confused with article

[Zomac]

I'm very confused with and bad at the use of English articles. Here is an abstract of a news article on a solar plane experiment. If you were an editor, would you use the/an/a /no article in the following cases? Can you explain why?

ANDRÉ BORSCHBERG is an engineer and fighter pilot. On July 8th he made [the/an/nil] aviation history when he landed [an/the/nil] unusual aircraft with [the/a/nil] wingspan of [the/a/nil] jumbo jet but [a/the/nil] slim fuselage with [a/the] room inside only for himself. He had stayed in [the/an/nil] air for more than 26 hours, flying through [the/nil] day and night, using only [the/nil] solar power. For Mr Borschberg and his colleague Bertrand Piccard, [the/an] adventurer who flew the first hot-air balloon non-stop around the world, it was [a/the/nil] proof of [the/an/nil] enormous potential of clean energy.

( the source of this abstract will be added later )

[Glenn]

Here's my version:

ANDRÉ BORSCHBERG is an engineer and fighter pilot. On July 8th he made [nil] aviation history when he landed [an] unusual aircraft with [the] wingspan of [a] jumbo jet but [a] slim fuselage with [nil] room inside only for himself. He had stayed in [the] air for more than 26 hours, flying through [the]* day and night, using only [nil] solar power. For Mr Borschberg and his colleague Bertrand Piccard, [an] adventurer who flew the first hot-air balloon non-stop around the world, it was [nil] proof of [the] enormous potential of clean energy.

* This one feels wierd no matter what to me. I think either it should be "flying through the night" or "flying day and night" without "through". The second one makes more sense here, because presumably he flew many days and nights, as opposed to just through one night.

[jbradfor]

Glenn, note that in this context, the time flown is given, 26 hours, so I don't think "presumably he flew many days and nights". I think the point here is that it was solar powered, AND it flew at night as well when there is no sun. Hence, in this context, I would go for "both", if that is an option.

[SiMaKe]

I would say, "[the] adventurer who flew the first hot-air balloon non-stop around the world". "an" would work for "[an] adverturer who flew hot air balloons", but since he flew the "first" one, he presumably was "the" only one in that "group" (of one).

[Glenn]

Glenn' date=' note that in this context, the time flown is given, 26 hours, so I don't think "presumably he flew many days and nights". I think the point here is that it was solar powered, AND it flew at night as well when there is no sun. Hence, in this context, I would go for "both", if that is an option. [/quote']

Whoops. Good point. Yeah, then I go with "he flew through [the] day and night," although for some reason it still feels a bit off. Possibly just because of my misreading the first time.

I guess I'll go with SiMaKe's version too, since it does say he was the first one.

I guess it isn't as easy as it seems to just fill in articles like this. Or I was just really sloppy.

[Zomac]

thanks! I tried to put articles there but i felt that I made a lot of mistakes. Can you make some simple explanations why you choose these articles instead of the others?

ANDRÉ BORSCHBERG is an engineer and fighter pilot. On July 8th he made [nil- I often see the words "the Chinese history", "the computer history"..why not use this here?"] aviation history when he landed [an] unusual aircraft with [the] wingspan of [a] jumbo jet but [a] slim fuselage with [nil] room (why not a room..room doesn't seem to be uncountable) inside only for himself.

[Zomac]

By the way, this is the source of this abstract:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/07/solar-powered_flight

ANDRÉ BORSCHBERG is an engineer and fighter pilot. On July 8th he made aviation history when he landed an unusual aircraft with the wingspan of a jumbo jet but a slim fuselage with room inside only for himself. He had stayed in the air for more than 26 hours, flying through the day and night, using only solar power. For Mr Borschberg and his colleague Bertrand Piccard, an adventurer who flew the first hot-air balloon non-stop around the world, it was proof of the enormous potential of clean energy.

--

i really don't know how you guys can put almost all articles back without any problem. i read the grammar book for many years but still haven't managed to use them right.

[jbradfor]

Articles are one of those things that gives non-native speakers lots of grief, and most native speakers are unable to do better than "it just sounds right". In addition, USA and British English does differ at times.

Fortunately, I think I can do better than "it just sounds right" in these two cases.

"made history" -- this is a set phrase meaning doing something big and important, not talking about a specific period in history.

"with room" -- here this is a different meaning of room. It doesn't mean a specific room, as in a living room. It means "space" in the sense of how much space around you. Maybe in Chinese the difference is between 房子 and 空?

[SiMaKe]

Nice setup!:rolleyes:

Maybe I'm missing something but my reasoning for "the" adventurer vs "an" adventure remains the same. "The" is used for a specific reference; "an" for a non-specific one. If you do a Google search for "the adventurer who" and "an adventurer who", generally, the "the" ones are very specific and the "an" ones refer to one of some group (of more than one).

Here's maybe a clearer explanation from The Purdue (Univ) Online Writing Lab:

http://owl.english.p...esource/540/01/

"English has two articles: the and a/an. The is used to refer to specific or particular nouns; a/an is used to modify non-specific or non-particular nouns. We call the the definite article and a/an the indefinite article. the = definite article

a/an = indefinite article

For example, if I say, "Let's read the book," I mean a specific book. If I say, "Let's read a book," I mean any book rather than a specific book.

Here's another way to explain it: The is used to refer to a specific or particular member of a group. For example, "I just saw the most popular movie of the year." There are many movies, but only one particular movie is the most popular. Therefore, we use the.

"A/an" is used to refer to a non-specific or non-particular member of the group. For example, "I would like to go see a movie." Here, we're not talking about a specific movie. We're talking about any movie. There are many movies, and I want to see any movie. I don't have a specific one in mind."

Here is an example for the New York Times (not just any NY Times but THE NY Times;))

"Steve Fossett, the millionaire adventurer who disappeared Sept. 3, 2007 after taking off from a ranch for a brief recreational flight in a single-engine plane...". Very specific. There probably were not a lot of adventurers who fit this description.

Another: "Samurai William: The Adventurer Who Unlocked Japan".

As always, this is my interpretation and I'm always willing to revise my opinion if given a more cogent argument or better quality information.

[jbradfor]

@SiMaKe, here I think the difference is same as between that and which. Since for people one usually uses "who" rather than "that/which" one doesn't see it, but if one does it's the difference between "the adventurer that" and "an adventurer who". Both are correct, it's just a slight difference in implication. In the former you are emphasizing what this particular adventurer did, in the latter you are emphasizing that he is an adventurer, and just giving more detail on what this particular adventurer did.

Personally, in this case, I'm with you. Given the linkage between the two types of adventuring (26 hours in solar powered aircraft and balloon around the world) I think "the" is better. But I think both are correct.

[Glenn]

My take on the "an adventurer" thing is that it's used as a setup of knowledge previously unknown to the listener/reader. That is, it's like "long, long ago there lived an old man and an old woman. The old man..." You could ostensibly say "long, long ago there lived an old man, who was the first to swim across the Nile..." Of course, here the relative clause that follows is non-restrictive, not restrictive as it is in the article. Perhaps that doesn't matter. In the example from The NY Times, it seems that the writer is expecting the reader to already know that an adventurer disappeared in September of 2007, and that's why it's "Steve Fossett, the millionaire adventurer who disappeared Sept. 3, 2007 after taking off from a ranch for a brief recreational flight in a single-engine plane..." There the modifying clause is a non-restrictive one, though, so it's really starting to look like that's irrelevant.

Zomac, I don't know if this makes you feel any better or not, but this can be confusing for us native speakers as well, as you can see. Well, at least in this particular case, anyway. At any rate, I'm having problems thinking of uses of "the Chinese history" or "the computer history" off hand. Do you have some examples you can share? They don't seem right to me in isolation. I think jbradfor took care of the "room" explanation.

[Zomac]

it's really educational to see native speakers discussing the use of grammar. I often see English grammar is a kind of "fixed rules" that don't allow any inconsistency but at least in some cases, it's more than just a multiple choice question shown in examination. In the "an/the adventurer" example, I'm actually convinced by both Glenn and SiMaKe's choice.

I felt quite surprised that Glenn said that phrase like "the computer history" doesn't sound right, then I googled this and it's another surprise to me that you're right! In google, there's no lack of "The chinese history", "the computer history", but all results come from a blog or wikipedia, a kind of platforms that anyone can write. I specified my search query to BBC, Guardian or NYtimes and no results are shown at all.

So, if "the Chinese history" isn't right, why is it okay to say "the History of China" ? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2122507)

To make me more confused, I think history, along with language, is academic subject. If we can't say "the Chinese history", why can we say "the Chinese language"?

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/chinese/ - Get a better insight into the Chinese language )

Hmm...I'm totally confused.

[pancake]

it's really educational to see native speakers discussing the use of grammar. I often see English grammar is a kind of "fixed rules" that don't allow any inconsistency...

If that's your expectation then I can see why you find English grammar confusing. English really is a ridiculous hodgepodge of a language. I am also a non-native speaker of English, and my advice would just be to expose yourself to as much native material as possible. Acquiring a "feel" for what is right is totally possible, even for us non-native types.

[jbradfor]

So, if "the Chinese history" isn't right, why is it okay to say "the History of China" ?

It just sounds right

Seriously, in this case that's the best I can do. In English, when we want to use a noun as an adjective, most of the time we just put the noun in front of the other noun we want to modify, e.g. "Chinese Language". Here, "Chinese" is a noun, but it's being used as an adjective to modify "Language". For some nouns, however, it just sounds funny to use them in that format, and we use the "History of China" format, where the noun-being-used-as-an-adjective comes second.

I'm sure linguist have studied this and have generalizes of "these types of nouns tend to be used this way", but ultimately it comes down to memorization.

If it makes you feel any better, us CFL learners tend to have trouble knowing when to use 給， 對， 被, 为， 送, etc. correctly. They all often translate as "to" or "for" in English, but each as their own use in Chinese.

[Glenn]

I often see English grammar is a kind of "fixed rules" that don't allow any inconsistency but at least in some cases, it's more than just a multiple choice question shown in examination. In the "an/the adventurer" example, I'm actually convinced by both Glenn and SiMaKe's choice.

I used to (and still kind of do) think this way, but I've been learning more and more that grammar in any language is a continuum more than a fixed system. Things that were grammatical can become ungrammatical and vice versa, and things that one speaker finds perfectly fine can be very strange to another. In the above case of "the/an adventurer," I believe it's just a case of what the writer intends to say and what he believes his audience knows. So they're both right, depending on the circumstances.

So, if "the Chinese history" isn't right, why is it okay to say "the History of China" ?

I wish I had an answer for you here, but I don't know. That's an intriguing question.

Although I'll say that "the Chinese history" is fine as a modifying clause, e.g., "the Chinese history book I lent to you last week". Same with "the computer history," e.g., "the computer history class I took last semester".

[Edit] I should mention that in the above two examples "Chinese history" and "computer history" are acting as adjectives, and the head nouns (the nouns being modified) are "book" and "class," respectively, and that's what the "the" goes with (i.e., "the book" and "the class").

[Zomac]

Thanks for the advice. I still feel lost in many uses. If "Chinese history" is acted as an adjective and it's right to say "the Chinese history book", it seems to me that "the chinese history" (where chinese is obviously an adjective ) would be fine too.

Also in the above abstract, it says "On July 8th he made aviation history when he landed an unusual aircraft with the wingspan of a jumbo jet but a slim fuselage with room inside only for himself"

The author uses "the" for "the wingspan of a jumbo jet", but he chooses "a" for "a slim fuselage with room inside only for himself." How could Wingspan and fuselage be used with different article in this case?

I surrender! I'm reading Bill Bryson's books to try to grab some sense of native speakers.

P.S. Should I say " Confused with the use of articles " rather than " confused with article" in the title?

[Glenn]

It's different because (from what I can tell) "Chinese history" can only be an attributive adjective, unless "history" in-and-of-itself means "book" (like "A Comeprehensive Chinese History"). So "Chinese history" has to modify a noun, and that noun has to follow it. Now, that's just my gut feeling about this after having thought about it for a bit. I'm not sure how accurate it is, and I don't know why that would be the case.

The author uses "the" for "the wingspan of a jumbo jet", but he chooses "a" for "a slim fuselage with room inside only for himself." How could Wingspan and fuselage be used with different article in this case?

I think it's because the wingspan of a jumbo jet is somewhat set in most people's minds as being very large, even if they don't know the exact measurements, but there's no sort of set measurement for a fuselage. I guess it's a question of how much knowledge people have about the sizes of each. Hopefully someone will have a more detailed and authoritative explanation for you on this one.

I think "confused with the use of articles" would be better for the title, yes, because when I first saw "confused with article" I thought it meant that you were trying to read a newspaper/magazine article and were confused by it. "Confused with the use of articles" is less ambiguous, and "article" should be plural, as there is more than one.

Reading lots of native material to get the feel of their uses is a good idea, as it can get quite complicated trying to find the rules for them (as I'm sure you're seeing here).

[Altair]

In my view, it is a good idea to distinguish between grammar, core meaning, implications, and fixed usage. Something can have a clear meaning and yet be ungrammatical. (E.g., "I saw the father of mine yesterday." or 我是昨天看到他), or vice versa. The surface meaning of an expression can also be used to introduce some implication into the context that is not actually stated. (E.g., "I am going to be a father"="My wife/partner is going to have a baby" or "I am going to be the father"="That baby is actually mine.")

The core meaning of "the" involves pointing out or selecting. The core meaning of "a"/"some" is to specify the unit(s) of the type of thing involved. Usually, "the" is used to refer to something that has been or can be identified by the listener/reader. Usually, "a"/"some" is used to introduce something into the conversation or field of discourse that would not otherwise be there. "The" implies that there is a closed set of things to choose from. "A"/"some" implies that there is an open set.

ANDRÉ BORSCHBERG is an engineer and fighter pilot. On July 8th he made [nil] aviation history...

"History" has two common meanings. The main one refers to a mental concept and thus cannot take an article without a following prepositional phrase. Mental concepts cannot be "pointed at" and thus usually do not take "the". Concepts usually cannot be unitized and so cannot take "a." The other less common meaning of "history" refers to a literary work that tells the history of something in particular. In that usage, an article is okay. (E.g, Sima Qian wrote a famous history."

.

..when he landed [an] unusual aircraft..

Here, the purpose of the article is to introduce a new type of thing into the conversation. Using "the" would suggest that the identity of the aircraft was what was important and that it was widely known or at least previously familiar to the reader. Since at this point, the reader is not expected to know the identity of the aircraft or even how to identify it, "the" does not convey the right meaning.

...with [the] wingspan of [a] jumbo jet...

This implies "the specific wingspan of a typical/generic jumbo jet." It means the same thing as "a jumbo jet wingspan" or "a jumbo jet's wingspan"; however, these latter two expressions are very awkward. Using the expression "a jumbo jet wingspan", implies that it is a recognized category of thing, which it generally is not. Using the expression "a jumbo jet's wingspan" implies that jumbo jet's have volition and can possess things. In English, we avoid using the possessive with inanimate objects.

All these expressions imply that we are talking about a type of wingspan (actually, a surprising type). It should then be generic and take the article "a." Why then do we use "the" in the full phrase "the wingspan of a jumbo jet"? The reason is that the following phrase, "a jumbo jet," defines a closed set of the typical attributes of a given jet: the height, (the) length, (the) size, (the) engine, (the) top, etc. Using "the" points out or selects which attribute is being referred to.

...but [a] slim fuselage...

Here, since there is no following prepositional phrase, we are back to describing particular attributes from an open set. Instead of "a slim fuselage," the author could have described a color, a particular reflection, a smell. In other words, the set of things to choose from is open.

...with [nil] room inside only for himself.

"Room"="capacity". It is only a concept and cannot normally take an article in this meaning.

...He had stayed in [the] air for more than 26 hours,...

"The air" refers to one of the things in the closed set that defines our overall environment, like the sun, the moon, the ground, the earth, the sky, etc. These are all seen as unique and thus are referred to using "the" to select them from the closed set of these things. "Air" can also refer to a substance, such as what we have in our lungs. In this slightly different meaning, it would be treated like other generic substances, such as "water," "gold," or "grass," and not automatically take the article "the."

...flying through [the]* day and night...

Here "the day and night" is the same as "the day and the night." The author is referring to a particular day and night. The reader is supposed to envision a closed set of 24+ hours divided into two members. Describing it this way asks us to witness the event in our minds and see the two time periods pass. It also would have been okay to say: "through a day and (a) night." This would bring to mind typical time periods, but not the specific ones that were used for the event. It would say what type of time periods were used, rather than which ones.

..., using only [nil] solar power....

"Solar power" tells what kind of thing was used and so is generic. "The" cannot be used. It is also not something countable and so cannot take "a."

...For Mr Borschberg and his colleague Bertrand Piccard, [an/the] adventurer who flew the first hot-air balloon non-stop around the world,...

Using "an" would answer a possible question about what type of person Piccard was. Using "the" would answer a possible question about who exactly Piccard was. "An" implies an open set of all possible types of people, occupations, and positions. "The" implies a closed set of famous adventurers. I personally think "the" would be more normal if Piccard has any notoriety at all, since it suggests that he did something the reader would want to know about.

...it was [nil] proof...

Proof is generic and non-countable. If the author had said "the proof," it would imply that there were other "proofs" attempted and that this "proof" was unique in being conclusive.

of [the] enormous potential of clean energy.

"The" appears here because of the following prepositional phrase. If you dropped that phrase, you would also drop "the" and say: "proof of enormous potential." "The" again implies that "clean energy" has various known attributes and selects one of them.

To further this discussion, it might be interesting to analyze some (but not all) possible translations of Kuangren Riji (狂人日記).

"The Diary of a Madman" could imply that we are talking about a particular type of diary that only madmen write. In other words, it is a crazy diary, and "a Madman" is a generic reference. It also could imply that the story is about a notable diary that people in the story know about and that belongs to or was written by a certain madman. In other words, it is a potentially ordinary diary written by or belonging to a specific crazy person we are not yet familiar with.

"A Diary of a Madman" could imply that, of all possible objects madmen typically have, we are talking about a particular diary that happened to belong to a madman whose identity is unimportant. The story could also be about the surprising things in a particular diary that reflect the fact that it was written by a particular madman.

"Diary of a Madman" sounds slightly awkward, since it violates the normal rules of English grammar; however, it does conform to the special grammar of titles. It also sounds slightly intriguing because of its amibiguity. It might refer to either of the two above versions.

"A Madman Diary" would theoretically be possible, but does not refer to a socially recognized category of things and so could not be used. If it could be used, it would refer generically to the special type of diaries madmen write.

"A Madman's Diary" is as ambiguous as "Diary of a Madman," but is not at all awkward. Because the word "Madman" precedes "Diary," it slightly implies that this is the more important concept and that the meaning is "A Diary that only a madman would write," but to me, the implication is not quite as strong as "The Diary of a Madman." It could also imply that the author wants to introduce us to a particular madman who wrote an interesting or surprising diary.

Of all the possibilities, I personally like "the Diary of a Madman," since it could suggest that the story will be about a diary that a Madman wrote and that the author will share its content with the readers. Whether the thoughts in the diary are crazy would then be left for the reader to decide.

[SiMaKe]

@Zomac.

Altair's explanation is an excellent, and thorough, analysis of this passage. He has taken the basic grammar rules for articles ("definiteness" and "countability") and shown how they are applied in a specific case. While the rules still hold, the explanations demonstrate how the subtleties of language ("meaning") can influence the choice of which of the various rules applies. And why different native speakers can arrive at different (and yet valid) conclusions.

A concise, yet reasonably comprehensive framework that lines up well with Altair's explanations can be found at http://www.rpi.edu/w...l#Definiteness. It is particularly directed at ESL learners.

[anonymoose]

I see other people have already explained the grammar in fairly standard terms.

I thought I'd add my own explanation, which maybe describes it in a different way.

Generally speaking, we use "the" before an object if the listener already knows which one we are talking about. How does the listener know which one we are talking about? Either it was already mentioned previously in the conversation, or there is only one of that object in the universe. Therefore, words like "sun" and "moon" are almost always preceeded by "the" because there only being one sun and one moon, the listener already knows which one we are refering to. (Of course, in special situations, maybe moons of other planets are being discussed, in which case "the" would not be used unless it was clear which one specifically was being refered to.)

"A", in contrast to "the", means we are not talking about a specific object. If the object being refered to were replaced by a different one, it would not make a difference. So, for example, if we say "A cat is on your car", the salient feature is not which cat it is specifically (for example the woman next door's, the guy from across the road's, and so on), but the fact that there is one on the car. On the other hand, say you had lost your cat, and you had been looking for it. Now because we are talking about a specific cat, and the listener knows which one we are talking about, then we could say "the cat is on your car".

If you think about these two rules, it should be fairly easy to understand. The problem with English is that, apart from these rules, there are also many other fixed phrases or habitual usages which seem to violate the rules. The difficulty from the point of view of a learner is not knowing when there rules are being applied, or when it is an exceptional case, so it appears as though there are no consistent rules. The only thing you can do in these situations in try to learn each situation on a case by case basis. For example, when we are talking about playing musical instruments, you just have to remember to put a "the" before the name of the instrument (for example, "I can play the piano"), or when we are talking about sports, you just have to remember there is no article (for example, "I can play tennis").

Another fixed phrase is "go to school" (with no article). However, it would also be possible under specific circumstances to say "go to the school" or "go to a school". For example, if someone asked you what you will do today, you would say, "I'm going to school", where you are simply talking about the activity of going to school to learn (which is what this fixed phrase without an article refers to). On the other hand, let's say you are the headmaster and it is the weekend, and someone phones you up to tell you the school is on fire. Then you might say "I'm going to the school (to see the fire)". In this case, we do not use the fixed phase "go to school" because the person is not going there to learn. Also, we know specifically which school is being refered to, so we can use "the". Finally, if someone asks you how come you can do kungfu so well, you could say "I'm going to a school". Here, which school specifically is not important, and the listener doesn't know which one it is. You are just trying to provide an explanation of why you are good at kungfu.

Another useful rule to remember is that "a", apart from being the indefinite article, also means "one". Therefore, in the indefinite case, it cannot be used before uncountable nouns, so for example you can say "a book" because books are countable, but you cannot say "a milk" because milk is uncountable. In this case, no article is used. Conversely, it is useful to remember that singular countable nouns always have an article or qualifier before them, so you would never find "book" on its. It should always be "a book", "the book" or "my book" and so on.

Anyway, these are just a few examples I could think of off the top of my head, but there are many other habitual uses which are confusing for the learner.

Now as for your article, I'll try to analyse the use of each article:

On July 8th he made [the/an/nil] aviation history

"make history" is a fixed phrase.

when he landed [an/the/nil] unusual aircraft

The reader doesn't know which aircraft is being refered to yet, so use "an".

with [the/a/nil] wingspan of [the/a/nil] jumbo jet

Firstly, we are not talking about a specific jumbo jet, so use "a". Now, a jumbo jet only has one wingspan, and therefore the reader automatically knows which one is being refered to, so use "the": with the wingspan of a jumbojet.

but [a/the/nil] slim fuselage

We are not talking about a specific fuselage, so use "a".

with [a/the] room inside only for himself

Here, "room" is not specific, and since it is an uncountable noun, it does not require an article.

He had stayed in [the/an/nil] air for more than 26 hours

Here, "air" means atmosphere, and the earth only has one atmosphere, so the reader know which one is being refered to, so use "the".

flying through [the/nil] day and night

Previously the article mentioned that he had been in the air for 26 hours, so the reader already know there was a day and a night, so the ready knows which ones are being talked about, so use "the".

using only [the/nil] solar power

Here, "power" is not specific, and since it is an uncountable noun, it does not require an article.

For Mr Borschberg and his colleague Bertrand Piccard, [the/an] adventurer who flew the first hot-air balloon non-stop around the world

"Bertrand Piccard" has been mentioned, so the reader knows which adventurer is being refered to specifically, so use "the".

it was [a/the/nil] proof

Here, "proof" is not specific, and since it is an uncountable noun, it does not require an article.

of [the/an/nil] enormous potential of clean energy.

This one is maybe the most difficult to understand. I think "potential of clean energy" is accepted as being a singular entity, much like the sun and the moon, and thus the reader already knows which potential is being refered to (even though it is just an abstract concept), and therefore takes "the".

I hope these explanations help you to understand.