Usage of "a/an and the"

Vushka   Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:46 am GMT
Hello!
How shall I say?

-She goes to the bar or
-She goes to a bar

the smile of a baby
the smile of the baby
a smile of a baby
a smile of a baby?

It's too complicated...There are 4 possible translations for only ONE in Polish :(

many thanks
Travis   Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:16 am GMT
The thing is that what one would use depends on what one actually means. In the first case, "She goes to the bar" would be used if the bar in question has already been specified, is already generally known, or if some general bar is being gone to which does not matter in and of itself, whereas "She goes to a bar" would be used if the bar in question has not only not been identified yet, but also is some specific entity rather than some inspecific any given bar. For example, one would say "She goes to a bar" if she goes to some particular bar, which matters in and of itself, which has not been identified yet, whereas one would say "She goes to the bar" either if the bar has already been mentioned, if what "the bar" is is already common knowledge in the given context, or if "the bar" is just *some given bar* which is of no consequence in itself and which does not need to be introduced. This is a case where the use of the definite article in English is really not as simple as it seems, as while it can indicate that something has already been mentioned, it can also in places indicate that something does not need to be introduced, as it some given thing that can be simply assumed, whatever it may happen to actually be.

As for the second four items, the two halves of each should be treated separately. In this case, "the smile" would refer to either a specific smile which has already been identified or, more likely, the *general idea* of such a smile rather than any particular instance of such a smile. On the other hand, "a smile" refers to a specific instance of a smile which has not been introduced yet, and not to the general concept of such a smile. Along similar but not exactly the same lines, "the baby" refers to either a baby which has already been mentioned or which is already generally known, while "a baby" refers to a baby which has not been introduced, or, unlike with "a smile", any given baby. This case is confusing because for the "any given item" case, "the" is used for "smile", but "a" is used for baby. However, the difference is that with "the smile" what is being referred to is the general idea of a smile which need not be introduced, whereas with "a baby" such is not some item which need not be introduced as it is not some preassumed general location, entity, or idea, but rather any specific baby, even though who said specific baby it is is inconsequential in the case in question.
Travis   Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:38 am GMT
Sorry if my explanation above was rather, well, complex; the main thing is just that article usage in English is *far* more complex than it may seem on the surface, as there is far more that goes into actual usage of articles in English beyond what the labels of "indefinite" (for "a"/"an") versus "definite" (for "the") would superficially imply. The usage of them involves things ranging from explicit introduction versus implicit or general knowledge, whether something is a place, an entity, or an idea, the idea of whether what is being referred to specifically matters as an instance (like with "some" versus "any"), the distinction between count nouns and mass nouns, and so on. All this stuff is why it is actually very hard to teach article usage in English to speakers of languages which don't have any articles at all, as much as such things may seem completely intuitive to native English-speakers.
Visla   Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:29 am GMT
Hello. This was taken from a review from amazon.com

''RICHARD GERE IS EXCELLENT AS THE LONELY, INTELLECTUAL REPORTER WHO IS FORCED TO BATTLE A SUPERNATURAL FORCE BEYOND HIS UNDERSTANDING''

Wouldn't RICHARD GERE IS EXCELLENT AS a LONELY, INTELLECTUAL REPORTER sound better?


Many thanks.
Uriel   Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:49 am GMT
It has a slightly different connotation when you use an vs. the in the sentence you mention. Both are correct, but the emphasis is a little different.
Brennus   Fri Aug 26, 2005 6:53 am GMT
The definite and indefinite articles are marvelous inventions in language. Ancient Greek, Latin and Old English didn't originally have them. Russian still doesn't have them.

A disturbing trend in British English today is a tendency to omit the uses of articles as in 'tusks of elephant' or 'horns of giraffe'. While they may think it's more efficient the historical record indicates that it is really a step backwards linguistically.
x   Fri Aug 26, 2005 7:41 am GMT
>A disturbing trend in British English today is a tendency to omit the uses of articles as in 'tusks of elephant' or 'horns of giraffe'>

It makes no difference in significant meaning whether or not an article is used in your examples. They could be further simplied, again with no article, to "elephant tusks" and "giraffe horns".
Brennus   Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:52 pm GMT
X,

People could say "Me Tarzan, you Jane" instead of I'm Tarzan and you're Jane" if all they wanted to do was just get a meaning across. However, is this really the way you would like to say it?
Vivi   Sat Aug 27, 2005 1:35 am GMT
yes, ME TARZAN, YOU JANE is Tarzan-like

I TARZAN, THOU JANE is more Shakespaearian :)
x   Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:20 am GMT
Brennus,
It's different. You're now talking about what sounds aesthetic since you're asking me the way I would like to say it. In this sense, "tusks of elephant" and "elephant tusks" sound fine to me; "Me Tarzan, you Jane" does not.
Brennus   Sat Aug 27, 2005 9:16 pm GMT
X,

Aesthetics aside, in terms of linguistic evolution the lack of an artilcle and copula deletion are both archaic features in languages. True, you can communicate without them but they are just not characteristics of modern languages.
Travis   Sat Aug 27, 2005 9:23 pm GMT
For starters, from a linguistic standpoint, Brennus, one should not even speak of things as "archaic" with respect to languages in general, in the first place. Secondly, copula deletion is generally associated with the use of "adjectives" with a copula, where said "adjectives" are actually *stative verbs* underneath it all, and are not "adjectives" in the Indo-European sense of such at all, besides that they are often called such for convenience's sake for the speakers of languages with adjectives in the traditional sense of the term.
Bardioc   Tue Sep 06, 2005 3:36 pm GMT
The term "elephant tusks" seems to be some kind of compound word, while "tusks of elephant" doesn't seem correct to me. "Tusks of elephants" would make sense.
Adam   Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:07 pm GMT
"A disturbing trend in British English today is a tendency to omit the uses of articles as in 'tusks of elephant' or 'horns of giraffe'. While they may think it's more efficient the historical record indicates that it is really a step backwards linguistically. "

That's correct English.

Normally in English, the article does not go before plurals.
Adam   Tue Sep 06, 2005 6:09 pm GMT
You say -

"An elephant's tusk" or "the elephant's tusk"

and

"Elephants' tusks" - the article is ommited.