# history of the generic definite article



## Gavril

Romance languages tend to use the generic definite article more broadly than languages like standard English do: e.g.,

_*Las tortugas* pueden vivir hasta casi 200 años_ (Spanish)
vs. 
_*Tortoises* can live for almost 200 years _(English)

Are there any theories about the historical development of generic definite article constructions in Romance, or elsewhere?

For example, one possible semantic development, as illustrated by the  example of _las tortugas_, would be

1."those (contextually present) tortoises"
> 2. "those tortoises (that you have probably heard of)"
> 3. "those things (that you have probably heard of) called tortoises"
> 4. "tortoises (in general)"

Is there reason to believe or doubt this sort of scenario?

Thanks for any info


----------



## Gavril

Modern-day English may be at an "intermediate" stage (relative to Romance) in its use of generic definite articles. It is sometimes possible to use the generic definite article in the singular, where Romance languages might use the singular or plural:

_*The tortoise* can live over 150 years._ = Spanish _*La(s) tortuga(s)* pueden vivir más de 150 años._

However, unlike in Romance, this is a relatively infrequent way of expressing generic reference in English (I would tend to use the article-free form _tortoises_ in this context instead).

Also, there is more of a limit in English to the generic use of definite singular nouns: e.g. in a sentence like _Mountains are taller than hills_, I don't think I could replace the words _mountains _and_ hills_ with the definite forms _*the* mountain / *the *hill, _whereas Spanish could (if I'm not mistaken) use _*las *montañas _and _*los* cerros_ in the equivalent of this sentence.


----------



## bearded

Hello
I think that the demonstrative value is  undisputable as far as it concerns the etymological origin of the article, but I feel that the article has lost its semantic 'demonstrative' nature long ago, just like 'the' in English. Therefore I consider it wrong to search for a 'semantic' scenario or logical progress from the demonstrative adjective to the determinative article in today's Romance languages. The article is just the fruit of a usage, and a word the noun 'leans on' in my view.  The presence or absence of that article is just governed by usage, depending on the language.
In my language e.g. you can say _Da qui posso vedere laghi e montagne _(from here I can see lakes and mountains), and it is imperative that you use no articles here - unless you already know which lakes and mountains... In this respect Italian might differ from Spanish.
On the other hand we, like the Spaniards, must say ''*La *tartaruga vive più di 100 anni, *le* rose sono belle (roses are beautiful), *le* montagne sono più alte del*le *colline (mountains are higher than hills)''.
There are languages like German, where the article has preserved its demonstrative value and can therefore be often used as a demonstrative adjective or even pronoun. For example: _ich kenne den Mann nicht, ich hab den nie gesehen _(I do not know the/that man: I have never seen that one(used instead of 'him)).  Here your above 'scenario' would indeed make sense, although the usage in 'generic' phrases resembles more the English than the Romance languages (_Tiere sind gut: _animals are good, without article).


----------



## merquiades

bearded man said:


> Hello
> In my language e.g. you can say _Da qui posso vedere laghi e montagne _(from here I can see lakes and mountains), and it is imperative that you use no articles here - unless you already know which lakes and mountains... In this respect Italian might differ from Spanish.
> On the other hand we, like the Spaniards, must say ''*La *tartaruga vive più di 100 anni, *le* rose sono belle (roses are beautiful), *le* montagne sono più alte del*le *colline (mountains are higher than hills)''.


The two scenarios you speak about are different.
In the first case, it's not a general use of the article.  It refers in essence to a part of the lakes and mountains in Italy.  It's an indefinite number of a whole.  In these cases there is no article in Italian/Spanish, and a partitive article in French (not a definite one).
Da qui posso vedere laghi e montagne.
Desde aquí puedo ver lagos y montañas.
D'ici je peux voir des lacs et des montagnes.

In the second case, I am generalizing and speaking of all possible mountains, roses and turtles, not just a part of them.  Romance languages use definite articles here.
Le tartarughe vivono più di 200 anni. Las tortugas viven más de 200 años.  Les tortues vivent plus de 200 ans.
Le rose sono belle.  Las rosas son bellas.  Les roses sont belles.
Le montagne sono più alte delle colline.  Las montañas son más altas que las colinas.  Les montagnes sont plus hautes que les collines.

Articles in Romance have evolved from their demonstrative origins.  The difference between generalized whole/ part is important.  Nowadays in French, articles are required as they give important information about the noun (gender, singular/plural)and often the whole sentence.  Saying montagne(s), rose(s), tortue(s), lac(s) without any article lacks any type of identification.  For example, in Les femmes au foyer travaillent plus que les hommes  it is the /le/ and the /lez/ and not /la/ and /l/ that gives all the information about the sentence, otherwise it is unclear.


----------



## Nino83

bearded man said:


> *In my language* e.g. you can say _Da qui posso vedere laghi e montagne _(from here I can see lakes and mountains), and it is *imperative* that you use no articles here - unless you already know which lakes and mountains



It could be *imperative* in *your* way of speaking but it is not so in Italian. 



> In luogo dell’articolo partitivo può aversi anche l’articolo zero (indicato qui come Ø), sia per il singolare che per il plurale, uso previsto in casi ben determinati.
> 
> (18) c’è del/Ø latte
> (19) ci sono dei/Ø libri sugli scaffali



http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/partitivo_(Enciclopedia_dell'Italiano)/ 



merquiades said:


> The two scenarios you speak about are different.
> In the first case, it's not a general use of the article.  It refers in essence to a part of the lakes and mountains in Italy.  It's an indefinite number of a whole.  In these cases there is no article in Italian/Spanish, and a partitive article in French (not a definite one).



Exactly. In Italian, you can use _zero article_ instead of the _singular partitive article_ and of the _plural partitive/indefinite article_.


----------



## Gavril

Hi,



bearded man said:


> I think that the demonstrative value is undisputable as far as it concerns the etymological origin of the article, but I feel that the article has lost its semantic 'demonstrative' nature long ago, just like 'the' in English. Therefore I consider it wrong to search for a 'semantic' scenario or logical progress from the demonstrative adjective to the determinative article in today's Romance languages. The article is just the fruit of a usage, and a word the noun 'leans on' in my view.  The presence or absence of that article is just governed by usage, depending on the language.



I don't follow your argument about why these facts invalidate the original question.

Definite articles contribute a particular meaning to a noun phrase, which can be summed up (more or less) as "previously mentioned, or otherwise contextually present". It is not obvious (to me) how the generic usage of definite articles, such as seen in Romance languages, fits with these semantics. This means that either 1) speakers of Romance languages make a logical connection that I don't (yet) understand between the two meanings of the definite article, or 2) there was a historical development (such as the one I proposed in the original post) that resulted in these two meanings.


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> Definite articles contribute a particular meaning to a noun phrase, which can be summed up (more or less) as "previously mentioned, or otherwise contextually present". It is not obvious (to me) how the generic usage of definite articles, such as seen in Romance languages, fits with these semantics. This means that either 1) speakers of Romance languages make a logical connection that I don't (yet) understand between the two meanings of the definite article, or 2) there was a historical development (such as the one I proposed in the original post) that resulted in these two meanings.



Hi, Gavril.
I don't follow your argument too.

If the noun should be "previously mentioned" why Romance speakers say "_ti piace *la* musica?_" also if the argument is *new*?
And, if it is so, why English people say "_what do you think about *the* rich and *the* poor?_".

From what you're saying, it seems that English follows some intrinsic logic compared to the Romance languages, but English is full of exceptions.
Let's see some.

English people say "I like music" but you say "I eat/like apples" and not "I eat/like apple" (which seems to mean another thing, it is like saying "I habitually eat that apple-substance in any form - raw, cooked, grated...", "I like apple-flavored candies").

So, it seems it doesn't work with countable nouns but, you say "I like fish" (Is, in this case, fish singular, or is it plural?).

The rule says: "to talk about plural and uncountable nouns or *when talking about things in general*". "Music" is general but it is also uncountable. When we speak about "apples" in general, then there is the exception.

*Exception number 1*: when speaking in general, countable nouns *cannot be singular*.

*Exception number 2*: when an adjective used as noun: *it takes the article*.

For example: *the* rich and *the* poor.

Why? Maybe because adjectives are invariable in number in English, so they require an article?
But, it doesn't depend on the fact that the noun is "previously mentioned".
How did it work in Old and Middle English?

It seems to me that "talking about things in general" is not a general rule, because it doesn't work with countable nouns and that the "plural" rule is not valid too, because when an adjective is used as noun, the article is required.

I agree, on it, with bearded man. Every language developed in a different way and it's difficult to find any "logic" behind these differences.


----------



## merquiades

@Nino83 , there is also the abstract versus concrete rule for articles in English.   Music, Art, Politics, Cinema, Science are abstract so we say.
I like music, art, mathematics, American history, skydiving, linguistics.
Music box, Painting, Table, Chair, Window, Garden, Sidewalk, Car are concrete so we use articles with them.
I like the music box, the painting, the vase, the tattoo, the gift, the garden.


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> Hi, Gavril.
> I don't follow your argument too.
> 
> If the noun should be "previously mentioned" why Romance speakers say "_ti piace *la* musica?_" also if the argument is *new*?



That's my point: the generic use of definite articles (_la musica_ = "music (in general)", _le montagne _= "mountains (in general)") seems divergent (at first glance) from the otherwise-prevailing semantics of these articles.



> And, if it is so, why English people say "_what do you think about *the* rich and *the* poor?_".
> 
> From what you're saying, it seems that English follow some intrinsic logic compared to the Romance languages,



Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. But, note that I mentioned as a possibility that "Romance speakers make a logical connection [between the two meanings] that I don't (yet) understand".

*



			Exception number 1
		
Click to expand...

*


> : when speaking in general, countable nouns *cannot be singular*.



Not quite true: see my examples in post #2 ("The tortoise can live longer than 150 years").

Speaking for myself, I perceive a connection between the semantics of generic definite articles as used in English and the semantics of other definite articles (previously-mentioned, etc.): e.g., if I hear someone say "_The tortoise can live a long time"_, then I imagine that there is a contextual background being emphasized -- perhaps the background of the ecosystems where tortoises live -- in which the tortoise's presence is expected. I wouldn't get this impression if someone simply said _Tortoises can live a long time._

I have the same understanding of phrases like _the rich and the poor_: those rich and poor people who you can normally expect to find in human society (or in the particular society being discussed).

This may be why it is hard for me to extend this generalizing usage to any given noun-phrase: if someone said _The mountain is taller than the hill_ (and there had been no previous mention of a mountain or hill), it would sound as though mountains and hills are being assigned specific, stable roles in the current context. Therefore, I would only expect to hear this from someone who had lived much (or all) of his life in a mountainous area, for whom mountains and hills were persistent aspects of life.

Not all English speakers will necessarily share my understanding of examples like these, but the point is that it is not impossible to draw a logical connection between generic usage of the definite article and other usages. I would imagine that Romance language speakers can give an account of how they understand this connection in their own languages as well, and perhaps these accounts can help point to the origin of generic definite article constructions in Romance (just as my description above may reflect something about the origin of such constructions in English).


----------



## Nino83

merquiades said:


> there is also the abstract versus concrete rule for articles in English.   Music, Art, Politics, Cinema, Science are abstract so we say.
> I like music, art, mathematics, American history, skydiving, linguistics.
> Music box, Painting, Table, Chair, Window, Garden, Sidewalk, Car are concrete so we use articles with them.
> I like the music box, the painting, the vase, the tattoo, the gift, the garden.



Yes, merquiades, but all the nouns you listed are uncountable. 
But there are countable nouns which don't require the article, like musical instruments.

Can you explain why you say "I play guitar" but you can't say "I like apple"?
What is the difference between "guitar" and "apple"?
We are speaking in general, these nouns are countable (one guitar, one apple) and they are not abstract concepts, so, where is the difference?
Is there any logic?



Gavril said:


> Not quite true: see my examples in post #2 ("The tortoise can live longer than 150 years").



Can you say in correct English "do you like the tortoise?"?

If you can't, the rule is not consistent.



Gavril said:


> I have the same understanding of phrases like _the rich and the poor_: rich and poor people understood in the contextual background of human society (or, depending on the context, in the background of the particular society being discussed).



But, as far as I know, you can't say, in English, sentences like "rich get richer and poor get poorer" or "the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer", in other words the only way to say this sentence is "the rich" + verb/plural conjugation.

It's grammatical, not "logic", at least, to me it seems so.



Gavril said:


> I would imagine that Romance language speakers can give an account of how they understand this connection in their own languages as well, and perhaps these accounts can help point to the origin of generic definite article constructions in Romance (just as my description above may reflect something about the origin of such constructions in English).



You're trying to explain why English people say "I play guitar" and Romance speakers say "suono *la* chitarra", and why English don't say "I eat apple" for "mangio *la* mela".

Can you explain the difference between a guitar and an apple?


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> Can you say in correct English "do you like the tortoise?" with the same meaning of "do you like tortoises?"?



Not with exactly the same contextual inferences, no -- just as the sentences _Tortoises live a long time_ and _The tortoise lives a long time_ do not carry the same contextual implications, either.

However, I wasn't claiming that "the tortoise" and "tortoises" were perfectly identical in this respect.



> But, as far as I know, you can't say, in English, sentences like "rich get richer and poor get poorer"



I would say that you can: certainly in colloquial English, and also (though more marginally) in standard written English.

But it seems to me that the phrase "_the rich"_ should be compared with "_rich people" _or a similar phrase_:_ the distinction between these two cases seems analogous to that between _the tortoise_ and _tortoises._



> It's grammatical, not "logic", at least, to me it seems so.



Even if a construction does not seem logical now, that doesn't mean that there was not historically a logic behind it (that has been obscured by later semantic change).



> You're trying to explain why English people say "I play guitar" and Romance speakers say "suono *la* chitarra", and why English don't say "I eat apple" for "mangio *la* mela".



You can also say _I play the guitar / the piano / _etc. in English, with the same meaning as far as I can tell. However, if you are making a non-habitual statement, then the article does make a difference: "He was playing guitar on the steps" simply describes the instrument he was playing, whereas "He was playing the guitar on the steps" suggests that this particular guitar has been referred to before.

I am not sure why the article can be omitted in _I play guitar_ / _I play piano_ / etc. -- it might be simply be due to analogy with cases such as_ I play football_ / _I play hockey_ / etc., where the object is an uncountable noun referring to an activity. If so, this could be a genuine example of a change that was motivated by structural analogy, rather than semantic logic.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, "He was playing the guitar on the steps" can mean the same thing as "He was playing guitar on the steps", at least in colloquial language. But to avoid ambiguity, I would probably avoid saying "the guitar" in this sentence unless I meant a specific, contextually known guitar.


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> Yes, merquiades, but all the nouns you listed are uncountable.
> But there are countable nouns which don't require the article, like musical instruments.
> 
> Can you explain why you say "I play guitar" but you can't say "I like apple"?
> What is the difference between "guitar" and "apple"?
> We are speaking in general, these nouns are countable (one guitar, one apple) and they are not abstract concepts


I can't because I would never say either of these sentences. I'd always use "I play the guitar, the piano, the flute".  I always say articles with musical instruments (actually I even teach that rule).  Also "I like apple" sounds wrong to me too.  It makes it seem like "apple" is some kind of liquid like "milk".  Or you buy a box of something with "apple" written on the side.  Maybe people might even think "I like Apple, not Microsoft".   I'd always make it plural  "I like apples", unless we are talking about a concrete apple. "I like the apple, Nino, but you can have the pear.  It's disgusting."  Of the two examples without articles, the second one sounds worse to my ear.  If someone said "I play guitar", I'd understand and mentally think that guitar is not an abstract idea, like a sport.  For the second one "I like apple" it would take me a while to figure out what is being meant.
"The tortoise lives a long time" also sounds unnatural to me".  What tortoise?  All tortoises?  I suppose a zoologist could say "the tortoise" meaning "the species that is called tortoise" and say "The tortoise lives longer than the slug" but something about this usage is bothersome.

"The rich and the poor" have articles because they are adjectives that are being used as nouns (rich/poor people).  Same as saying "the Spanish, the French, the Danish",  the article makes them nouns (Spanish/French/ Danish people, girls, citizens).
This is not different in Romance,  "les riches et les pauvres, les Espagnols, les Français, les Danois".  "Riche, pauvre, espagnol, français, danois" are adjectives.


----------



## Gavril

merquiades said:


> "The tortoise lives a long time" also sounds unnatural to me".  What tortoise?  All tortoises?



I meant this as an equivalent of "Tortoises live a long time". I'd agree that this type of phrase involving "the tortoise" is not very common (at least not anymore), but it is the sort of language that I might expect to hear (from time to time) from someone with an intimate knowledge of tortoises, such as a scientist who studies them or a local guide in an area where they are naturally found.


----------



## bearded

Nino83 said:


> It could be *imperative* in *your* way of speaking but it is not so in Italian.
> http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/partitivo_(Enciclopedia_dell'Italiano)/
> Exactly. In Italian, you can use _zero article_ instead of the _singular partitive article_ and of the _plural partitive/indefinite article_.


Wasn't the question about 'definite' (=determinative) articles? Partitive and indefinite articles were not considered in my reply. When I wrote 'use no article', I meant 'no definite article'.
If you say _vedo i laghi e le montagne_, in ''my way of speaking'' it means that lakes and mountains have already been mentioned before, or at least that you already know that they are there.


----------



## bearded

Gavril said:


> I don't follow your argument about why these facts invalidate the original question.


Sorry if I did not explain my point of view clearly enough.
It seems to me that, while talking about a 'historical development' in your question, you are looking for a logic where there is no logic, as Nino said in #7.  The development you talk about might have existed at the origin of the Romance languages (and undoubtedly in etymology, since  definite articles are derived from demonstrative adjectives), but then different usages have come over, and the logic of that 'development' has gone lost for many centuries along the road. Consequently, in my view, the 'historical development' is (long since) no more useful in order to explain why languages behave one way or another.


----------



## Nino83

@merquiades
It seems that "to play guitar" has more google results than "to play the guitar" (and I find "he could play the guitar" in Johnny B Goode of Chuck Berry but "When gentry plays guitar" of Jessica Andrews) and in the Oxford dictionary there are tow examples, one with and one without the article, "Do you play the guitar? She plays guitar in a band." http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/guitar?q=guitar

This is my question. If it is true what Gavril says, i.e that there is a logic in the use of the definite article, why does one say "I play guitar/I play the guitar" (singular, with or without article) and "I like/eat apples" (plural, without article), when, "guitar" and "apples" are both concrete countable nouns (i.e they belong to the same category) and we are speaking in general?

About "rich" and "poor", you say they are adjectives but, "a rich" person is countable, why when there is a countable *noun* English speakers use the *plural without article* and when there is a countable *noun* which is a substantivized *adjective* English people use the *singular with the article*?

It seems to me that this difference is due to a *grammatical* rule (adjectives don't have a plural form in Modern English), not to a *semantic* one.
Finally, in Italian, you can say both "i ricchi ed i poveri" and "il ricco ed il povero" with the *same* meaning.

I don't see a valid and consistent semantic rule in English so, it seems to me not easy to find a semantic/logic rule for the different usage of the definite article in different languages.

@bearded man
Yes, I point the stress on the adjective "imperative". You can say "vedo laghi e montagne" but also "vedo dei laghi e delle montagne" but, as you say, not "vedo i laghi e le montagne" (without any previous introduction of these nouns).


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> If it is true what Gavril says, i.e that there is a logic in the use of the definite article, why does one say "I play guitar/I play the guitar" (singular, with or without article) and "I like/eat apples" (plural, without article), when, "guitar" and "apples" are both concrete countable nouns



In colloquial English, words for instruments (_guitar_/_piano_/etc.) can have the additional meaning of "the activity of playing [instrument]", which is uncountable.

For example, you might hear someone say, "Guitar is one of my main interests" = "Playing the guitar is one of my main interests". Perhaps the lack of an article in sentences like "I play guitar" reflects this type of meaning.

This semantic development ("instrument" > "activity of playing it") seems parallel to cases such as "ball" (object) > "ball" (game involving this object).


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> In colloquial English, words for instruments (_guitar_/_piano_/etc.) can have the additional meaning of "the activity of playing [instrument]", which is uncountable.



Thank you for the explanation. Remains the fact that countable nouns must be plural (apples) and substantivized adjectives are plural and take the article (the rich).
In Italian you can say "ti piace la mela?" or "ti piacciono le mele?" and "il ricco" or "i ricchi".
To me, these *mandatory* constructions in English seem *grammatical*, not semantic.


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> Thank you for the explanation. Remains the fact that countable nouns must be plural (apples) and substantivized adjectives are plural and take the article (the rich).
> In Italian you can say "ti piace la mela?" or "ti piacciono le mele?" and "il ricco" or "i ricchi".
> To me, these *mandatory* constructions in English seem *grammatical*, not semantic.



It's not clear to me that the word "rich" in the phrase "the rich" is understood as a countable noun.

As an English speaker, I recognize a pattern in which [definite article] + [adjective] = "people who are [adjective]", perhaps sometimes "things that are [adjective]", but it's hard for me to assess whether I perceive the adjective as a noun in this context, or as something else. The similarity between this construction and Romance substantive adjectives seems limited.


----------



## Villeggiatura

Please analyze:
*The* *Independence*_ of (any nation)_,  _War of _*Independence*_ of (any nation)_
*La* *Independencia* de (any nation),  Guerra de *Independencia* de (a nation), Guerra de *la* *Independencia *de (another nation)
*l'Indipendenza* del(la) (any nation), Guerra* d'Indipendenza* del(la) (any nation)


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> It's not clear to me that the word "rich" in the phrase "the rich" is understood as a countable noun.



And remains the difference between "I like music" and "I like apple*s*" (plural, mandatory). 
Too many differences which can't be explained with logic, but just with usage.


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> And remains the difference between "I like music" and "I like apple*s*" (plural, mandatory).
> Too many differences which can't be explained with logic, but just with usage.



Personally, I don't have much trouble finding a logical explanation for the presence or absence of an article, or the plurality/singularity of a noun, in the majority (maybe the vast majority) of English phrases. I would be surprised if speakers of other languages did not find it similarly easy to find these sorts of explanations for noun phrases in their languages.

One thing I hoped to hear on this thread was the kinds of logical explanations that Romance speakers make for their languages' generic definite article constructions.



Villeggiatura said:


> Please analyze:
> *The* *Independence*_ of (any nation)_,  _War of _*Independence*_ of (any nation)_



_The Independence of_ [nation] = the status of independence as specifically applied to that nation; or, the specific event wherein the nation became independent

_the War of Independence of_ [nation]; here, the phrase "of Independence" modifies the word "War", and since "War" is already specified with the definite article, you don't need to separately specify the word "Independence". It's quite possible to say "the War of *the *Independence of [nation]", but it's also unnecessarily repetitive.


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> One thing I hoped to hear on this thread was the kinds of logical explanations that Romance speakers make for generic definite article constructions in their languages.



I don't make any kind of association. It's simply the way we learned to speak.

When we say "mi piace la musica", "mangio la mela/la pasta", "suono la chitarra" we speak in general, while when we say "mi piace quella musica", "mangio quella mela/quel tipo di pasta", "suono quella chitarra" we're speaking about a specific kind of music, guitar, apple and so on.
In these cases, the definite article has the opposite meaning of the demonstrative pronoun from which it derives, etymologically.

While, when we've just introduced the noun, i.e when we're speaking of a specific thing, then the article has its normal function.
"Ehi, Giovanni, puoi portarmi la chitarra che ti ho prestato ieri?" "Si, te la porto più tardi".
Some hours later...
"Ciao, Giovanni. Hai portato *la* chitarra?" = "Hi, John. Have you brought *the* guitar (I lent you yesterday/we were speaking about)", i.e *that* guitar.

In other words, the article has two opposite meanings, like when you speak about "*the* rich and *the* poor" or when you "play *the* guitar", you're talking in general about "rich people" or about "guitar".


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> In other words, the article has two opposite meanings, like when you speak about "*the* rich and *the* poor" or when you "play *the* guitar", you're talking in general about "rich people" or about "guitar".



I wouldn't call these opposite meanings. The noun phrases in "I play the guitar" and "the guitar I lent you yesterday" and are both semantically definite (as I understand them), but the definiteness has a different frame of reference in each case.


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> I wouldn't call these opposite meanings. The noun phrases in "I play the guitar" and "the guitar I lent you yesterday" and are both semantically definite (as I understand them), but the definiteness has a different frame of reference in each case.



But you're not speaking of a specific guitar (this guitar, not that one) or a specific rich person or group of rich people, isn't it?


----------



## Villeggiatura

Gavril said:


> _The Independence of_ [nation] = the status of independence as specifically applied to that nation; or, the specific event wherein the nation became independent
> 
> _the War of Independence of_ [nation]; here, the phrase "of Independence" modifies the word "War"; since "War" is already specified with the definite article, you don't need to separately specify the word "Independence". It's quite possible to say "the War of *the *Independence of [nation]", but it's also unnecessarily repetitive.



I think _War of Independence_ is a phrase, more or less fixed.
_Declaration of Independence_ is not (quite yet), hence the _Declaration of the Independence_ of New Zealand.


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> But you're not speaking of a specific guitar (this guitar, not that one) or a specific rich person or group of rich people, isn't it?



No, but that isn't the only aspect of definiteness. By saying "the guitar" and "the rich", I'm indicating that both things are contextually known and/or expected.

The guitar is a well-known instrument, like the piano, the violin, etc.; and, "rich" is an attribute that we know applies to certain people.

By contrast, if I were to invent some new instrument, it would sound less appropriate to say "I play the (X)", because there would be no reason to assume that other people had heard of (X) up to that point. Or, if I were to say "the 20-foot-tall", without any prior explanation, it would sound strange because nobody is known (or expected) to be twenty feet tall.


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> The guitar is a well-known instrument, like the piano, the violin, etc.; and, "rich" is an attribute that we know applies to certain people.



Excuse me, but also _apples_ are well-known fruits but they don't take the article. 
I don't understand this type of "definite" article.


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> Excuse me, but also _apples_ are well-known fruits but they don't take the article.



Sure they do:

- "The apple is cultivated all over the world."

- "Fire blight [a bacterial disease] is one of the apple's worst enemies."

You can even say "I like the apple", which implies that you like the apple as a species, as a type of fruit, etc. By contrast, the sentence "I like apples" emphasizes more clearly that you like consuming quantitites of apples.


----------



## merquiades

Nino83 said:


> @merquiades
> It seems that "to play guitar" has more google results than "to play the guitar" (and I find "he could play the guitar" in Johnny B Goode of Chuck Berry but "When gentry plays guitar" of Jessica Andrews) and in the Oxford dictionary there are tow examples, one with and one without the article, "Do you play the guitar? She plays guitar in a band." http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/guitar?q=guitar
> 
> This is my question. If it is true what Gavril says, i.e that there is a logic in the use of the definite article, why does one say "I play guitar/I play the guitar" (singular, with or without article) and "I like/eat apples" (plural, without article), when, "guitar" and "apples" are both concrete countable nouns (i.e they belong to the same category) and we are speaking in general?
> 
> About "rich" and "poor", you say they are adjectives but, "a rich" person is countable, why when there is a countable *noun* English speakers use the *plural without article* and when there is a countable *noun* which is a substantivized *adjective* English people use the *singular with the article*?
> 
> It seems to me that this difference is due to a *grammatical* rule (adjectives don't have a plural form in Modern English), not to a *semantic* one.
> Finally, in Italian, you can say both "i ricchi ed i poveri" and "il ricco ed il povero" with the *same* meaning.
> 
> I don't see a valid and consistent semantic rule in English so, it seems to me not easy to find a semantic/logic rule for the different usage of the definite article in different languages.
> 
> @bearded man
> Yes, I point the stress on the adjective "imperative". You can say "vedo laghi e montagne" but also "vedo dei laghi e delle montagne" but, as you say, not "vedo i laghi e le montagne" (without any previous introduction of these nouns).


I lost my respect for oxford methods said when they started accepting and advocating eliminating the subjunctive.  If I was her.  It is important she is on time.  I closed their books forever.

I agree with what Gavril has said.  A sentence like "Piano is my live" can be heard, and the idea is certainly "Piano music".  Just like I play basketball, is I play (the game of) basketball.  Yet, technically speaking you play the instrument, not the music.

I still explain this notion by contrasting abstract versus concrete.  Music, game, art are abstract so there is no article.  The rule in English is that the singular uncountable and abstract nouns cannot have articles:  art, music, milk, salt.  They also do not have any plural forms.  Concrete nouns have articles in the singular, whatever the situation:  the apple, the table, the garden, the computer.  "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree". In the plural they usually do not have articles when their role is to generalize, but do when they define or pinpoint a set group of things (the opposite role actually).  "Apples are delicious when they are ripe."  "The apples on the table are not yet ripe."

In French a noun without an article is perceived as naked.  You need to cover a noun somehow.  In the case of music the partitive article is used "je joue du piano, j'écoute du piano".  Abstract nouns always use definite articles "l'art, la musique, les maths".  Uncountable nouns have the partative article "du lait, du sel" and no plural.  Concrete nouns take the definite article "la pomme, la table, le jardin, l'ordinateur" so there is no opposition abstract-concrete in French.  Also, plurals of all kind need the article:  "Les pommes sont délicieuse losqu'elles sont mures."  "Les pommes sur la table ne sont toujours pas mures".
Not many nuances can be made with articles anymore, just maybe une pomme-des pommes/ des pommes (a few)-les pommes.  Du lait/ le lait (part of a whole/ all of it).  Du piano/ le piano.  I suppose when noun, adjective, verb endings became silent in French, the meanings that were lost that are so important in Romance languages (gender, singular/plural) were transferred to the article.  Obviously it was collectively deemed more important to preserve this than any generalization/ definition or concrete/abstract that would be lost by requiring articles.  Actually it coincides with the gradual mandatory use of subject pronouns for the same reason.  Nowadays since final -e has been dropped in most forms of the spoken language, they are even reinforced with disjunctive pronouns, moi j'pens.  I wonder if something will be thought up to reinforce l'garçon.


----------



## Ronin81

I suspect this development among Romance languages is related to the collapse of the case marking system in Latin. In the case of of Spanish, the Latin case markings were lost among the nouns and adjectives, but they passed into the pronouns and determiners (an analytical evolution?) in combination with prepositions. So, "_las tortugas_" is expressing all togehter the nominative case.


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> You can even say "I like the apple", which implies that you like the apple as a species, as a type of fruit, etc. By contrast, the sentence "I like apples" emphasizes more clearly that you like consuming quantitites of apples.



Then, if I want to say that I eat apples, using the singular I'm saying something different, I've to use the plural.
Anyway, after the verb, if I want to speak in general, some countable nouns require the plural form and some countable nouns require the singular with the article.

I like apples/I play *the* guitar.

the second one is used also when we're not speaking of a specific guitar and the object wasn't just mentioned previously.

"What do you do in your life?"
"I play *the* guitar"
What do you thing about politics?"
"*The* rich get richer and *the* poor get poorer"



merquiades said:


> Concrete nouns have articles in the singular, whatever the situation:  the apple, the table, the garden, the computer.  "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree". In the plural they usually do not have articles when their role is to generalize, but do when they define or pinpoint a set group of things (the opposite role actually).



Ok, but this distinction between countable and uncountable, abstract and concrete nouns, and the use/non-use of the definite article is not related with the "previously mentioned" or with the "speficic object" rule in *every single case*, in English.



Ronin81 said:


> I suspect this development among Romance languages is related to the collapse of the case marking system in Latin. In the case of of Spanish, the Latin case markings were lost among the nouns and adjectives, but they passed into the pronouns and determiners (an analytical evolution?) in combination with prepositions. So, "_las tortugas_" is expressing all togehter the nominative case.



I'm not sure about it, because we say "ascolto *la* musica", "seguo *il* teatro", i.e we use the article also with direct objects.
The difference between nominative and accusative is done by the rigid SVO order.


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> Then, if I want to say that I eat apples, using the singular I'm saying something different



"I like the apple" can certainly mean that you like eating apples: it is just less frequently used (at present) than "I like apples" for expressing this meaning. That may be because "I like apples" emphasizes the quantitative aspect (i.e. repeated instances of the apple) more strongly.



> I like apples/I play *the* guitar.
> 
> the second one is used also when we're not speaking of a specific guitar and the object wasn't just mentioned previously.
> 
> "What do you do in your life?"
> "I play *the* guitar"
> What do you thing about politics?"
> "*The* rich get richer and *the* poor get poorer"



With all due respect, I am not sure why you keep repeating these examples. I've already explained (post #27) how the examples with "the guitar" and "the rich" can be reconciled with the normal meaning of the definite article.


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> "I like the apple" can certainly mean that you like eating apples: it is just less frequently used (at present) than "I like apples" for expressing this meaning. That may be because "I like apples" emphasizes the quantitative aspect (i.e. repeated instances of the apple) more strongly.



It doesn't seem so from those two threads I linked in #7



Gavril said:


> With all due respect, I am not sure why you keep repeating these examples. I've already explained (post #27) how the examples with "the guitar" and "the rich" can be reconciled with the normal meaning of the definite article.



I appreciate your effort but I didn't get that interpretation of "definiteness", I'm sorry.


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> It doesn't seem so from those two threads I linked in #7



I looked at the threads, but I didn't see anything about "I like the apple" and similar sentences. The threads dealt with examples such as "I like apple", where "apple" is being regarded as an uncountable substance.

By contrast, in the sentence "I like the apple", we are talking about a countable item, and emphasizing (via the definite article) that this item is contextually established in some way.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> I lost my respect for oxford methods said when they started accepting and advocating eliminating the subjunctive. If I was her. It is important she is on time. I closed their books forever.


I am sorry to say that, but this is more your problem then theirs. Insisting on the subjunctive in British English (the language Oxford dictionaries describe) would mean playing Don Quixote. By doing so you would only demonstrate being out of touch with the reality of the language and nothing else.


Nino83 said:


> Ok, but this distinction between countable and uncountable, abstract and concrete nouns, and the use/non-use of the definite article is not related with the "previously mentioned" or with the "speficic object" rule in *every single case*, in English.


I guess it depends how you interpret "specific object". In the logic of Germanic languages when making assertions about the behaviour of each and every or the prototypical specimen of a class the object counts as definite. E.g. in Swedish that has an explicit definiteness marker independent of article words, _äpple_ is marked as definite: _Äpple*t* faller inte långt från trädet._


----------



## Nino83

berndf said:


> I guess it depends how you interpret "specific object". In the logic of Germanic languages when making assertions about the behaviour of each and every or the prototypical specimen of a class the object counts as definite.



If there are different interpretations of "specific object" it seems that it is even more difficult to make comparisons between Germanic and Romance languages.



Gavril said:


> By contrast, in the sentence "I like the apple", we are talking about a countable item, and emphasizing (via the definite article) that this item is contextually established in some way.



However, your sentence is a bit odd, unless you took a bite of both fruits and left the rest.
If you're not referring to specific pieces of fruit but simply _kinds_ of fruit, then it should be: I like apples and oranges.


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> If you're not referring to specific pieces of fruit but simply _kinds_ of fruit, then it should be: I like apples and oranges.



That is the most common option, yes. But it is also possible to say "I like the apple", if you want to emphasize apples as a type or class. The post you are linking to does not claim otherwise.



> However, your sentence is a bit odd, unless you took a bite of both fruits and left the rest.



Without further context, English speakers are probably more likely to interpret "the apple" as referring to a specific apple (rather than the apple as a type). That does not exclude other usages of "the", it just means that these usages are rarer.


----------



## berndf

Nino83 said:


> If there are different interpretations of "specific object" it seems that it is even more difficult to make comparisons between Germanic and Romance languages.


Probably. Germanic had already a fully developed concept of grammatical definiteness before the introduction of articles. This obviously had some repercussions on the use of articles. On the other hand, the Romance definite article probably developed during the migration period and I wonder if this development was due to Germanic influence.


----------



## Nino83

Gavril said:


> That does not exclude other usages of "the", it just means that these usages are rarer.



I don't want to dwell on _apples_, but if I write "I like the apple" and click on google image, it is full of "apple watches"

What interests me is if this is *Standard* English and if, in this case, the definite article denotes *definiteness*:
"What is your favourite food?"
"I like *the melon*".


----------



## Gavril

Nino83 said:


> What interests me is if this is *Standard* English and if, in this case, the definite article denotes *definiteness*:
> "What is your favourite food?"
> "I like *the melon*".



Yes, it is standard English, though it is less common than "I like melons" and carries a different tone.

And, yes, the article in this sentence denotes definiteness as I described it back in #27: "I like the melon" means, "I like that thing that I am *familiar* *with* called the melon".


----------



## Nino83

Thank you for the explanation.
It seems that there are different meanings/interpretations of "definiteness".
When, for example, in Italian, we say "mi piace *il melone*", we are speaking in general while , like my example in #27, when the noun was previously mentioned and we are referring to a *specific* melon, then the article indicate *definiteness*, for example: "Portami il melone che abbiamo comprato oggi"...some hour later "Hai portato *il* melone?" (the melon we bought today).

If I'd have to do a comparison, when the noun was not previously mentioned:

"mi piace *quel* melone" = "I like *that* melon" - specific object
"mi piace *il* melone" = "I like melon*s*" - indefinite object
"mi piace *il frutto chiamato* melone" = "I like *the* melon" - ?


----------



## Outsider

Interesting topic.

I doubt if there is a universal logic, or even a unique historical path, for the development of the definite article. My guess would be that English and the Romance languages simply took different routes in this matter. Even closely related languages sometimes use the definite article in significantly different ways, e.g. definite articles before proper nouns in English vs. German (_Charles vs. die Karl_), or definite articles before possessives in Portuguese and Italian versus Spanish and French (_mon ami vs. il mio amico_).

As a native speaker, I think I can come up with a rationale for the way we employ the definite article in the Romance languages. I doubt, though, that it will persuade everyone, especially speakers of other languages. (Or even myself: I tend to agree that usage is paramount, and any rationale will be ad hoc.) Anyway, here it is: The definite article always indicates definiteness, but one should not equate definite with specific (at least as far as the Romance languages are concerned). Take the noun 'man'. It may be definite because it refers to a specific man (or specific men) identified previously in the conversation, or because it refers to a particular but unidentified man (here I suppose the article acts somewhat as a demonstrative), or, more broadly, _whenever the identity of the man is implicit_ for the speaker and the adressee. As it happens, in the Romance languages, unless you specify or restrict the man you speak of in some external way (not with the article, but through other signs in the conversation or the context), it's assumed that you're speaking in general ('the' man = generic man, 'the' melon = generic melon, 'the' music = music in general).

But it's perhaps better to regard the generic 'null' article of English as a _further_ fine distinction absent from the Romance languages, though I don't know if the historical development of English would support this interpretation. It would be interesting to hear about other languages with definite articles...


----------



## francisgranada

Some examples in Hungarian, for comparison:

1. Reggel szeretek *almát *enni. - In the morning I like to eat *apples*.
No article, because here _almát _it's neither  a definite (known/before mentioned) apple nor a definite species/type of fruit, rather apple "in general".
No plural marker (_almát _is grammatically accusative singular), because the amount/quantity of apples is irrelevant (it can mean one or more apples, something like "qualche mela" in Italian)

2. Szeretem *az almát*. - I like (the) *apples*. 
Definite article _az_, because here _almát_ represents a definite/concrete species (type of fruit).
Singular for the same reason (< we don't speak about more types of fruit)

3. Megeszem *az almát*, amit vettem. - I eat *the apple*(*s*) I have bought. 
The "classical" usage of the definite article _az _(like in English, Spanish etc.). 

Note
In Hungarian the _singular _(or perhaps better: the unmarked form) is often used when the number/amount is not relevant or it is expressed in another way, etc. Thus, all the above examples could be put also in accusative plural (_almákat _instead of _almát_), if the plurality had to be expressed explicetly  for some reason.


----------

