# the xxx theory [proper name?]



## JungKim

When 'xxx theory' refers to a branch of a discipline, it normally doesn't require "the".
For example, _game theory, quantum theory, ring theory, bundle theory_, etc., but not _the game theory, the quantum theory, the ring theory, the bundle theory,_ etc.
Is 'xxx theory' a proper name?
If not, why it doesn't have 'the'?
If so, why it isn't capitalized?


----------



## Barque

JungKim said:


> Is 'xxx theory' a proper name?


No.


JungKim said:


> If not, why it doesn't have 'the'?


It doesn't need "the" when used uncountably (when it refers to the concept or idea).


----------



## Myridon

These things aren't individual theories like the theory of relativity.  They are fields of study.


----------



## JungKim

Barque said:


> It doesn't need "the" when used uncountably (when it refers to the concept or idea).


But when you refer to "game theory", for example, "the theory" instead of "theory" is used even though "theory" is used as a non-count noun.



Myridon said:


> These things aren't individual theories like the theory of relativity.  They are fields of study.


I think 'field' is synonymous with 'branch' and that 'study' with 'discipline'. So I think you're simply rewording my question, not answering it. Could you please elaborate?


----------



## Barque

JungKim said:


> But when you refer to "game theory", for example, "the theory" instead of "theory" is used even though "theory" is used as a non-count noun.


Please give us the sentence you're referring to. It's possible that you're referring to a follow-up statement, one made after "game theory" had been referred to as a concept.


----------



## JulianStuart

Holy water, brown bread, pack ice, constitutional law.  We don't typically put articles before uncountables, even if they have been preceded by a modifier.  Theories get the same treatment


----------



## JungKim

Barque said:


> It doesn't need "the" when used uncountably (when it refers to the concept or idea).





JulianStuart said:


> Holy water, brown bread, pack ice, constitutional law.  We don't typically put articles before uncountables, even if they have been preceded by a modifier.  Theories get the same treatment


I thought countability determined the use of "a" and plural, not the use of "the".
You can say _*the *holy water_, _*the* brown bread_, and _*the *pack ice_, but not _*the*_ _game theory _or_ *the *constitutional law_.
So where is the connection between countability and "the"?


----------



## Barque

JungKim said:


> but not _*the*_ _game theory _or_ *the *constitutional law_.


That's not correct. In some contexts, "the game theory" and "the constitutional law" might be possible.


----------



## JungKim

Barque said:


> That's not correct. In some contexts, "the game theory" and "the constitutional law" might be possible.


That's only more proof that there's less connection between countability and "the".


----------



## Barque

I'm not sure I've understood what you mean, but what's your point exactly?

Are you saying things like "game theory" and "quantum theory" _aren't _uncountable?


----------



## bennymix

Ring theory is connected to group theory.    Ice is made from water.   Insolence sometimes comes from insecurity.    Reason ought to be the slave of passion.

'the' may be added when there is specificity.   The ring theory of Noether is elegant.   The ice in the Ottawa river is frozen.   The insolence of Jack is disturbing.    The passion of Van Gogh was so intense as to be self-destructive.


----------



## JungKim

Barque said:


> I'm not sure I've understood what you mean, but what's your point exactly?
> 
> Are you saying things like "game theory" and "quantum theory" _aren't _uncountable?


No, I'm not. 

You and JS have brought up countabilty to explain why "xxx theory" normally doesn't take "the". And I have questioned why there should be any connection between countability and the use of "the", with some counterexamples. So what is it that you don't understand about my point?


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> Ring theory is connected to group theory.    Ice is made from water.   Insolence sometimes comes from insecurity.    Reason ought to be the slave of passion.
> 
> 'the' may be added when there is specificity.   The ring theory of Noether is elegant.   The ice in the Ottawa river is frozen.   The insolence of Jack is disturbing.    The passion of Van Gogh was intense.


Thanks for your examples.
So somehow, 'xxx theory' isn't a specific theory?


----------



## Barque

JungKim said:


> And I have questioned why there should be any connection between countability and the use of "the", with some counterexamples. So what is it that you don't understand about my point?


I didn't understand what you're trying to say. Now it seems you're saying there's no connection between countability and "the" because you found some "counterexamples". If those counterexamples show anything, it's only that there are exceptions. 

The theory of relativity is a single, specific theory. Game theory is more than that; it's an idea or field. It's like "physics" or "astronomy" or "voodoo".


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> Thanks for your examples.
> So somehow, 'xxx theory' isn't a specific theory?



Ring theory has specifics (defining characteristics), of course, e.g. two operations are defined and at least one is commutative, possibly two.    Ice has specific features in its crystal structure, and the molecule has the H2O formula.

But the features that distinguish {the items comprehended within} are not being considered.   The ring theory of Gauss may be more elaborate than the ring theory of Noether, and the ice of the west Canadian arctic may differ from that of the east Canadian arctic, in that the former is contaminated by the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima.


----------



## Nickle Sydney

Why do you want to use "the" before "xxx theory"?


----------



## JungKim

Nickle Sydney said:


> Why do you want to use "the" before "xxx theory"?


It's not so much that I want to use "the xxx theory" myself, as that I want to know why "the xxx theory" doesn't work when "xxx theory" denotes a branch of a discipline.


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> So somehow, 'xxx theory' isn't a specific theory?


No - at least not in the sense that you seem to understand "specific".

*The *is a demonstrative adjective that is related historically and grammatically with the demonstrative adjective "that".

*The *noun = the noun of which we are both aware/the noun that has been previously mentioned/the noun that I will now describe.

With a few exceptions, singular countable nouns require a determiner; plural countable nouns may take a determiner or not; uncountable nouns may or may not take a determiner but not a number.


----------



## JungKim

The explanation provided so far is that "xxx theory" lacks "the" because 'theory' in 'xxx theory' is a non-count noun. But without 'xxx', 'theory' cannot be a non-count noun except after some preposition such as "in".

_*Theory *suggests that...  
I agree with you *in theory*, but..._

Normally, adding a modifier to a count noun is not enough to make it a non-count noun.
_*Accident *will happen.
*Fatal accident* will happen.
*Traffic accident* will happen._

As in "in theory", _accident _can become a non-count noun after a preposition (_by_ this time)
_They met *by accident*. _

Note that 'xxx' in 'xxx theory' is not a determiner but a modifier, and that this modifier doesn't even have to be a noun (e.g., _game, quantum, ring, bundle,_ etc.) but it can be an adjective (e.g., _atomic, economic,_ etc.)

_*Atomic theory* suggests that...
*Economic theory* suggests that..._

So the question seems to be why 'theory', unlike other nouns, can be a non-count noun when combined with a modifier, and whether there are other count nouns that can be a non-count noun when combined with a modifier.


----------



## dojibear

JungKim said:


> The explanation provided so far is that "xxx theory" lacks "the" because 'theory' in 'xxx theory' is a non-count noun.



No, that is false. The noun "theory" can be countable or uncountable, depending on how it is used. What is *un*countable (in the explanation) is the 2-word *noun phrase* "game theory" with the meaning "a field of mathematical study and analysis".

In English a series of words, consisting of _a noun and all its modifiers (nouns, adjectives, delimiters)_, is called a "noun phrase". A noun phrase is used like a noun in sentence grammar. A noun phrase can be countable or uncountable.

There are many nouns that act like "theory" does. For example "dance" and "flower arrangement". Here are some sentences, using them in uncountable and countable *noun phrases*:

_At college my friend studied *modern dance*. (unc)
Judy was happy, and did *a little dance*. (c)
It's Saturday night. Are you going to *the dance*? (c)

Another friend of mine studied *flower arrangement*. (unc)
On the table was *a lovely flower arrangement*. (c)

My friend Tom, a math major, is studying *game theory* this semester. (unc)
Last week he told me he had *a new theory* about non-zero-sum strategies. (c)_


----------



## JungKim

dojibear said:


> JungKim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The explanation provided so far is that "xxx theory" lacks "the" because 'theory' in 'xxx theory' is a non-count noun.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is false. The noun "theory" can be countable or uncountable, depending on how it is used. What is countable (in the explanation) is the 2-word *noun phrase* "game theory" with the meaning "a field of mathematical study and analysis".
Click to expand...

Before I ask further, did you just say the NP _game theory_ is countable??


----------



## dojibear

Yikes! My mistake! Thanks for catching this mistake, JungKim!

(edit edit edit)


----------



## JungKim

dojibear said:


> JungKim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The explanation provided so far is that "xxx theory" lacks "the" because 'theory' in 'xxx theory' is a non-count noun.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is false. The noun "theory" can be countable or uncountable, depending on how it is used. What is *un*countable (in the explanation) is the 2-word *noun phrase* "game theory" with the meaning "a field of mathematical study and analysis".
Click to expand...

So are you saying that 'theory' in 'xxx theory' is a count noun when the whole 'xxx theory' thing is uncountable?


----------



## bennymix

'theory' behaves like 'coffee' or 'wine' JungKim.   Does that seem mysterious?


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> So are you saying that 'theory' in 'xxx theory' is a count noun when the whole 'xxx theory' thing is uncountable?


I'm not sure that is what dojibear is saying. There is a problem with the word "theory": It can either be the name of a theory:
Game theory - the name of a particular theory - originated by Von Neumann.
or
It is possible to have several game theories which may compete or address different aspects/situations. This would simply be a noun1 noun2 combination.

So we would have:
Professor: Today I will speak to you about Game Theory.
and
Team Manager: I have spoken to you all about tonight's match, and you have all come up with different theories as to why and how we won last week. We need to combine the best aspects of these game theories and formulate a proper plan.


bennymix said:


> 'theory' behaves like 'coffee' or 'wine'



I have two wines in my cellar that will interest you...
Wine is the drink of the gods.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> 'theory' behaves like 'coffee' or 'wine' JungKim.   Does that seem mysterious?


I disagree for the reasons set forth throughout this thread especially in post #19. If you'd like to claim that 'theory', a count noun by default, behaves like a prototypical mass noun such as 'coffee' or 'wine', you'd have to show me at least some proof as to why you think so.


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> There is a problem with the word "theory": It can either be the name of a theory:
> Game theory - the name of a particular theory - originated by Von Neumann.
> or
> It is possible to have several game theories which may compete or address different aspects/situations. This would simply be a noun1 noun2 combination.
> 
> So we would have:
> Professor: Today I will speak to you about Game Theory.
> and
> Team Manager: I have spoken to you all about tonight's match, and you have all come up with different theories as to why and how we won last week. We need to combine the best aspects of these game theories and formulate a proper plan.


This is more like going back to my original question whether 'xxx theory' is a proper name, and saying 'yes' to the question, contrary to the consensus (so far) that it's not a proper name.


PaulQ said:


> bennymix said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'theory' behaves like 'coffee' or 'wine' JungKim.   Does that seem mysterious?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have two wines in my cellar that will interest you...
> Wine is the drink of the gods.
Click to expand...

How could you agree with benny's line when you can't use 'theory' as subject (without any modifier)?


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> I'm not sure that is what dojibear is saying.


I have to disagree. I think (hope, maybe) he's on to something.


----------



## bennymix

JK: // I disagree for the reasons set forth throughout this thread especially in post #19. If you'd like to claim that 'theory', a count noun by default, behaves like a prototypical mass nouns such as 'coffee' or 'wine', you'd have to show me at least some proof as to why you think so. //

Your claims in post #19 are sometimes opaque.   So I'll take one obvious and clear one in [xxx]:

JK:   {So the question seems to be why} ['theory', unlike other nouns {red by benny}, can be a non-count noun when combined with a modifier,]

This claim is untrue.

I don't "have to" supply proof to you, since I am a native speaker.   I will give you one counterexample:

"Colombian coffee is noted for its flavor"


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> I don't "have to" supply proof to you, since I am a native speaker.   I will give you one counterexample:
> 
> "Colombian coffee is noted for its flavor"


How could that be a counterexample when 'coffee', unlike 'theory', cannot be subject without a modifier?
Coffee is noted for its flavor. 
Game theory is noted for its logic. 
Theory is noted for its logic.


----------



## MattiasNYC

JungKim said:


> I disagree for the reasons set forth throughout this thread especially in post #19. If you'd like to claim that 'theory', a count noun by default, behaves like a prototypical mass noun such as 'coffee' or 'wine', you'd have to show me at least some proof as to why you think so.



Dojibear actually put the finger on what I think you are missing, right after that post of yours:



dojibear said:


> The noun "theory" can be countable or uncountable, depending on how it is used. What is *un*countable (in the explanation) is the 2-word *noun phrase* "game theory" with the meaning "a field of mathematical study and analysis".



I feel that you are viewing "theory" as always an individual noun, just with a modifier, when in fact it is here instead a _phrase, specifically a noun phrase_. That appears to be the difference here.

"Game theory" isn't the same thing as "hot tea". "Hot" modifies "tea" and we think of _this_ tea as now having the property of being "hot", but the same isn't really the case for "game theory". 

Really what needs to happen to understand what is correct is to first understand what we intend to say. If we don't know that then we don't know how to use "theory". As Doji writes its meaning depends on how it's used, and we decide how to use it depending on what we mean to say.


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> How could that be a counterexample when 'coffee', unlike 'theory', cannot be subject without a modifier?
> Coffee is noted for its flavor.
> Game theory is noted for its logic.
> Theory is noted for its logic.




podtail.com › Podcasts › Stoic Meditations
*Theory is fine, but useless if you don't practice – Stoic ... - Podtail*
*=========================== *
books.google.ca › books

*God and Human Suffering: An Exercise in the Theology of the ...*

Douglas John Hall - Religion
... Charcot, a 19th-century French physician: "La theorie c'est bon, mais ça n'empeche pas d'exister" (_Theory is fine, but_ it doesn't prevent things from existing).
=======================


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> This is more like going back to my original question whether 'xxx theory' is a proper name, and saying 'yes' to the question, contrary to the consensus that it's not a proper name.


I posted because I noted that after 25 posts, you were still unclear. To remind ourselves:


JungKim said:


> When 'xxx theory' refers to a branch of a discipline, it normally doesn't require "the".
> For example, _game theory, quantum theory, ring theory, bundle theory_, etc., but not _the game theory, the quantum theory, the ring theory, the bundle theory,_ etc.
> Is 'xxx theory' a proper name?
> If not, why it doesn't have 'the'?
> If so, why it isn't capitalized?


1.





> Is 'xxx theory' a proper name?


Names are capitalised - John, the Taj Mahal, London, etc. These are chiefly uncountable. But there are also words that are close to names but that are not capitalised - goldfish, banana, eagle - and are countable. 

2.





> why it doesn't have 'the'?


The presence of "the" makes (i) no difference as to whether a noun is countable or not or (ii) indeed if it is a proper noun or not. It is the context that determines the use of "the."

"The game theory was developed by Von Neumann." 
"Game theory relates to strategies."
In 1. game theory is an identifier, and "*the*" indicates that "game theory" is known to the audience or will be introduced to them. Additionally "game" is an identifier that separates this theory from all others.

The sentence could be "The banana was Von Neumann's favourite dessert." We would not expect "banana" to be capitalised.

In 2. "game theory" is simple noun phrase functioning similarly to goldfish, banana, eagle. 
The sentence could be "Warm banana was Von Neumann's favourite dessert."




> Is 'xxx theory' a proper name? ... If so, why it isn't capitalized?


Names are capitalised. This is generally because they are unique identifiers and the capitalisation is a mark of respect. The history of capitalisation is rather complex and haphazard but, in broad terms, has settled down to the tangible and/or unique. Game theory is not tangible.

As "theory" is both countable and uncountable, it is not unreasonable to think that "game theory" is both countable and uncountable. Countable especially where theories on specific topics persist.


----------



## JungKim

MattiasNYC said:


> I feel that you are viewing "theory" as always an individual noun, just with a modifier, when in fact it is here instead a _phrase, specifically a noun phrase_. That appears to be the difference here.
> 
> "Game theory" isn't the same thing as "hot tea". "Hot" modifies "tea" and we think of _this_ tea as now having the property of being "hot", but the same isn't really the case for "game theory".
> 
> Really what needs to happen to understand what is correct is to first understand what we intend to say. If we don't know that then we don't know how to use "theory". As Doji writes its meaning depends on how it's used, and we decide how to use it depending on what we mean to say.


I do see where you and Dojibear are coming from. What I take issue with you and Dojibear, however, is that using the concept of an NP as an explanation of this peculiarity, if you will, of 'xxx theory' and the like. That's because "hot tea" is a prototypical NP. 
So 'xxx theory' must be something other than a prototypical NP. I don't know what to call them, but simply calling them an NP is just not enough. In fact, calling 'xxx theory' an NP might even fly in the face of analyzing it differently from a prototypical NP such as 'hot tea', because if 'xxx theory' were an NP, 'xxx' and 'theory' would be a modifier and a head, respectively, which you said they aren't.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> podtail.com › Podcasts › Stoic Meditations
> *Theory is fine, but useless if you don't practice – Stoic ... - Podtail*
> *=========================== *
> books.google.ca › books
> *God and Human Suffering: An Exercise in the Theology of the ...*
> 
> Douglas John Hall - Religion
> ... Charcot, a 19th-century French physician: "La theorie c'est bon, mais ça n'empeche pas d'exister" (_Theory is fine, but_ it doesn't prevent things from existing).
> =======================


Thanks for that example, which sounds perfectly natural even to my ear.
In fact, using 'a theory' or 'the theory' in your example would sound wrong or convey a different meaning.
That said, I still don't agree that 'theory' behaves like 'coffee' or 'wine'.
Because all the grammar textbooks and dictionaries out there classify 'coffee' and 'wine' as prototypical non-count nouns, but they don't classify 'theory' as one. If anything, the noun 'theory' is predominantly classified as a count noun except when used with a modifier.


----------



## MattiasNYC

JungKim said:


> I do see where you and Dojibear are coming from. What I take issue with you and Dojibear, however, is that using the concept of an NP as an explanation of this peculiarity, if you will, of 'xxx theory' and the like. That's because "hot tea" is a prototypical NP.
> So 'xxx theory' must be something other than a prototypical NP. I don't know what to call them, but simply calling them an NP is just not enough. In fact, calling 'xxx theory' an NP might even fly in the face of analyzing it differently from a prototypical NP such as 'hot tea', because if 'xxx theory' were an NP, 'xxx' and 'theory' would be a modifier and a head, respectively, which you said they aren't.



You misunderstand me. But I shouldn't really say more on this. I'll let the natives reiterate if they feel the need to. Hopefully they can explain it differently so you understand. I for one understand what they mean and agree 100%.


----------



## JungKim

MattiasNYC said:


> You misunderstand me. But I shouldn't really say more on this.


If you think I misunderstand you, I think you should at least explain why you think so.


MattiasNYC said:


> I'll let the natives reiterate if they feel the need to. Hopefully they can explain it differently so you understand. I for one understand what they mean and agree 100%.


I don't know who you mean by 'the natives' other than Dojibear, because the other native speakers here are not saying the same thing as you and Dojibear.


----------



## MattiasNYC

I actually don't think we (me and the people with English as a first language as opposed to just decades of it) disagree with each other. I think you are misunderstanding us. You might see it if you read the thread again. I don't think I can explain things any better than the others so that's why I should probably keep quiet.


----------



## JungKim

MattiasNYC said:


> I actually don't think we (me and the people with English as a first language as opposed to just decades of it) disagree with each other. I think you are misunderstanding us. You might see it if you read the thread again. I don't think I can explain things any better than the others so that's why I should probably keep quiet.


My question is not about the usage of 'xxx theory'. It is about how to go about logically explain the usage. 

Native speakers can disagree on usage (e.g., AE vs. BE) in some cases, although they largely agree. But it's wrong to assume that native speakers, even educated ones, will agree on how to explain usage. 

Even those native speaker who are specifically educated in grammar, i.e., grammarians, do not always agree with each other as to how to explain usage. Even The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (by pullum, 2002) and Oxford Modern English Grammar (by Aarts, 2011) don't always agree with each other.

So when you say that native speakers here don't disagree with one another, I think you mean that they agree on usage itself, which unfortunately is not what I'm asking.


----------



## JulianStuart

JungKim said:


> So when you say that native speakers here don't disagree with one another, I think you mean that they agree on usage itself, which unfortunately is not what I'm asking.


Are you asking "Why is the language like this?"


----------



## JungKim

JulianStuart said:


> Are you asking "Why is the language like this?"


What I'm asking is how I can logically explain the usage.


JungKim said:


> It is about how to go about logically explain the usage.


----------



## JulianStuart

JungKim said:


> What I'm asking is how I can logically explain the usage.


Exactly - What is the logic behind this? = Why is it this way? People don't get together and say "Let's use it this way because of this set of logical reasons", they just say it.


----------



## PaulQ

JulianStuart said:


> they just say it.


...and leave grammarians and linguists to give a credible explanation...


----------



## MattiasNYC

JungKim said:


> So when you say that native speakers here don't disagree with one another, I think you mean that they agree on usage itself, which unfortunately is not what I'm asking.



I just don't see the disagreement you say you see.


----------



## bennymix

JK post #19:  But without 'xxx', 'theory' cannot be a non-count noun except after some preposition such as "in". 

You claim that 'theory'  unlike 'xxx theory, cannot be a non-count noun except....   This is incorrect.

JK post #30:  How could that be a counterexample when 'coffee', unlike 'theory', cannot be subject without a modifier? 

You claim that 'theory' cannot be a subject without a modifier.  This is incorrect.

Jung Kim, here's another example for your collection:


*(PDF) Social Work Theory and Application to Practice: The Students' Perspectives
Social Work Theory and Application to Practice*

Thyer (1994) argues that it is a waste of time for social work educators to teach theory for practice because they do not do a good job of teaching theory. He espouses that most theories in social work are taught incorrectly, and are invalid, which may lead to ineffective methods (Thyer, 1994). In contrast, Simon (1994) insists that it is crucial for social work practitioners to learn theoretical knowledge because theory can serve as an anchoring frame and a conceptual screen for case assessment, causal explanation, intervention planning, and outcome evaluation.

----
to JK:  As to the question 'why', which you assert has not been addressed:  "Theory" is sometimes a non-count noun.   That label is applied where the usage does not allow 'a' or numbers.  That would apply when the noun is unmodified, in subject position.   The fact is a pattern of usage;  this explains the label.


----------



## kentix

I would compare it to physics. Game theory is a branch of knowledge, like physics. Rename it "gameology" and all your questions disappear. The concept covered is exactly the same. It's just a title for a field. ("A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.") We don't call it "the physics" and we don't consider it a proper noun. Gameology wouldn't be either. You could rename physics "matter theory" or maybe "energy theory" and the field wouldn't change. It's not a specific theory or a type of theory, it's a label for an entire area of intellectual inquiry _about_ a specific topic.

Of course, it's conventional to call it game theory not gameology. _My guess_ is there was originally one specific game theory that was supplemented by more and more until the name morphed from being a more specific reference to a reference to a whole body of interrelated ideas. Things don't have to follow grammar rules when there is consensus that they are labels to represent a general idea.

-logy
_combining form_
suffix: *-logy*; suffix: *-ology*

1.
denoting a subject of study or interest.
"psychology"

In "<x> theory", "theory" is simply fulfilling the same role played by -logy in biology. My guess is -ology is a bit old-fashioned and theory used this way is a trend. But it needs to be treated as a label, and not as individual words - just as physics and biology are treated as labels for a field.


----------



## JungKim

kentix said:


> I would compare it to physics. Game theory is a branch of knowledge, like physics. Rename it "gameology" and all your questions disappear.


Indeed.  



kentix said:


> In "<x> theory", "theory" is simply fulfilling the same role played by -logy in biology. My guess is -ology is a bit old-fashioned and theory used this way is a trend. But it needs to be treated as a label, and not as individual words - just as physics and biology are treated as labels for a field.


Then, do you think that "<x> theory" is a compound noun such as "ice cream", "French fry", "cell phone"?


----------



## Forero

"Theory" and "procedure" can of course be noncount nouns without modifiers:

_In this course, we concentrate on theory rather than procedure or applications._

There are several definitions for "theory" in Merriam Webster, some of them for count uses and some for noncount uses of the same word.


----------



## bennymix

Forero said:


> "Theory" and "procedure" can of course be noncount nouns without modifiers:
> 
> _In this course, we concentrate on theory rather than procedure or applications._
> 
> There are several definitions for "theory" in Merriam Webster, some of them for count uses and some for noncount uses of the same word.



Since JK seems to wish to stress prepositions and subject position,  I've taken the liberty of revising your sentence to suit (and hence be a counterexample for) his claims.

F*: In this course, theory is what we study, rather than procedure and applications.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> Since JK seems to wish to stress prepositions and subject position,  I've taken the liberty of revising your sentence to suit (and hence be a counterexample for) his claims.
> 
> F*: In this course, theory is what we study, rather than procedure and applications.


In post #35, I've already acknowledged that "theory" alone can be subject of a sentence.


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> In post #35, I've already acknowledged that "theory" alone can be subject of a sentence.



Sorry, I was remembering your post #30

//Colombian coffee is noted for its flavor"    {Benny's example}    

JK:   How could that be a counterexample when 'coffee', unlike 'theory', cannot be subject without a modifier?
Coffee is noted for its flavor. 
Game theory is noted for its logic. 
Theory is noted for its logic.  {X}//

==
So it's agreed that both 'theory' and the phrase 'game theory' can be in subject position, without 'a' ;  i.e. a typical characteristic of uncountable nouns (when so employed).    And this doesn't stop them, so to say, from being countable nouns in the same position, when appropriate (and with 'the').


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> So it's agreed that both 'theory' and the phrase 'game theory' can be in subject position, without 'a' ;  i.e. a typical characteristic of uncountable nouns (when so employed).    And this doesn't stop them, so to say, from being countable nouns in the same position, when appropriate (and with 'the').


I also would like to be able to treat 'theory' just like 'coffee', as you so readily would, because I've always been a fan of Occam's razor. But I can't, for the reason stated in the same post (post #35):


JungKim said:


> ...I still don't agree that 'theory' behaves like 'coffee' or 'wine'.
> Because all the grammar textbooks and dictionaries out there classify 'coffee' and 'wine' as prototypical non-count nouns, but they don't classify 'theory' as one. If anything, the noun 'theory' is predominantly classified as a count noun except when used with a modifier.


This different treatment of 'theory' and 'coffee'/'wine' by grammars and dictionaries is also confirmed in this Ngram.


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> I also would like to be able to treat 'theory' just like 'coffee', as you so readily would, because I've always been a fan of Occam's razor. But I can't, for the reason stated in the same post (post #35):
> 
> This different treatment of 'theory' and 'coffee'/'wine' by grammars and dictionaries is also confirmed in this Ngram.



Thanks for the graphs!    If I may summarize, very roughly.   1) For 'a theory' vs. theory, the former {count} is twice as often.  For 'a wine' vs. wine, the LATTER {non-count} is twice as often.

2)  it's to be noted that the uncountable 'theory' {no 'a') is hardly rare; it occurs at twice the rate of ''wine" .


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> 2)  it's to be noted that the uncountable 'theory' {no 'a') is hardly rare; it occurs at twice the rate of ''wine" .


This thread is not about whether the non-count 'theory' is rare or not. It's about whether 'theory' is a prototypical non-count noun, which it isn't. 

Now, as for the issue of whether the non-count 'theory' is rare or not, which is irrelevant in this thread, comparing the rate of 'Theory is' with that of 'Wine is' does not tell us anything about how rare it is, because you're comparing apples and oranges. I'd say 'Theory is' is not "rare" because it's as much as half the rate of 'A theory is+The theory is'. It's not like it's less than one-tenth the rate of 'A theory is+The theory is', in which case I'd say it's "rare".


----------



## Forero

JungKim said:


> This thread is not about whether the non-count 'theory' is rare or not. It's about whether 'theory' is a prototypical non-count noun, which it isn't.


How do you determine such a thing?

"Theory" was originally an abstract noncount noun (in English, French, Latin, and Greek). Currently "theory" still has the Greek abstract meaning along with other meanings, count and noncount, that it has acquired over the centuries.

Was is not prototypical about noncount "theory"?


----------



## TheMahiMahi

JungKim said:


> This thread is not about whether the non-count 'theory' is rare or not. It's about whether 'theory' is a prototypical non-count noun, which it isn't.


What is the point of this? This conversation has become incredibly pedantic and frankly this thread is about*:*

Is 'xxx theory' a proper name? *No*
If not, why it doesn't have 'the'? *Fields of study are uncountable and therefore don't require an article*
If so, why it isn't capitalized? *Fields of study are not proper nouns and therefore not capitalized*

Like it or not, the word "theory" is both countable and uncountable as a noun and can be used wherever you would normally use one, or "protypically" as you say. Whether or not it makes sense to you in those contexts is irrelevant, it _can be _and _is _frequently used in an uncountable form that means "the principles on which a particular subject is based."


----------



## JungKim

Forero said:


> How do you determine such a thing?


By the current usage of the word (as summarized in contemporary dictionaries and grammars of English and as shown in corpora search such as Ngram). But never by etymology, as you seem to suggest.

A prototypical non-count noun _furniture_ derives from French:


> 1520s, "act of supplying or providing," from Middle French _fourniture _"a supply; act of furnishing," from Old French _forneture _(13c.), from _fornir _"to furnish" (see furnish). Sense of "chairs, tables, etc.; household stuff; movables required or ornamental in a dwelling-place" (1570s) is unique to English; most other European languages derive their words for this from Latin _mobile _"movable." (etymonline.com)


But the Middle French _fourniture_ seems to have been a count-noun from its meaning of "a supply; act of furnishing".

Moreover, CGEL says (Page 338):


> In English, for example, _furniture _is a non-count singular noun... In French, the treatment is the reverse: _meubles _“furniture” is plural...





Forero said:


> Was is not prototypical about noncount "theory"?


*What* is not prototypical about noncount "theory"?
Because no grammar or dictionary says so.


----------



## JungKim

TheMahiMahi said:


> Like it or not, the word "theory" is both countable and uncountable as a noun and can be used wherever you would normally use one, or "protypically" as you say. Whether or not it makes sense to you in those contexts is irrelevant, it _can be _and _is _frequently used in an uncountable form that means "the principles on which a particular subject is based."


I agree that the word "theory" is both countable and uncountable, which literally means that it is not a prototypical non-count noun such as _coffee_ or _wine_.


----------



## JungKim

TheMahiMahi said:


> Is 'xxx theory' a proper name? *No*
> If not, why it doesn't have 'the'? *Fields of study are uncountable and therefore don't require an article*
> If so, why it isn't capitalized? *Fields of study are not proper nouns and therefore not capitalized*


Yeah, they're the questions. But the answers are incorrect. Please re-read the whole thread, if you haven't.
Like I said many times in the thread, countability has nothing to do with requiring the definite article, which is the very reason for the thread. When you say, "the information", "information" is accompanied by the definite article not because it's a count noun, which it isn't.


----------



## Cagey

The people who have contributed to this thread have done their best to explain how the grammar works. 
Their efforts will be helpful to people who consult the thread in the future.  

Enough time has been spent on the original question.  This thread is closed. 

Thank you to everyone who contributed to it. 

Cagey, 
moderator


----------

