Search results for 'tag:Difference between tag:Articles' matching tags 'Difference between' and 'Articles'

Where does the article go?

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:25:09 GMT

Hi,

Would you say the indefinite article 'a' goes with the phrase 'other activity' too?

Students analyze their own thought processes following a reading or other activity.

If so, what is the difference between that example and this in terms of how the article applies to other elements in the sentence?

Students should bring a pen and other brush.

Could I take the 'other brush' to mean 'another brush'?

Re: Articles or not?

Anonymous — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:13:51 GMT

<You can speculate as well as I about what Grice would say. >

And I thought you knew his works well.

<It seems your trying to make some sort of point with these mini-dialogs, so why not just say what's on your mind?! >

The point is in the questions above.

<It violates one or more of the Gricean maxims of conversational implicature>

Can you tell us which other maxims you think this mini-dialogue flaunts (note the difference between "violate" and "flauntt" in Grice's use of those terms)?

Jeff: Hi, I'm Jeff. I've got two kids.

Martin: Hi, Jeff. I'm Martin, group-leader, and this is, Alan, father of four children.

Re: Articles or not?

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:01:16 GMT

No,there is no difference between these sentences, they have a same connection in thought. However ,the two first sentences were the most brilliant details, they were flames reflected in a mirror from a marvelous paint of our era, our real life as a work of a masterpiece.

Re: gerund or verbal noun with an article?

Cool Breeze — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:00:02 GMT

Anonymous
I agree with you on this but I wonder what is your opinion on this.

This playground is for playing soccer.
This playground is for the playing of soccer.

In this situation, I feel the first sentence pattern is what a person will see more often out there in written form or in verbal situations, but I don't think the second one is wrong. Is it wrong? Both seem to be filling the position of a noun.

Thank you for agreeing with me. However, agreeing isn't necessary at all. Diversity makes life interesting! As for your sentences, I have already explained my opinion about structures like these, but if people disagree with me, that's just fine. I don't mind in the least.

In the first sentence, playing is a gerund required by the preposition for. With an exception or two, all prepositions require a gerund in English. Soccer is the object of playing, in other words it indicates what is played in the playground. A noun cannot have an object, yet playing clearly has one in the sentence, so playing is not a complete noun. Verbs have objects, and the fact that a gerund can have an object is its verblike property.

I consider playing a complete noun derived from the verb to play in the second sentence. I am accustomed to calling such nouns verbal nouns, but I understand that others may use the term differently. The and of show that playing is not a gerund - although some grammarians prefer to call it by that name even in this context. Almost any noun can be placed between the and of: the name of this town, the history of our country, the Las Vegas of the Far East.

Moreover, a noun can have an adjectival attribute: This playground is for the occasional playing of soccer. This clearly proves that playing is not a gerund in the second sentence, that there is a grammatical difference between playing in the two sentences. You wouldn't say: This playground is for occasional playing soccer. All nouns can have an adjectival attribute; this playing can't, so it's not a noun.

Re: skip the rope

Anonymous — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:27:23 GMT

Hi,
Isn't 'jumping a rope' or 'jumping ropes' the name of an activity? What is the difference between 'jumping a rope' and 'skipping rope'? Why one has an article and the other doesn't?

Re: follow-up to 'article'

CalifJim — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 00:44:46 GMT

Anonymous
Can anyone please tell me why Mr. M said what he said

I don't think anyone around here reads minds. Only Mr. M. can answer as to the reasons for his answer, and it seems to me that he already has given reasons.

As for your sentences, I don't see anything problematic with them except as corrected below:

1.They reached agreement, and the agreement was for the payment of 400 dollars.
2.They signed an agreement, and the agreement was for the payment of 400 dollars.

The only difference is the difference between the verb reach and the verb sign, and you can easily find those in any dictionary.

reach agreement is a fixed idiom where an article is not needed.

_____

Just for future reference, I think it would be more polite to ask your questions without challenging others specifically by name. Such challenges diminish your chances of receiving an answer, because no one wishes to get into an unpleasant discussion where it's more important to prove someone right or wrong than it is to understand the principles of English grammar.

Re: Article for History

Avangi — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:35:05 GMT

Avangi
You need some kind of adjective/pronoun/article in front of "history." "American" serves the purpose. "History is an interesting subject" works, but "History of America is fascinating" does not. (must be "The history of America)

I must say in retrospect that this is not a productive way to look at the question of whether "history" requires a definite article. New2's point about "history" as an abstract ("first time in history"; "history repeats itself"; "the study of history"; etc.) is much more useful in explaining why sometimes the definite article is not required.

In my first post I was trying to focus on the difference between "American history" (no article) and "the history of America." I really screwed it up!

Re: "a" or "an" before a consonant acronym

Anonymous — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:26:41 GMT

I suppose any hard and fast rule is not warranted. Consider that others argued that acronym and abbreviation are not the same thing:

"There is a difference between acronyms and abbreviations. An acronym is usually formed by taking the first initials of a phrase or compounded-word and using those initials to form a word that stands for something. Thus NATO, which we pronounce NATOH, is an acronym for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and LASER (which we pronounce "lazer"), is an acronym for Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. FBI, then, is not really an acronym for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; it is an abbreviation. AIDS is an acronym; HIV is an abbreviation. URL is an abbreviation for Uniform Resource Locator (World Wide Web address), but many people pronounce it as "Earl," making it a true acronym, and others insist on pronouncing it as three separate letters, "U * R * L," thus making it an abbreviation. The jury is still out. (I vote for Uncle Earl.)

It appears that there are no hard and fast rules for using periods in either acronyms or abbreviations. More and more, newspapers and journals seem to drop the periods: NAACP, NCAA, etc. Consistency, obviously, is important."

Consider also that the article "the" would be pronounced differently as in "da" and "de" when it precedes different words. We do not spell "the" differently however. It would seem logical to use 'a' in writing except in the most obvious sitaution and leave how it should be pronounced to the reader depending on how s/he chooses to pronounce the word (be it acronym or abbreviation) that follows.

Re: typical

wangdefu31 — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:00:44 GMT

Hi,

In my opinion the difference between the two phase are the article.The article a is regarded as one,the other you should be regarded as one kind of something. Just my opinion.

Ivan

What does the society focus?

Chibi — Sat, 31 May 2008 10:16:52 GMT

Many say that society does not place enough emphasis on the intellect - that is, on reasoning and cognitive skills.

I myself do not agree with that. Based on the article I have read, the writer said: "the primary difference between European and Japanese education is that the European go to school to learn and graduate with an expected amount of knowledge and reasoning skills while the Japanese system teaches more how to behave in society, interact with people in a group and some factual knowledge based especially on memory". Actually, I think both these education systems have paid attention on reasoning and cognitive skills. The matter is that how these skills are perveiced or interpreted by each person.

Reasoning and cognitive skills, in fact, are skills of analysis, logic, critique. They have much influence on a person's behaviors, emotions and also remarkable decisions. How can a person feel sorry or happy about an event if he does not understand it; and how can he understand it if he does not have a good perception - a reliable analysis? These things are completely acquired in a long period of learning which happens in real society. So we cannot say thay society does not place emphasis on the intellect. Moreove, this emphasis possibly depends on the specific purpose of people in society.

What do you think about this issue? Can you share?