of this rule requires great experience and practice. The way of practice seems to me to be more natural than that of remembering many high-leve rules. Anyway, I have troubles with articles."
-I still don't know what "low/high level" rules are but yes, experience and practice prove to be effective, ultimately.
"I can assure you, you will figure out .... Provided you analyse it avidly!" (Mi5 Mick)
I can neither disprove nor prove that. So, will see... "
-It works/worked for me. Proven!
Oh, the first words are : "The conditions of 'criticality' are..." - the final version.
On Tom's answer
"Regarding "fission neutrons": "the" is used when the author is thinking about specific neutrons; otherwise, "the" is omitted. The article depends on what you're thinking about when writing the sentence." (Tom)
I knew that. And, according to this principle, I'd use 'the' in both the places before 'fission neutrons'.
On Mi5 Mick's answer
-----
>>The purposeful search for certain word consequences and their further analysis seems to me to be bad.<<
-Then why ask: why is it so?
-----
Here I don't fully understand the question. "Why is it so?" - what is this question about? What is 'it' in your question?
The purposeful search for certain word consequences is IMHO bad because in the discussed example the consequences to be analysed are quite long and very hard to search. Of course this method is effective when you are interested in the use of verb or a short phrase. But I do not know how to apply this to my problem.
------
>>To grasp English, I prefer to use the most fundamental (low-level) properties of objects rather than the high-level ones (derived from fundamental properties). The latters are more easy to remember, and their amount is fewer.<<
What are they? I never had a preference to learn them and I never encountered such abstract sounding terms. What's this gobbledygook?! Are you hoodwinking me?
------
No, I'am not. For example, let's consider some rules of using the Present Perfect tense.
Such rules as the presence of certain 'signal' words like 'just', 'recently', 'already', by now e.t.c. - are high-level rules. They do not directly refer to what the Preset Perfect means.
And a more fundamental rule: this tense is used to denote a past action which is important and actual at the moment of speech. The latter rule I find more precise and useful.
------
>>For articles, the fundamental rule is the following. 'A' is used to denote a class or a type of object, whereas 'the' implies that we are referring to a certain object. This rule is directly derived from the 'physical meaning' of articles.<<
-Oh you know something that I don't, consciously. Why don't you use it if it works for you?
------
Why do you think I don't use it? I'am sure most of people know it and use it.
"This is a flower" = "This object (the flower, we are speaking about) belongs to the class of flowers"
"There is a big book on the table. The book is very old and shabby." = "The object that lies on the table belongs to the class of big books. And this [particular] object [of the considered class] is very old and shabby."
------
"I can assure you, you will figure out .... Provided you analyse it avidly!" (Mi5 Mick)
I can neither disprove nor prove that. So, will see... "
-It works/worked for me. Proven!
------
For every given man, there exist things he'll never understand. But given a certain problem, which, for the time being, have not been figured out, we can not say if it can be understood at all. We can say this definitely only for an understood thing - yes, it can be understood, but a not understood thing maybe understood later or never - we don't know. In particular, this is true for me and my problem.
Anton
>>For articles, the fundamental rule is the following. 'A' is used to denote a class or a type of object, whereas 'the' implies that we are referring to a certain object. This rule is directly derived from the 'physical meaning' of articles.<<
There is more to the big "article" picture than this fundamental rule. (as I implied before) Anyway, a whole bunch of fundamental rules isn't sufficient; you can formulate all you want before you understand what's going on, but you might not ever understand anything at all!
Wise man once say: When monkey fly, no need for bird! So... what monkey see, monkey do. (Chinese proverb)
