Olly Richards, author of the "Teach Youself Foreign
Language Graded Readers" series, speaks eight languages
and is the man behind the popular language learning blog
"I Will Teach You a Language."
Why is the subj "old stuff"? Because I ask you why there
is no "the" article before "author". ;-)
Olly Richards, author of the "Teach Youself Foreign Language
Graded Readers" series, speaks eight languages and is the man
behind the popular language learning blog "I Will Teach You a
Language."
Why is the subj "old stuff"? Because I ask you why there is
no "the" article before "author".
I mentioned awhile ago that "the" may be optional in a sentence
like "Mrs. Grant is currently in [the] hospital." AFAIK it wouldn't
be incorrect to add "the" in this case... but in a journalistic
style it might be omitted.
Is "the" in "Bill Clinton, the President of United States
of America" correct?
Is "the" in "Bill Clinton, the President of United States of
America" correct?
The article is optional with words like "president".
The definite article is required in "The United States of America"
because that is the official name of the country. In the common
parlance we often say "the US" or something similar... i.e.
retaining the article. "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland" is treated in the same manner. Colloquially, we
often refer to it as "the UK".
WRT official titles like "President of the United States", or
even "former President of the United States", the article may be
left out. Among Fidonetters this title may be abbreviated as "the
POTUS". But AFAIK none of them are journalists, who say things
like "US President Joe Biden". In such cases they are using the abbreviated name of the country as an adjective. I can't think of
anybody else, however, who would actually say that... [grin].
In case my last paragraph left you & others a bit confused, I will
share with you my own experience as an actress in an elementary
school play. Years ago, when only formal English was allowed in the classroom, one of the lines I memorized was "I'm So-and-So,
president of the Ladies' Flower Club." IOW... I regard this usage
as well established & therefore have no objection when others
employ it in reference to some author, movie director, etc.
I went to school to meet with headmaster. Capital of the
US is Washington. Composer of "Moon sonata" is Beethoven.
After school I went home. Head is part of body.
Are there any examples how to disprove my rule? ;-)
In general the article may be omitted when some
individual's name is mentioned first & a bit of
clarification is added almost immediately... either
separated by a comma, as above, or at times by the verb
"[to be]":
Justin Trudeau is [the] Prime Minister of Canada.
Susan Smith is [the] General Manager of the XYZ Company.
The head is part of the body.It can be understood that "This head is a part of this
body" A criminal investigation. :)
And why not "a body"?
The head is part of the body.
It can be understood that "This head is a part of
this body" A criminal investigation. :)
And why not "a body"?
The capital of Canada is Ottawa, Ontario.
The President of the US remarked yesterday that...
[blah blah].
Well, it seems, I see, "The" is necessary when there is no
definition before the countable noun and this noun defines
something unique.
In my case we will have "the" if we paraphrase the
sentence: <The author of the "Teach Youself Foreign
Language, Olly Richards...>
The head is part of the body.
It can be understood that "This head is a part of this body" A
criminal investigation.
Archaeologists & criminologists may at times be called upon to
identify various body parts which have been separated for whatever reason(s). In such a situation, however, I'd say "xxx is part of
yyy" as I did there.
In my example I used "head" & "body" in a general sense... and as
Why "flu season" without "a" article?
Why "flu season" without "a" article?
because it covers all flues... not just a specific one
(the) or any one (a)...
Look on my majesty, ye mighty, and despair! Or bring
me catnip.
Doing even more fine tuning, however: when we say "flu" or "'flu" we
are using a colloquial variation of "influenza"... a "flue" is
typically a pipe or other enclosure which e.g. directs the flow of
smoke in a chimney:
On/in -- yes we think differently. Although Americans, for
instance, gave up "in" when they speak about streets. They accept
that events happen on the street, like in Russia, not in the
street, as the British speakers say. ;)
Interesting too, that we sit IN a chair, but ON a
stool. :-)
Interesting too, that we sit IN a chair, but ON a
stool. :-)
Small wonder that we do, for the sitter in a chair is
enclosed on three sides with the backrest and armrests --
parts that raise above the seat.
Yes, that was my thinking, too. But what about this:
"The shop is on the street" vs "the shop is on the street" ???
Both seem to be common usages and both are grammatically correct.
i just wasn't sure of the proper pluralization form for
"flu" and went with the more common usage of adding "es"...
In Louse H. Briesemester's "Island Winds",
I came upon another interesting nominal use of `part':
And barometers are considered a part of the standard
equipment of every home.
I called it interesting because I should have omitted the
indefinite article.
But there are many other kinds of chairs [...]
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 40:36:29 |
| Calls: | 97 |
| Files: | 4,636 |
| Messages: | 216,741 |