# The + Abstract Noun



## HSS

BBC's "Learning English" site says:




> As you point out, abstract nouns are fully qualified when they are followed by a *defining relative clause* (introduced by who/which/that) or by the preposition *of + noun phrase*. Under these circumstances, *the* before the abstract noun is normally required:
> 
> *the education (that) i received *_at a bog-standard comprehensive school was substandard._
> 
> 
> _*the absolute truth of the matter* is that *abject poverty *destroys lives. _
> 
> 
> _*personal happiness *is* a basic human right*._
> 
> 
> _*the happiness (that) i felt* when maureen became pregnant was unqualified._


Is it almost always true? My gut feeling is that "gerund + of" followed by the patient of the base-form verb of the gerund takes no definite article more often.

- Cleaning of the park before the events is one thing we must never forget.

Hiro/ Sendai, Japan


----------



## xqby

I don't think that English normally uses a sentence structure like the one in your example. 
But if for some reason you _needed _to phrase things that way, it would sound better with "the" before the gerund.


----------



## Matching Mole

I completely agree with the article. The sentence you have chosen as a contrary example is an awkward construction; doesn't use an abstract noun (which is the point of the article), and being only one example, makes unconvincing evidence all round. In fact, I don't see why your example should not take "the" in any case.


----------



## HSS

Okay, thanks for your advice.

I was thinking of how I should best decide if I should use 'the' before "abstract noun + of/that/which/who etc." or I shouldn't. "Robbery of the aged is a terrible crime" and "The robbery of the aged is a terrible crime" mean about the same (don't they?). Nonetheless, you normally say "The evidence of ... tells ...," but you don't say "Evidence of ... tells ...." This led me to wonder if the BBC English learning explanation is so true.

Hiro/ Sendai, Japan


----------



## HSS

Matching Mole said:


> I completely agree with the article. The sentence you have chosen as a contrary example is an awkward construction; doesn't use an abstract noun (which is the point of the article), and being only one example, makes unconvincing evidence all round. In fact, I don't see why your example should not take "the" in any case.


Further to my last message three years back, are you implying 'Cleaning the park before the events is one thing we must never forget' better?

I'm still wondering how I should best decide if I should use 'the' before "_abstract noun + of/that/which/who etc_." Do sentences in the patterns always take 'the' before the nouns?


----------



## e2efour

To give examples of a non-count (why abstract?) noun followed by _of _+ noun phrase, which the Learning English site does not give (why ever not?).
_The happiness of millions of people depends on the decision of the President.
Ignorance of the conditions in the slum areas is no excuse.

_Clearly the article is not always needed._

Cleaning the park... is the simplest way of expressing (The) cleaning of the park...
_


----------



## Myridon

I find your sentence confusing.
The sinking of the Titanic is one thing we must never forget.  A specific event that we should always remember.
Cleaning the park before events is one thing we must never forget (to do).  An non-specific action that should take place before every (non-specific) event. 
Do you really mean that we should recall the details of specific cleanings before specific concerts or that we should remember to clean the park before an event?


----------



## HSS

Myridon said:


> I find your sentence confusing.
> The sinking of the Titanic is one thing we must never forget.  A specific event that we should always remember.
> Cleaning the park before events is one thing we must never forget (to do).  An non-specific action that should take place before every (non-specific) event.
> Do you really mean that we should recall the details of specific cleanings before specific concerts or that we should remember to clean the park before an event?


Hello, Myridon. It's 'before the events.' I was thinking of, say, international festivals or something that take place in the park. Cleaning the park before the events are certainly a good thing you may want to remember to do, isn't it?


----------



## Myridon

HSS said:


> Cleaning the park before the events are certainly a good thing you may want to remember to do, isn't it?


Yes, but it's not what your sentence says. Forgetting something is quite different from forgetting to do something.


----------



## HSS

Myridon said:


> Yes, but it's not what your sentence says. Forgetting something is quite different from forgetting to do something.





HSS said:


> [...] My gut feeling is that "gerund + of" followed by the patient of  the base-form verb of the gerund takes no definite article more often.
> 
> - Cleaning of the park before the events is one thing we must never forget.
> 
> [...]


Oh, so it should be

The cleaning of the park before the events is one thing we must never forget to do,

then? (But 'Cleaning the park before the events is one thing we must never forget to do' is a lot better, isn't it?)


----------



## Keith Bradford

To come back to the topic... 

_Cleaning the park_ is an *action*.  It's a *verbal* phrase and as such cannot take an article.
_The sinking of the Titanic _is an *event *(unless you're looking at it from the iceberg's point of view! )  It's a *noun *phrase and so it can take an article. Indeed, it's an entirely unique event, so it naturally takes "the".


----------



## Myridon

HSS said:


> Oh, so it should be
> 
> The cleaning of the park before the events is one thing we must never forget to do,


No.  It should be:  
Cleaning the park before events is one thing we must never forget to do.
Compare to the "Titanic" sentence above.  "The cleaning of the park" is  some specific event (an instance where the action took place in the past) not a general action.  "The events" is some specific  set of events, not "events" in general. You can't forget to do these specific instances before specific events because they must have already happened in order to be specific - they are already done so you don't need to remember to do them.


----------



## HSS

I guess I should have used 'the + abstract noun + of/that/which/who etc.' or 'abstract noun + of/that/which/who etc. without 'the'' instead for the title of this thread. Can anyone think of a rule to govern when not to use 'the' in this pattern, or when you can choose to use or not use 'the' in this pattern?

Any and all insights would be really welcome.

Hiro


----------



## lucas-sp

HSS said:


> Can anyone think of a rule to govern when not to use 'the' in this pattern, or when you can choose to use or not use 'the' in this pattern?


I don't want to sound unhelpful, but... I think the rules about "the" with abstract nouns are identical to the rules about "the" with concrete nouns.

When you look at the excellent examples given by e2e4, I think this becomes pretty clear:





> _The happiness of millions of people depends on the decision of the President.
> Ignorance of the conditions in the slum areas is no excuse._


Which happiness? Well, we're talking about _the _happiness that belongs to the millions of people we introduce later. Not just "any old happiness." _Their_ happiness. Compare to: "The shoes of my seven roommates crowded the hallway, making it impossible to walk to the bathroom without tripping." Which shoes? _Their_ shoes.

But which ignorance? Well, we aren't specifying. We're talking about anyone's ignorance. It's possible for anyone to be ignorant about the conditions. We aren't delimiting it. Compare to: "Pies are excellent gifts for any housewarming party." Which pies? Well, we aren't specifying. We're leaving it open; it could be any old pies.


----------



## HSS

lucas-sp said:


> I don't want to sound unhelpful, but... I think the rules about "the" with abstract nouns are identical to the rules about "the" with concrete nouns.
> 
> When you look at the excellent examples given by e2e4, I think this becomes pretty clear:Which happiness? Well, we're talking about _the _happiness that belongs to the millions of people we introduce later. Not just "any old happiness." _Their_ happiness. Compare to: "The shoes of my seven roommates crowded the hallway, making it impossible to walk to the bathroom without tripping." Which shoes? _Their_ shoes.
> 
> But which ignorance? Well, we aren't specifying. We're talking about anyone's ignorance. It's possible for anyone to be ignorant about the conditions. We aren't delimiting it. Compare to: "Pies are excellent gifts for any housewarming party." Which pies? Well, we aren't specifying. We're leaving it open; it could be any old pies.


Hello, Lucas.

With the 'ignorance' sentence, is it okay to add 'the,' though, if you are comparing the conditions in the slum area and those elsewhere? Is it optional?


----------



## lucas-sp

HSS said:


> With the 'ignorance' sentence, is it okay to add 'the,' though? Is it optional?


No. It changes the meaning entirely.

"Ignorance is no excuse" = anyone's ignorance - mine, yours, his, hers, theirs...
"The ignorance is no excuse" = _the_ ignorance possessed or felt by some population (by whom?)

"Pies are tasty" = all pies
"The pies are tasty" = _the_ particular pies that we are discussing (which ones?)


----------



## HSS

Thanks, Lucas.

I tried to apply the rule to the following paragraph to no avail. The 'enactment' here is by the government, but it doesn't have 'the' here. The 'cleanup' here is by someone, someone specific but unknown yet, but it doesn't have 'the' here. Hmmm.

The PECFA program was created in response to  Ø enactment of federal regulations requiring release prevention from underground storage tanks and  Ø cleanup of existing contamination from those tanks. PECFA is a reimbursement program returning a portion of incurred remedial cleanup costs to owners of eligible petroleum product systems including home heating oil systems. Program funding is generated from a portion of a $0.02/gallon petroleum inspection fee. (Petroleum Environmental Cleanup Fund Award)​


----------



## Keith Bradford

Don't take that extract as an example.  It's very badly written!


----------



## HSS

I was looking at more dependable sources to know how these examples do not have 'the' before the abstract nouns unsuccessfully. Could anyone please help me with them?

_That assessment is a reasonable one, but it seems to suggest that _ Ø _enactment of a more dependable gateway to citizenship for Hispanics  already here and their family members will, in itself, throw open the  floodgates to millions of such ethnic voters ready and eager to vote  Republican. ("Avoiding a Political Death Spiral" in the June 21, 2013, edition of Telegraph)_

_The city's Land Clearance for Redvelopment Authority voted Tuesday to OK  borrowing up to $2.5 million to finance _ Ø _cleanup of the 16-story  building at 800 Olive Street, before selling it to Minneapolis-based  developer Dominium Partners later this year. City officials expect the  $3.8 million cleanup – being performed by Environmental Operations Inc. –  will mostly be paid for by state Brownfields tax credits. But they need  money upfront to finance the job. ("City digs a little deeper to finance Arcade building cleanup" in St. Louise Post-Dispatch)_​


----------



## HSS

The first example is clearly done by 'the government,' so I believe 'the' should be there. But the second could be done by anybody, so that goes to tell there doesn't have to be 'the' there?

Hiro


----------



## lucas-sp

First, I'm not sure if "cleanup" _is _an abstract noun.

Secondly...





> _That assessment is a reasonable one, but it seems to suggest that Ø enactment of a more dependable gateway to citizenship for Hispanics already here and their family members will, in itself, throw open the floodgates..._


This sentence is perfect, to me. "Enactment" means "any enactment at all." At least, it works in this context; in an academic paper I might edit that to "the potential enactment" or "any enactment" or something else. Because...

Thirdly, in news articles (like in headlines) you can expect to see _fewer_ articles than you would elsewhere in English. That's "journalese." The style of news stories is clipped and abbreviated, so articles are often omitted, and the reader is supposed to fill them in.


----------



## HSS

I'm still in an attempt to clear the mystery ...

Doesn't the following 'enactment' sound a lot better if with 'the' because here the 'enactment' is specific? There are a lot of different kinds of enactment incidents in the world. This is talking about opening a gateway to citizenship for Hispanics in the U.S. The author would like to emphasize this specificity, wouldn't he?



> _That assessment is a reasonable one, but it seems to suggest that Ø [the --- a lot better here?] enactment of  a more dependable gateway to citizenship for Hispanics already here and  their family members will, in itself, throw open the floodgates..._




I think in the following 'of long-term injury' is just somewhat auxiliary. To sportsmen handling _any_ frustration and disappointment is important. No definite article here is justifiable. (You could use 'the' here to emphasize this specific frustration and disappointment)


> "I got hit by two lightning bolts,'' he shrugged after a gym session facilitated by hand surgery last week.
> 
> "It's annoying, it's all little tiny bones or ligaments that are always holding me back."
> 
> It is not always easy for a young sportsman to handle to _Ø _frustration  and disappointment of long-term injury -- a circumstance Kahu is sadly  familiar with.
> 
> He captained Keebra Park to the 2009 Arrive Alive Cup; Gisborne-born  prop Mosese Fotuaika was a starting prop and then headed to the Wests  Tigers.
> 
> (I think 'to' before 'frustration' is a typo, isn't it?)
> 
> ("Kahu benefiting from school of hard knocks" from Stuff.co.nz)


----------



## lucas-sp

Unfortunately, HSS, I disagree with both your points.





> Doesn't the following 'enactment' sound a lot better if with 'the' because here the 'enactment' is specific? There are a lot of different kinds of enactment incidents in the world. This is talking about opening a gateway to citizenship for Hispanics in the U.S. The author would like to emphasize this specificity, wouldn't he?


No, there isn't one specific "enactment" that he's talking about, because no "enactment" has yet happened. It's totally fine to elide the definite article, since what's being discussed is "some potential enactment, out of a range of possible enactments, that is yet to be determined." The no-article here is the same as "any." You could certainly use "the," to refer implicitly to "the potential/future enactment," but you don't _need_​ to.

But in the second case:





> It is not always easy for a young sportsman to handle *Ø frustration and disappointment of long-term injury* -- a circumstance Kahu is sadly familiar with.


That's wrong. (I looked at the link and I don't agree with much of the English in it. It seems like it was hastily-written and barely-edited.) The sentence introduces _a specific_ "frustration and disappointment," which requires a definite article. The following two sentences, however, would be correct:





> It is not always easy for a young sportsman to handle *the **frustration and disappointment* *of long-term injury* -- a circumstance Kahu is sadly familiar with.
> 
> It is not always easy for a young sportsman to handle *Ø frustration and disappointment* -- a circumstance Kahu is sadly familiar with.


----------



## HSS

_Ignorance of the conditions in the slum areas is no excuse.
_


HSS said:


> Hello, Lucas.
> 
> With the 'ignorance' sentence, is it okay to add 'the,' though, if you are comparing the conditions in the slum area and those elsewhere? Is it optional?





lucas-sp said:


> No. It changes the meaning entirely.
> 
> "Ignorance is no excuse" = anyone's ignorance - mine, yours, his, hers, theirs...
> "The ignorance is no excuse" = _the_ ignorance possessed or felt by some population (by whom?)
> 
> ...



I'm still thinking. Isn't 'of the conditions in the slum areas' specific enough to bring on 'the,' or make it optional at least?


----------



## PaulQ

Yes, it is. If the noun that *the *qualifies is itself qualified, then *the *_becomes _an option (and an option that is usually applied as the noun becomes specific.)

1. "*The *size of the problem cannot be underestimated."
2. "*The *dishonesty in the country is becoming worse."
3. "*The *ignorance on this matter is appalling."

4. "Ignorance is no excuse" -> unqualified
5. "*The *ignorance displayed by the police is no excuse"

However, only in 1. is *The *compulsory: *size *is a countable noun.

It is worth noting that *the *is related to *this *and *that *and if *this *or *that *can be used, then *the *is also useable.


----------



## HSS

PaulQ said:


> Yes, it is. If the noun that *the *qualifies is itself qualified, then *the *_becomes _an option (and an option that is usually applied as the noun becomes specific.)
> 
> 1. "*The *size of the problem cannot be underestimated."
> 2. "*The *dishonesty in the country is becoming worse."
> 3. "*The *ignorance on this matter is appalling."
> 
> 4. "Ignorance is no excuse" -> unqualified
> 5. "*The *ignorance displayed by the police is no excuse"
> 
> However, only in 1. is *The *compulsory: *size *is a countable noun.
> 
> It is worth noting that *the *is related to *this *and *that *and if *this *or *that *can be used, then *the *is also useable.



Hello, Paul.

So you're saying '_The ignorance of the conditions in the slum areas is no excuse'_ is okay, right?


----------



## PaulQ

Yes, it is certainly an option. I see nothing wrong with it, although, bearing in mind my signature, I would say that I would like to see the example set in context. I say this as the example is obviously a response to a statement or a set of known circumstances.

As you will have seen from the link I gave (re: uses of the article) there is a set of circumstances in which the article is and is not used. These circumstances are often subjective as to the weight that is to be applied to each criterion. 

In re-reading my post #25, I note that this follows the rule that *the *indicates "a specific something" (i.e. it is qualified; limited; etc.) 

'_The ignorance of the conditions in the slum areas is no excuse'_ - specific and emphatic on all points
'_I__gnorance of the conditions in the slum areas is no excuse' 
_ '_Ignorance of conditions in the slum areas is no excuse'  
_'_Ignorance of conditions in slum areas is no excuse'

_are all acceptable.

But note the difference: '_The ignorance of the conditions in the slum areas is *not the* excuse'_


----------



## lucas-sp

But there are different ways to count "ignorance."

Ignorance is no excuse = ignorance about any topic, held by anyone
Ignorance about the conditions in the slums is no excuse = ignorance only about the conditions in the slums, but held by anyone
The ignorance displayed by the bourgeois is no excuse = ignorance about an open topic, but held only by the bourgeois
The ignorance about the conditions in the slums is no excuse = ignorance only about the conditions in the slums, and ignorance held only by one specific population (although that population is unspecified)
_and finally_
The ignorance about the conditions in the slums displayed by the bourgeois is no excuse = ignorance only about the conditions, and ignorance held only by the bourgeois

I think the same goes for "dishonesty."


----------



## HSS

I have this weird feeling, as I mentioned in my opening post except it  was about gerunds, that 'abstract noun + of + the patient of the noun's  verb form' has 'the' as an option. And this, maybe, only applies to the sentence subject???

(examples of my own rendition)
_- Acceptance of this form means you should permit people to submit any form. This would create a monster. Once you accept this form, you should accept all the other forms.
- The acceptance of this form means you should permit people to submit any form. This would create a monster. __Once you accept this form, you should accept all the other forms.__

- Oversight of this important message would cause a lot of damage to the event.
- The oversight of this important message would cause a lot of damage to the event.

- You have to issue something to acknowledge the receipt of the application.
- You have to issue something to acknowledge receipt of the application._ (This requires 'the' before 'receipt')


----------



## wandle

Returning to your original post, may I ask if meaning of the quotation given is clear enough?
To make it fully clear, I have re-ordered the examples (besides correcting the orthography).

The point of that quotation is first to establish two different situations in the use of abstract nouns:
(a) where the abstract noun is not fully qualified;
 (b) where the abstract noun is fully qualified (either by a defining relative clause or by 'of' plus noun phrase).

The generalisation is then made that in situation (b), the definite article is normally required. 


> ... abstract nouns are fully qualified when they are followed by a defining relative clause (introduced by who/which/that) or by the preposition of + noun phrase. Under these circumstances, 'the' before the abstract noun is normally required:
> 
> (a)  Personal happiness is a basic human right.
> 
> (b 1) The absolute truth of the matter is that abject poverty destroys lives.
> 
> (b 2) The education (that) I received at a bog-standard comprehensive school was substandard.
> 
> (b 3) The happiness (that) I felt when Maureen became pregnant was unqualified.


The above examples show one case (a) where the abstract noun is not fully qualified and three cases (b1, b2 and b3) where it is fully qualified.

These are good examples to support the statement that where the abstract noun is fully qualified as shown here, the definite article is normally required. That is the message of the original quotation and it is a useful rule to remember.


----------



## HSS

wandle said:


> ...
> These are good examples to support the statement that where the abstract  noun is fully qualified as shown here, the definite article is normally  required. That is the message of the original quotation and it is a  useful rule to remember.





HSS said:


> I have this weird feeling, as I mentioned in my opening post except it  was about gerunds, that 'abstract noun + of + the patient of the noun's  verb form' has 'the' as an option. And this, maybe, only applies to the sentence subject???
> 
> (examples of my own rendition)
> _- Acceptance of this form means you should permit people to submit any form. This would create a monster. Once you accept this form, you should accept all the other forms.
> - The acceptance of this form means you should permit people to submit any form. This would create a monster. __Once you accept this form, you should accept all the other forms.__
> 
> - Oversight of this important message would cause a lot of damage to the event.
> - The oversight of this important message would cause a lot of damage to the event.
> 
> - You have to issue something to acknowledge the receipt of the application.
> - You have to issue something to acknowledge receipt of the application._ (This requires 'the' before 'receipt')



Thanks, Wandle. Yes, I see the logic there.

But deciding whether a given noun is fully qualified or not for telling whether 'the' is required or not is difficult to non-native speakers of English whose mother tongue does not have articles.

Do you think, then, all my renditions above require 'the'?

Hiro


----------



## michael13

PaulQ said:


> It is worth noting that *the *is related to *this *and *that *and if *this *or *that *can be used, then *the *is also useable.



From Oxford:

-In *that society*, inheritance of land is patrilineal.

Does your rule apply to this ? I'm not sure whether I can change THAT to THE, because if SOCIETY in this sense without pre or post modifiers cannot be used with THE, I was told.


----------



## wandle

HSS said:


> Do you think, then, all my renditions above require 'the'?


It is not easy to comment on examples which (with respect) are not fully fluent in all aspects.
If I confine attention to the functional aspect of the minimal phrases 'acceptance of this form', 'oversight of this important message' and 'receipt of the application', then I would say that the basic treatment of each of these phrases requires the definite article before the key nouns 'acceptance', 'oversight' and 'receipt'.

However, in each case, we can say that there is also a more subtle usage in which the definite article is not used.
This usage makes the sense of the key nouns more general than the basic usage.

This distinction belongs to a fairly advanced stage of learning. We may still say that the original rule (that where the abstract noun is fully qualified as shown, the definite article is normally required) remains valid. It is not an absolute rule.


----------



## HSS

wandle said:


> ...
> However, in each case, we can say that there is also a more subtle usage in which the definite article is not used.
> This usage makes the sense of the key nouns more general than the basic usage.
> ...


Does this statement apply to the following too?
_- You have to issue something to acknowledge receipt of the application._


----------



## michael13

lucas-sp said:


> When you look at the excellent examples given by e2e4, I think this becomes pretty clear:Which happiness? Well, we're talking about _the _happiness that belongs to the millions of people we introduce later. Not just "any old happiness." _Their_ happiness. Compare to: "The shoes of my seven roommates crowded the hallway, making it impossible to walk to the bathroom without tripping." Which shoes? _Their_ shoes.
> 
> But which ignorance? Well, we aren't specifying. We're talking about anyone's ignorance. It's possible for anyone to be ignorant about the conditions. We aren't delimiting it. Compare to: "Pies are excellent gifts for any housewarming party." Which pies? Well, we aren't specifying. We're leaving it open; it could be any old pies.



I agree with Lucas, but won't native speaker speak this?: (a casually made sentence

-We have to clamour against tyranny and destruction of popular rights.

The tyranny and destruction regarding popular rights sounds pretty definite; so far I just can't find a good rule in grammar books.


----------



## wandle

HSS said:


> Does this statement apply to the following too?
> _- You have to issue something to acknowledge receipt of the application._


My comment related to


> the functional aspect of the minimal phrases 'acceptance of this form', 'oversight of this important message' and 'receipt of the application'


----------



## PaulQ

michael13 said:


> From Oxford:
> 
> -In *that society*, inheritance of land is patrilineal.
> 
> Does your rule apply to this ? I'm not sure whether I can change THAT to THE, because if SOCIETY in this sense without pre or post modifiers cannot be used with THE, I was told.


"The older society has established several rules about land. In the society, the inheritance of land is patrilineal."

The idea of "pre or post modifiers" is correct but not the whole story. The pre or post modifiers are nothing more than the audience being aware of the noun being specific. You will see this by my example.

If I start a conversation with "The idiot hit me!" - you expect to know, but do not know, who it is that I meant. Thus the wider guidance is "for the noun to be qualified by "the", it should refer to a known object/concept."; Pre or post modifiers are a minor way of doing this.

So If I say either:

"You know that man I told you about yesterday? The idiot hit me!" this is correct.
or if I say
"The idiot, who lives next door, hit me!"
or
"The local idiot hit me!"

it is all the same.

The guidance is that the full meaning of the noun must be known to the audience in order to use *the*.


----------



## lucas-sp

michael13 said:


> -We have to clamour against tyranny and *the *destruction of popular rights.


We have to clamor against *tyranny*. (tyranny in general = no article)
We have to clamor against *the destruction of popular rights*. (*the* destruction of a particular thing = definite article)
We have to clamor against *the tyranny of this administration*. (*the* tyranny exercised by a particular agent = definite article)


----------



## michael13

Impressive! Thank you, Paul and Lucas



lucas-sp said:


> We have to clamor against *tyranny*. (tyranny in general = no article)
> We have to clamor against *the destruction of popular rights*. (*the* destruction of a particular thing = definite article)
> We have to clamor against *the tyranny of this administration*. (*the* tyranny exercised by a particular agent = definite article)



When it comes to reasoning, I always succeed in giving myself a headache.

I've written a sentence by instinct:

eg After sex reassignment surgery, the appellant should be considered a normal female.

If THE is required for a specific thing, shouldn't there also be THE before SEX, meaning 'the sex reassignment surgery of the woman'?


----------



## velisarius

There's nothing wrong with your sentence without the article: it means "After having had some kind of sex reassignment surgery ... ".
 "After the sex reassignment surgery, the appellant should be considered a normal female."  Use of the definite article here makes the reader focus on this particular surgery. Only context can tell why the article is used here.

Often there is very little difference whether you use the article or not. Let's take another example:
"After dinner and a hot bath he felt more relaxed".
"After the dinner and the hot bath he felt more relaxed". Why use the definite article here? Maybe this particular dinner and bath were particularly relaxing for him. In this sentence I am just focusing a little more on this particular dinner he had.


----------



## PaulQ

After gender reassignment surgery, the appellant should be considered a normal female. = After *any *gender reassignment surgery *at any time*, the appellant should be considered a normal female.
After *the* gender reassignment surgery, the appellant should be considered a normal female. = (i) After *this [type of]* gender reassignment surgery, the appellant should be considered a normal female.

(Note is is *gender *reassignment.)


----------



## michael13

Thank you~



lucas-sp said:


> We have to clamor against *tyranny*. (tyranny in general = no article)
> We have to clamor against *the tyranny of this administration*. (*the* tyranny exercised by a particular agent = definite article)



According to this, shouldn't there be THE before NEWS?:

-The city is an active educational centre, eager *for news of *Einstein and Bolshevism.


----------



## e2efour

Here _news  _means any news, which may or may not exist. _The news_ would mean news which exists.

Examples: One person says to another: "Have you heard the news?" (e.g. about the Japanese earthquake. The news exists and is known to the speaker.)
Or "Have you heard any news?" (asking whether any news exists)

(We do not say _Have you heard news?_ but only, for example, _Have you heard news about the plane crash?_)


----------



## michael13

e2efour said:


> Here _news _means any news, which may or may not exist. _The news_ would mean news which exists.
> 
> Examples: One person says to another: "Have you heard the news?" (e.g. about the Japanese earthquake. The news exists and is known to the speaker.)
> Or "Have you heard any news?" (asking whether any news exists)
> 
> (We do not say _Have you heard news?_ but only, for example, _Have you heard news about the plane crash?_)


Impressive! Thank you, e2. The writer of _Principia Mathematica _says:

-_Principia Mathematica _is being reprinted, and I am writing a new introduction, abolishing axiom of reducibility.

A thing must exist before being abolished; according to the 'THE required before NEWS if news exists' rule, shouldn't there be THE before AXIOM? (I feel some difference, but I can't verbalize it.


----------



## e2efour

I would have expected _the axiom_, but perhaps the reference is to a section in the book with the title _Axiom of reproducibility._


----------



## wandle

Russell's full sentence is given here, _The Evolution of Principia Mathematica_, by Bernard Linsky, p. 112 n. 9:


> Principia Mathematica is being reprinted, and I am writing a new introduction, abolishing axiom of reducibility, and assuming that functions of props are always truth-functions, and functions of functions only occur through values of the functions and are always extensional. I don't know if these assumptions are true, but it seems worth while to work out their consequences.


It is part of a letter to Nicod and it was obviously written quickly in colloquial style. He would not have written in that style for publication.

Two further points are worth noting. The Axiom of Reducibility was one of Russell's own contributions to set theory. Rather than 'the' axiom, it would have been appropriate for him to say 'my' axiom of reducibility. He simply may have left that out because he did not want to sound self-important in a letter to a fellow mathematician.

The question of whether the axiom existed is interesting. Russell would certainly have been conscious of the incongruity of using the words 'the axiom of reducibility', implying that it existed, in a sentence saying that he was abolishing it. If it really  existed, nothing anyone could say or write would abolish it.


----------



## michael13

Thank you~



wandle said:


> It is not easy to comment on examples which (with respect) are not fully fluent in all aspects.
> If I confine attention to the functional aspect of the minimal phrases *'acceptance of this form', 'oversight of this important message' and 'receipt of the application'*, then I would say that the basic treatment of each of these phrases requires the definite article before the key nouns 'acceptance', 'oversight' and 'receipt'.



A non-native speaker told me a rule: if there is a nominalisation of a verb, followed by OF + noun, then the presence or absence of THE makes no difference. 

eg Social justice should consist* in equalisation of power *to the greatest practicable degree.

Do native speakers agree?


----------



## wandle

It depends what you mean by 'makes no difference' 





wandle said:


> However, in each case, we can say that there is also a more subtle usage in which the definite article is not used.
> This usage makes the sense of the key nouns more general than the basic usage.
> 
> This distinction belongs to a fairly advanced stage of learning. We may still say that the original rule (that where the abstract noun is fully qualified as shown, the definite article is normally required) remains valid. It is not an absolute rule.


Both options are possible; there is a difference of meaning, but it is not great.


----------



## michael13

Thank you, Wandle.

In a previous post, I, as it comes natural to me, said '*the* presence or absence of THE', but we say:

-*Absence of opportunity *for exciting pleasures at this place is, I think, an unimportant factor in the development of the children's intellectual interests.

Am I correct in saying it is because 'absence of opportunity' can be rephrased into 'opportunistic absence' (a general idea) but 'the presence or absence of the definite article' cannot be recast into any abstract idea represented by a noun justified in not using the definite article?


----------



## wandle

michael13 said:


> Am I correct in saying ... 'absence of opportunity' can be rephrased into 'opportunistic absence'?


No.


> Am I correct in saying ... 'the presence or absence of the definite article' cannot be recast [without] the definite article?


This could be written in an appropriate context as 'presence or absence of the definite article'.


----------



## michael13

wandle said:


> This could be written in an appropriate context as 'presence or absence of the definite article'.


Thank you, Wandle.

Since we can say

eg Doctors now advise only *sparing use of* such creams.

Can I make one on this model?:

eg Grammarians advise absence of the definite article.


----------



## wandle

Not as in that example, because absence is a state, not an action.


----------



## michael13

Thank you~


wandle said:


> However, in each case, we can say that there is also a more subtle usage in which the definite article is not used.
> This usage makes the sense of the key nouns more general than the basic usage.



-He has *records of *a debate as to a nest site which lasted for five days.

Does the subtlety lie here:

1. RECORDS OF means part of all the records of the debate.

2. THE RECORDS OF means all.


----------



## wandle

michael13 said:


> -He has *records of *a debate as to a nest site which lasted for five days.
> 
> Does the subtlety lie here:
> 
> 1. RECORDS OF means part of all the records of the debate.
> 
> 2. THE RECORDS OF means all.


This is a different case. The original post and my comments so far have been about abstract nouns. 'Records' is a concrete noun.

The difference between 'records' and 'the records' is that the article makes it a reference to specific records, either previously mentioned in the text, or understood from the context.
Without the definite article, it is unspecified: it may mean all records or some records.

I would call that a basic difference rather than a subtle one.


----------



## michael13

Thank you~

I've made two sentences that I consider having identical meaning.

1.The body should have *sole possession of *weapons of mass extermination.
2.The body should have *the only possession of *weapons of mass extermination.

1. Are my bold words used correctly?
2. Can I add THE before SOLE and omit THE before ONLY?


----------



## PaulQ

1.The body should have *sole possession of *weapons of mass extermination.: this is perfectly acceptable and normal. I would expect to hear this. Note that here, "possession" is uncountable and means *ownership*.

e.g. "The emperor granted him possession of much land."

2.The body should have *the only possession of *weapons of mass extermination.: this is strange and unnatural. It is probably because, "only possession" is a common phrase and here "possession" is countable and "only possession" = "the only thing someone owns/owned". e.g.

"The beggar sat on the ground. The only possession he seemed to have was a small box."

So, in 2. the meaning is wrong.


----------



## wandle

The rule quoted in the original post remains valid. That rule says that where the abstract noun is fully qualified (as explained there), then the definite article is normally required. 

That is not an absolute rule. 'Normally' does not mean 'always'.  As mentioned in post 33:





> there is also a more subtle usage in which the definite article is not used.
> This usage makes the sense ...  more general than the basic usage.



This applies just as well to the example from post 55:


michael13 said:


> The body should have sole possession of weapons of mass extermination.



The more basic form of expression is:
_The body should have the sole possession of weapons of mass extermination._ 

The more subtle form of expression (which is more general in sense) is:
_The body should have sole possession of weapons of mass extermination._


----------



## michael13

Thank you, Wandle and Paul.



Keith Bradford said:


> To come back to the topic...
> 
> _Cleaning the park_ is an *action*. It's a *verbal* phrase and as such cannot take an article.
> _The sinking of the Titanic _is an *event *(unless you're looking at it from the iceberg's point of view! ) It's a *noun *phrase and so it can take an article. Indeed, it's an entirely unique event, so it naturally takes "the".



From Random House:

-a permanent cardiac or arterial dilatation usually caused *by weakening of *the vessel wall. 

According to Keith's rule, shouldn't there be THE before WEAKENING? I can't find a modern dictionary with the verb phrase WEAKEN OF. Could anyone?


----------



## lucas-sp

michael13 said:


> From Random House:


From Random House what?

Dictionaries eliminate articles to save space. The kind of article use you will find in dictionaries is not representative of article use in everyday English.

Also, there is no verb "to weaken of." This is just the typical gerund + of structure you see in "the running of the bulls," "the airing of the grievances," etc. The word after "of" is either the subject or object of the verb in the gerund form.


----------



## michael13

lucas-sp said:


> From Random House what?
> 
> Dictionaries eliminate articles to save space. The kind of article use you will find in dictionaries is not representative of article use in everyday English.
> 
> Also, there is no verb "to weaken of." This is just the typical gerund + of structure you see in "the running of the bulls," "the airing of the grievances," etc. The word after "of" is either the subject or object of the verb in the gerund form.



Thank you, Lucas. The information you required: Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.


----------

