Search results for 'tag:Definite articles tag:Whom' matching tags 'Definite articles' and 'Whom'

Re: Is it compulsory to use articles, a, an, and the, with only countable nouns?

Ant_222 — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:39:24 GMT

Jackson6612
Let me rephrase it again, even indefinite article the is used with countable nouns or the nouns which are acting as counting nouns.

What's "indefinite article the"?

Jackson6612
So it means if some non-countable noun is acting as a countable noun then it has to be an uncountable because there are two main types of nouns: countable and uncountable.

Sure. Isn't it a tautology? Dictionaries describe "happiness" as an uncountable noun, but in specific contexts (like GG's example) it may be used as a countable noun, which I have called playing a "countable" role, or, to be more correct, the role of a countable noun. So, what the dictionaries say doesn't always 100% correspond to reality.

Jackson6612
You said, pour the water onto the tea. Does that mean though water is an uncountable noun but in that particular example it is working as a countable noun?

Actually I used that example to show you a usage of an uncountable noun as an uncountable noun. "The" "defines" "water". It indicates that it is not any water, but that very water that has just been boiled. Water is still uncountable here, although it is "restricted" (specific).

Jackson6612
You said, it denotes a specific instance of that general category. I would have written: ...it denotes a specific type/kind/sort of that general category at some particular time. Would that also mean the same thing?

Well, I think it is a matter of one's Weltanschauung, and personally I prefer "instance" because, as distinct from "type", which, as any unit of classification, is abstract by nature, is real to the same extent as that which it has been derived from:

A is a type/sort of B â here A is not as real as B,

A is an instance of B â A is not less real (material) than B

Jackson6612
In a good detergent, a is standing along a countable noun but detergent in itself is not a countable noun. Then, what does make it a countable noun in that particular sentence?

At last, you have asked a specific question. By "detergent" the speaker didnt' mean the "matter" or "substance" itself, but, rather, a type or sort (or brand) of it. "Tide" is one detergent, and "Surf" is another. In this sense, they are countable.

Jackson6612
Can you, please, provide me some example sentences in which there is no need to use articles with certain countable/uncountable nouns with whom articles would be used in other sentences.

Countable: http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhyNoArticleHere/ggjmr/post.htm

As for uncountable, you have already seen them: "Water boils at 100 centigrades (at the "standard" atmospheric pressure)" â here "water" refers to the verty substance, and the sentence is true for all water in the world.

Re: Is it compulsory to use articles, a, an, and the, with only countable nouns?

Jackson6612 — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:36:54 GMT

Ant_222
Jackson6612
Ant, you mean that even article the is used with countable nouns or the nouns which are acting as countable nouns.

Yes, but it can be used with uncountable nouns as well. Countable (along the lines of GG's example): "The happiness that he had now was something he had never experiences before".

Uncountable: "Boil a litre of water, put 25 g of tea into an earthenware pot, pour the water onto the tea".

Jackson6612
And would you please give a short explanation of the underlined part

When you specify the properties of something referred to by a noun that usually has an abstract, categorical or very general meaning, that automatically changes the meaning of it so that it denotes a specific instance of that general category. For example, in GG's sentence, instead of the general happiness you have a specific happiness, experienced by a specific person.

Hi Ant,

In one of the last posts you said: What I wanted to say is, whenever the indefinite article is used, the following noun is either countable or plays a "countable" role.

Question 1:
Emphasis is on the whenever. This is the same thing I said above. Let me rephrase it again, even indefinite article the is used with countable nouns or the nouns which are acting as counting nouns. So it means if some non-countable noun is acting as a countable noun then it has to be an uncountable because there are two main types of nouns: countable and uncountable. You said, pour the water onto the tea. Does that mean though water is an uncountable noun but in that particular example it is working as a countable noun?

Question 2:
You said, it denotes a specific instance of that general category. I would have written: ...it denotes a specific type/kind/sort of that general category at some particular time. Would that also mean the same thing?

Question 3:
Example: Wash it in hot water with a good detergent...
In a good detergent, a is standing along a countable noun but detergent in itself is not a countable noun. Then, what does make it a countable noun in that particular sentence?

Question 4:
Can you, please, provide me some example sentences in which there is no need to use articles with certain countable/uncountable nouns with whom articles would be used in other sentences.

Thank you for helping so patiently.

Re: Questions on the article

Marius Hancu — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 02:29:18 GMT

1. Why should there be indefinite articles As and shouldn't be there the definite articles Thes?

Jenny was a most lovable person.

She is a most beautiful person.

You gave me a correct answer.

Because the writer doesn't want to emphasize these are the absolute best in each respect (the most lovable, beautiful, correct), but one of the many (lovable, beautiful, correct) persons or answers. The meaning of "a most" is "very" in the above.

Compare:

a most lovable person = a very lovable person

the most lovable person = the person which is the best (the utmost) in terms of being lovable (in terms of "love-ability") from all those whom I'm considering in this setting

Re: Would you use a definite article here?

Inchoateknowledge — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:10:40 GMT

To whom it may concern.
"Pride is an abomination, one must forego the self to attain spiritual creaminess and avoid the chewy chunks of degradation"
(Bacall)

Re: some question

rvw — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 23:22:07 GMT

Some has a variety of uses. As an indefinite article (like a/an) it modifies plural count nouns and mass nouns.

Some boys walked down the street.
Some cold beer would taste great right now.

I would say some examples and some material. In some cases, the context or knowledge of the world may be needed to decide whether a noun is count or mass.

Number 2 should be To whom does this purse belong or This purse belongs to whom?

Re: are these sentences grammatical? please :)

Demetrius — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 10:19:57 GMT

Maserati wrote:

After she knew her subordinate affiliated with IBM Company, she made many eulogies and promised to back away from IC field.

"Once she knew her subordinate had affiliated with the IBM Company, she was very complimentary and promised to move away from the IC field."

1) "Once" is the correct word here, rather than "after". We are talking about a decision that occurred at a known point in time, and "once" conveys that better than "after", which simply means at some later unspecified time.

2) The verb "to affiliate" should be in the pluperfect (past perfect) tense because we are talking about two events in the past (what "she" did, and what "her subordinate" did) that are ordered in time: that is, "her subordinate" HAD "affiliated" before "she made many eulogies".

3) We must use THE "IBM Company" because it is a definite entity, and so requires the definite article.

4) "To make a eulogy" is unnatural English. You do not "make" a eulogy; you "give" a eulogy, or you simply "eulogise". However, it sounds odd to me either way. That is why I have rephrased the clause as "she was very complimentary". Even this is not entirely satisfactory because the sentence does not make clear WHO is the object of the compliments (or eulogies) and to WHAT they relate. We are left to assume from context that "she" is complimenting "her subordinate" in a general way because she now recognises his/her increased status. The sentence should make this clear if so.

5) "Back away from" sounds less natural (to me) in this context than "move away from", but it is context-dependent, and the sentence does not provide enough clues here to be certain.

6) Again, we must use "The IC field" because it is a definite entity. As a point of style, acronyms should only be used where they have been previously explained, or are sufficiently well-known (to the target audience) that they do not require explanation. I assume from this context that the acronym means "Integrated Circuit", but it may not be obvious to everyone.

Maserati wrote:

After receiving Pinto Companyâs tricky eulogy, she affiliated with that firm and work for its archive.

"After receiving the Pinto Company's tricky eulogy (?), she affiliated with that firm and worked for its archive department."

1) We must write "The Pinto Company's" rather than "Pinto Company's" as explained previously.

2) It must be "Worked" not "work". The subclause "work for its archive" is dependent on "she affiliated with that firm", and so the tense of the verb "to work" must agree with the tense of the verb "to affiliate". In this case, the tense must be the simple past (imperfect) tense.

3) I do not understand the meaning of "work(ed) for its archive", so I am guessing you mean the department that deals with archiving records.

4) Again, "tricky eulogy" sounds like exceptionally strange English in this context. "Tricky" and "eulogy" sound very incongruous together, and I am not sure what the meaning is intended to be. Why is this company "eulogising" and to whom? Does it perhaps mean that they sent "her" a very complimentary job offer and she found it to be elegantly phrased?

Maserati wrote:

The judgeâs final verdict is that our archive in my office should affiliate with public library.

"The judge's final verdict is that the archiving department in my office should affiliate with the public library."

"The judge's final verdict is that our archiving department should affiliate with the public library."

1) As in the previous example, I am assuming that "archive" means "archiving department".

2) As before, it should be "the public library" and not "public library".

Re: Grammar doubts (to MrP)

sextus — Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:41:51 GMT

Hello MrP. So, a poet! Poetry is an area regarding which I must acknowledge my complete ignorance. Of course, I canât write anything of this kind, and I can only read with some enjoyment some things by Borges, Manrique and PrÃ©vert.

Thanks for your very useful suggestions. Here Iâve four more doubts:

1) âThis shows that, contrary to what we were inclined to believe at the beginning of the previous section, it is not inevitable for the Pyrrhonist to take up a philanthropic attitude.â

2) âThis I believe to be valuable not merely in terms of the historico-critical study of the work of an ancient thinker, but, more importantly, as an attempt to reflect on the character of a philosophy that may still be found to be attractive and worth adopting.â

Your suggestions improved very much my paragraph. I have just one question. You say âin terms of theâ and then âas anâ. What sounds strange to me is the use of the definite article and then the indefinite. The âthe historico-critical studyâ seems to me to refer to the very activity of studying a subject, while âa historico-critical studyâ would refer to a particular investigation, done in a paper or article, as âan attemptâ refers to a particular attempt to do something.

3) âI hope that the account of the Pyrrhonistâs outlook that I have offered in this paper will help to dispel the confusion about what is intrinsic to his ethical stance, and that it has shown that a Pyrrhonist can search for unperturbedness and adopt a philanthropic attitude, without this threatening or compromising the coherence of his Skepticism.â

I changed a couple of things because there were some errors. Iâm not sure if the clause âwithout â¦Skepticismâ sounds correct.

4) Thereâs a paragraph I added, I would appreciate if you could take a look at it:

âThe second objection is that, even if we concede that the Pyrrhonist does not believe that his patients are objectively ill and that suspension is by nature a good, his philanthropic concern and therapeutic practice clearly show that he believes in the existence of the very people he wishes to persuade by means of ad hominem arguments. First of all, to pose a problem for the Skeptic, this objection must presuppose that the non-evident matters about which he claims to suspend judgment include the existence of other people. It is a vexed question whether or not Sextusâ Skepticism calls into doubt the existence of the âexternal worldâ, and this is not the place to examine such question or to attempt to adjudicate the debate (for discussion see e.g. Burnyeat 1982, sec. III, Everson 1991, Fine 2003). In any case, even if we grant that the Pyrrhonist does cast doubt on the existence of other people, the objection in question does not becomes unanswerable. For the Skeptic can argue that he is just following his appearances. That is, it appears to him that there are other human beings with whom he lives in a community with particular laws and customs, some of whom will instruct him in certain skills, and so on. The Pyrrhonist is aware that these appearances may be just pure fiction, with no objective validity whatsoever, but in his everyday life he thinks, feels and acts in accordance with them without holding opinions, for the simple reason that they impose themselves upon him and form part of the only criterion he possesses.â

Thanks and cheers,

Sextus

Trinity isn't a Biblical teaching. It's heresy.

southafrica — Thu, 23 Oct 2003 16:20:12 GMT

AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Trinitarians claim that this means that "the Word" (Greek, ho lo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.

Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person

Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." (Italics ours.) Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God.

Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:

1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

1935: "and the Word was divine." The BibleâAn American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun theÂ·os' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ("and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of theÂ·os']"). This first theÂ·os' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God").

On the other hand, there is no article before the second theÂ·os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second theÂ·os' (a predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god." On what authority do they do this?

The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.

The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [theÂ·os'] cannot be regarded as definite."

So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called "the Word" in his role as God's Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.

There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article "a" when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spirit." In the Koine Greek, there is no "a" before "spirit." But almost all translations in other languages add an "a" in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine."

Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"