# The seating arrangements…reflect the status of the individuals



## le avocado

Hi everybody,
I am confused about using the article "the" for talking about something in general :

I read this line in a book about Japanese culture :

*The* seating arrangements have usually been carefully worked out in advance, and in most case reflect *the* status of *the* individuals in the group.

Why the writer uses "the" here when this is a general thing/culture in Japan. This is not a specific case.

If I rewrite like as below, is it correct?
*The* seating arrangements have usually been carefully worked out in advance, and in most case reflect *the* statuses of *the* individuals in the a group.


Many thanks in advance.


----------



## kentix

It depends on what was said before that. If they are using an example of a meeting to explain the culture, then that example is specific.


----------



## le avocado

As I see, no specific example before that sentence.

Please see the attached picture which has that sentence


----------



## kentix

"Never presume to seat yourself at _a gathering_".

That is the example. Everything they are saying refers to the gathering.


----------



## le avocado

Here is another sentence in that book about Japanese culture

*(1)The* metros shut down after midnight or 1 am.

No an example mentioned before this sentence.
Because this sentence refers to general thing in Japan, so this is a general thing, I think that “the” should be removed. Am I correct?

What is the difference if I rewrite without “the” like this:

(2)Metros shut down after midnight or 1 am.

Do (1) and (2) have the same meaning in talking about general thing?


----------



## RM1(SS)

In this context:

"The metros" = the ones in Japan
"Metros" = any metros, anywhere


----------



## le avocado

The book I am reading is all about Japan

Let’s take a look at the red underlined line, it writes like this:
(1)Stores are typically open in the evenings

But in the blue underlined line, it writes like this with the article “the”:

(2)*The* metros shut down after midnight or 1 am.

Both sentences refer to general things in Japan, but I don’t know why they use “the” on the 2nd sentence, but don’t use “the” in the first sentence


----------



## Uncle Jack

It might be because we take the metro, whereas we go into a store. You clearly cannot add an article to "stores", because it refers to stores in general. Personally, I don't think I would have added an article to "metros" either.


----------



## le avocado

Uncle Jack said:


> It might be because we take the metro, whereas we go into a store. You clearly cannot add an article to "stores", because it refers to stores in general. Personally, I don't think I would have added an article to "metros" either.


Thank so much for your help.


----------



## le avocado

I want to make a general statement as a guide when having meal in Japan to my friend who is visiting Japan next month.

(1) At *the* table in Japan, try to relax and maintain harmonious atmosphere.
(2) At *the* table*s* in Japan, try to relax and maintain harmonious atmosphere.
(1) At *a* table in Japan, try to relax and maintain harmonious atmosphere.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I expect a completely different form would be used, such as "when dining". If you really wanted to use "table", then use "at table". It is relatively common for nouns that are ordinarily countable to become uncountable when they are part of an adverbial prepositional phrase.


----------



## kentix

Although I agree in principle, "at table" is not a form I've ever heard used in the U.S. so if your visitor is from here I would say something different.

I agree that "when dining (with a group)" is good.


----------



## le avocado

When reading this book about Japan, I often get confused about the way the writer use “the”

Here is another sentence which confuses me:

Usually, *the* one who does *the* inviting pays *the* bill

This is a general statement, why “the “ is used here.

The complete paragraph is in attached picture.


----------



## Uncle Jack

"The one" is followed by a description saying exactly which one is meant. This requires "the".
"The inviting" has to be for a particular event, even though we don't know what it is.
"The bill" refers to the bill for whatever it is that people are invited for.

It would be easy (and common) to avoid using "the inviting" by using a verb instead of a noun.


----------



## le avocado

Another sentence in that book:

It is a very nice idea, when acting as *the* host

Why is “the “here?

Is it fine to write like this:
It is a very nice idea, when acting as *a* host


----------



## Myridon

We assume that an event has one host. It's possible to use "a host" there, but it might give the impression that you're talking about one of the hosts from an event with multiple hosts.


----------



## Uncle Jack

To add to Myridon's post, it is common in English to choose a particular wording not so much because it is necessary in itself, but because of how an alternative wording might be interpreted. No one would have any hesitation in saying something like "when you're a king..." (although "when you're the king..." is also possible), because everyone knows that each country only has one king. However, being the only one is far less certain with "host", and using "the" rather than "a" makes it clear that you are talking about a situation where there is only one host.


----------



## le avocado

le avocado said:


> It is a very nice idea, when acting as *the* host
> 
> Why is “the “here?


This is the first sentence of a paragraph. This sentence is also general statement.
As I have learned, “the” is used for specific event. But here, we don’t know which event. 

Or the writer is thinking of a specific event in his mind which is implied, then “ the” is used here.


----------



## Uncle Jack

"The" is also used to make it clear that there is only one. "The host" means there is only one host of the event. "A host" suggests the event may have more than one host.


----------



## le avocado

Uncle Jack said:


> "The host" means there is only one host of *the* event.


You used "*the* event" above when refering to a thing in general. Why is "the" used in "the event" while there is nothing specific here?


----------



## Uncle Jack

le avocado said:


> You used "*the* event" above when refering to a thing in general. Why is "the" used in "the event" while there is nothing specific here?


But there is something specific: the event that the host is hosting. This might seem like a circular argument, and so it is in a way, but the two "the"s have a rather different meaning. "The host" is used to indicate that there is just one host, but you cannot have a host without an event, and "the event" refers to that event (and no other event).


----------



## le avocado

Uncle Jack said:


> But there is something specific: the event that the host is hosting. This might seem like a circular argument, and so it is in a way, but the two "the"s have a rather different meaning. "The host" is used to indicate that there is just one host, but you cannot have a host without an event, and "the event" refers to that event (and no other event).


I have a situation as below. Is it grammarly correct to use article* "the"* and *"an"*?:

It is a very nice idea when acting as *the* host of an event. I hope that one day I will become *the *host of an event.


----------



## Uncle Jack

That is fine. You are introducing both words at the same time. Use "the host" to indicate that there is just one host, but "an event" to refer to any unspecified event. It is only when you have previously mentioned "a host" or "the host" that you can refer to "the event" to mean the event that the host is hosting.


----------



## le avocado

Uncle Jack said:


> It might be because we take the metro, whereas we go into a store. You clearly cannot add an article to "stores", because it refers to stores in general. Personally, I don't think I would have added an article to "metros" either.


Is it ok if I add the word “in Japan “ after the word “stores” , I want to mean that the stores which is located in Japan, not elsewhere or anywhere in the word :

*The* stores in Japan are typically open in the evenings


----------



## Uncle Jack

"The" has several different meanings. Easily the most common is to refer to the same thing you mentioned earlier:
McDonald's has restaurants in 120 countries. The restaurants in Japan...​This clearly refers to McDonalds' restaurants in Japan. It is also closely linked to a different meaning of "the" with a plural noun, to indicate all of them. If you only wanted to refer to McDonalds' restaurants in Japan in general, but that there were a number of exceptions, you would not use "the":
McDonald's has restaurants in 120 countries. McDonalds' restaurants in Japan...​
You can also use "the" with a plural noun if you haven't previously mentioned them, if
(i) you identify the group of things you are talking about in the sentence, and​(ii) you are referring to all of them.​"In Japan" isn't really adequate to meet the requirements of (i). We cannot readily imagine every single store in Japan, as distinct from every single store anywhere else. Although a prepositional phrase is fine with a smaller, more readily identifiable group, such as "the teachers in the school", it is more usual to use a relative clause to provide enough information. However, "the stores in Japan" is possible when no stores have previously been mentioned, but it is unlikely.

There are varying degrees of referring to all the things in a group. If you just mean the group in general, that what you are saying about them is true on the whole, then don't use an article. If you want to make it clear that you mean all of them, with no obvious exceptions, then use "the", and if you want to say that there are no exceptions at all, use "all the".


----------



## le avocado

Hi Uncle Jack,
I get the point, Thank you so much for your help.


----------



## le avocado

Uncle Jack said:


> Although a prepositional phrase is fine with a smaller, more readily identifiable group, such as "the teachers in the school",


Hi uncle Jack,
I often see you and native people here say that "use* "the"* + plural noun" to refer to all of things in a group". But sometimes, I am still confused.

Let's take a look at these sentences:

**A SPECIFIC SITUATION:*
(1)The teachers in my school are nice.
(2)Teachers in my school are nice.

As I know, "the" is optional here, but native people are highly likely use the sentence with "the".
The thing I am confused I that what the function of *"the"* in the sentence (1)
I have 2 opinions, I am not sure which one is correct.

1. "The" in (1) refers to *"all"* teacher in my school as you often explains to me.
2. "The" in (1) is used to refer to identified teachers, *they are teachers in my schools*, not elsewhere schools. or any school, or not teachers in general.

In addition, I have an opinion on (2) that "teachers" here means "some teachers, not all teachers" in my school. Right?

**A GENERAL STATEMENTS:*
(3). People who love reading books often love dogs.
(4). *The* people who love reading books often love dogs.

According to what I have learned, "the" is also optional for this kind of general statements too.

(3) refers to almost people, maybe "some people". there are some exceptions. Right?
(4) refers to *all* people who love reading book, no exception. Right?


----------



## Uncle Jack

le avocado said:


> As I know, "the" is optional here, but native people are highly likely use the sentence with "the".


They know who all (or most) of the teachers are, and they form a small group of identifiable individuals. There is therefore no need to generalise, which is what omitting the article does. There still is an element of "all".

Note, too, that "the" never emphasises all as much as using "all" does, but "the" tends to mean rather more than a generalisation.



le avocado said:


> (3). People who love reading books often love dogs.
> (4). *The* people who love reading books often love dogs.


(3) is a general statement. (4) is something more than a general statement. Obviously the speaker doesn't know everyone who loves reading books, but "the" might still be used if, for example, a scientific study had found a very close correlation between these two things.


----------



## RM1(SS)

NB:


le avocado said:


> (1) At the table in Japan, try to relax and maintain *a* harmonious atmosphere.
> (2) At the tables in Japan, try to relax and maintain *a* harmonious atmosphere.
> (1) At a table in Japan, try to relax and maintain *a* harmonious atmosphere.


----------



## le avocado

le avocado said:


> (3). People who love reading books often love dogs.
> (4). *The* people who love reading books often love dogs.





Uncle Jack said:


> (4) is something *more than* a general statement.


In (4) I  just want to make a general statement from what I observe from things around my life. You used the word " be more than" , this means (4) is not a general statement. or (4) is trully a general statement?

I read a similar example, I saw an explanation from a native speaker as below:


rafanadal said:


> I love the people who love animals.
> I love people who love animals





natkretep said:


> Both are acceptable. The second one is the more general one. The definite article isolates this particular group of people from other groups of people, and is therefore potentially contrastive, ie I love the people who love animals (as opposed to, say, the people who love cars).



After reading this explanation, I think that (3) and (4) both can acceptable to refer to a general statement. Right? Similarly, (4) is also a general statement, the use of "the" with a relative clause (the people who...) is to mean that there are other groups of people ( for example people who hate reading books). Is my opinion correct?

If so I have a conclusion that when making a general statement, with this structure "(the)+plural+relative clause", "the" is optional. Right?


----------



## Uncle Jack

Both of us say not to use "the" for a general statement, unless the group is clearly identifiable (perhaps known to us, such as the teachers in my school). You need a reason to add "the" with a plural noun. If you don't have a reason, don't add "the".

Grammatically, "the" is optional, but this does not mean that you can add it or omit it without reason.


----------



## le avocado

le avocado said:


> (4). *The* people who love reading books often love dogs.





Uncle Jack said:


> (4) *is something more than* a general statement.


Could you please tell me the meaning of this structure "be something more than some thing". I did some search on this forum. It seem that It means that "(4) is truly a general statement (about all people in the world) than a specific statement(about people in a known group such as my school)." Right?
If yes, I feel confused between your explanations.


(3)*People who* love reading books often love dogs.
(5)I love *people who* love animals
==>These sentences are only correct to use for stating a general statement.(a group of people on the world)

(4)*The people who* love reading books often love dogs.
(6)I love *the people who* love animals.
==>Only correct when there is a known specific group of people (such as people in my school). I *can't *use this for a general statement. Right?

Can I say like this for a general statement (refer to a group of people who love animals in the world):
I love *the people who* love animals than *the people who* love technological devices.
I think NO. The version without "the" is correct. Right?


----------



## dojibear

le avocado said:


> Only correct when there is a known group of people


"The people who love dogs" is a known group of people: the group of people who love dogs.

Most people use (3) and (5), instead of (4) and (6). But someone could use (4) or (6) and not be "incorrect".



Uncle Jack said:


> Grammatically, "the" is optional, but this does not mean that you can add it or omit it without reason.


Yes, the speaker/writer needs a reason. But it does not have to be a reason that is acceptable to me, or you, or avocado. People think in different ways. As a result, people speak in different ways.

Personally I would always says (3)(5) and never say (4)(6). In my opinion, avoiding (4)(6) is a good idea.

But if I read (4) or (6), I would understand and not think "incorrect".


----------



## le avocado

dojibear said:


> "The people who love dogs" is a known group of people: the group of people who love dogs.
> 
> Most people use (3) and (5), instead of (4) and (6). But someone could use (4) or (6) and not be "incorrect".


This opinion is only about  a known specific group of people (for example a group of people who love dogs in my school, in my workplace...), *NOT *for a group of people in general ( a group of people in the world) Right?



dojibear said:


> Personally I would always says (3)(5) and never say (4)(6). In my opinion, avoiding (4)(6) is a good idea.
> 
> But if I read (4) or (6), I would understand and not think "incorrect".


And this opinion is about a general statement (about a group of people who love animals in the world). Right?


----------



## dojibear

le avocado said:


> This opinion is only about a known specific group of people (for example a group of people who love dogs in my school, in my workplace...), *NOT *for a group of people in general ( a group of people in the world) Right?


Wrong. That was not my meaning.



le avocado said:


> And this opinion is about a general statement (about a group of people who love animals in the world). Right?


Wrong. The two opinions match.

I guess I don't think the same as avocado thinks.


----------



## le avocado

dojibear said:


> Wrong. That was not my meaning.
> 
> 
> Wrong. The two opinions match.
> 
> I guess I don't think the same as avocado thinks.


This means that "the" is optional for both a general statement (about a group of people in the world) and for a statement of a specific situation (Ex: a group of people in my school, in my workplace). Right?


----------



## dojibear

Right. 

I think your meaning difference (in post #32) is a good one. You should use it. Many people use it. It is useful for understanding things you read. It is useful for expressing your ideas in English sentences.

It just isn't a rule that everyone follows.


----------



## le avocado

dojibear said:


> Right.
> 
> I think your meaning difference (in post #32) is a good one. You should use it. Many people use it. It is useful for understanding things you read. It is useful for expressing your ideas in English sentences.
> 
> It just isn't a rule that everyone follows.


Besides what I learn from grammar books, I would like to know if In a real life, If native people use "the" for a general statement as below, because I don't want to be surprised when hearing people using "the" in general statements:

A native speaker friend: There are so many different kinds of people in the word, but I love( *the) people who* love animals.

Here, (the) is optional, I think that *most* people will use the sentence without the, but there are still some people refer to use the sentence with "the". Right?


----------



## dojibear

I agree.


----------



## le avocado

dojibear said:


> Yes, the speaker/writer needs a reason. But it does not have to be a reason that is acceptable to me, or you, or avocado. People think in different ways. As a result, people speak in different ways.


There are so many different kinds of people in the word, but I love( *the) people who* love animals.

I think that when omitting "the", the speaker is thinking about all individuals in the wold who love animals.

Do you know what the speaker is thinking when they use the sentence with "the"?


----------



## dojibear

le avocado said:


> Do you know what the speaker is thinking when they use the sentence with "the"?


No. 

I frequently see words used differently than I use them. Language is not that precise.


----------



## Uncle Jack

le avocado said:


> Could you please tell me the meaning of this structure "be something more than some thing".


The sentence is not just a general statement. It conveys something more or in addition to being a general statement. If the sentence without "the", such as (4) "People who love reading books often love dogs" conveys everything you want it to convey, then don't use "the". If it is missing some information, which in this case is most likely "people" being a particular group of people previously mentioned, then "the" might be a way of adding that information. This may mean it ceases to be a general statement (as would be the case if it referred to a particular group of people).



le avocado said:


> There are so many different kinds of people in the word, but I love( *the) people who* love animals.
> 
> I think that when omitting "the", the speaker is thinking about all individuals in the wold who love animals.
> 
> Do you know what the speaker is thinking when they use the sentence with "the"?


Not unless they provide a clue. This is often the case with English, that a speaker will choose a particular form of words that expresses their thoughts, but readers and listeners cannot guess what it is that caused them to use this wording. If the reason for a particular wording is important, the writer or speaker will make it clear. If it is not, they probably won't.


----------

