+0
Hi everyone,

Just when I thought I cracked the articles with generic plural nouns, I stumbled on this NYTimes essay and I'm totally confused. Can anyone exlain why they made the choices I'm highlighting below in colour. Cheers Emotion: smile ---- Please ;( I'm tearing my hair off!!!

U.S. House of Representatives Democrats will more than fully fund President George W. Bush's request for money to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. (Why not 'the Democrats"? They mean the entire group of democrats in House which can be enumerated person by person, not their subgroup, they dont mean democrats in the sense that 'any' democrat!)

Murtha told reporters Democrats were still discussing provisions he wants to attach requiring that U.S. troops have proper training, adequate equipment and enough rest before being deployed into combat. (The same remark)

The additional money House Democrats want to add in includes $1 billion more for ... ("This is even more explicitly restrictive as before and thus requires 'the'?)



If it's some special NYT journalistic style can anyone confirm if 'the' would be more natural/possible in other discourses? And if yes, can anyone explain why NYT still used 'the' with democrats in the following situations which seem to contradict the previous 3 examples.

The Democrats argue that secret-ballot elections are often unfair, with companies frequently firing, intimidating and spying on pro-union workers. (exactly as any sentence above, but they used 'the' now?)

The Bush administration finished negotiations with Panama after the Democrats won control of Congress in November (the second clause looks exactly like any other sentence given above?)

But several Republicans said the Democrats embraced the bill as payback for labor’s help in last November’s elections. (again the same?)

Only 62 percent said the Democrats — not the Republicans — were more likely to improve the health care system. (yet again?)



+0
Hi,

If it's some special NYT journalistic style can anyone confirm if 'the' would be more natural/possible in other discourses? Yes. I'd prefer to use 'the' in these examples.

And if yes, can anyone explain why NYT still used 'the' with democrats in the following situations which seem to contradict the previous 3 examples. Because journalists, like all native speakers, are not always 100% consistent in the way they speak.

Journalists often write in ways that are not natural, especially spoken, English.

If you tried to learn English solely by reading newspapers, you would speak very odd English.

Best wishes, Clive
+0
Space is often limited in newspapers, so many words that would normally be included, are cut out.