# the box of <the> chocolate cookies



## piter00

Let's imagine the following situation: there is a table in a room, and two boxes of cookies on the table: one with chocolate cookies and the other with raisins cookies; should I say to a person in this room "give me the box of chocolate cookies" or "give me the box of the chocolate cookies"? For me the first one is correct. As I have found out, there is a difference between a phrase like "the leader of the group" and a phrase like "the set of real numbers" - in the first one we have a possessive form and in the second a genitive form, and as I read in wikipedia: 

"the possessive is a subset of genitive"

and 

"For example, the genitive form "speed of the car" is equivalent to the possessive form "the car's speed". However, the genitive form "pack of dogs" is not the same as the possessive form "dogs' pack" (though it is the same as "dog pack", which is not possessive)."​Is this the source of the problem? Are there any situations when we can say "the box of the chocolate cookies" in my scenario?


----------



## dojibear

"the box of chocolate cookies" is correct. "the box of the chocolate cookies" is incorrect.

We can't say "*the* chocolate cookies" because it is not a specific set of chocolate cookies.


----------



## piter00

dojibear said:


> We can't say "*the* chocolate cookies" because it is not a specific set of chocolate cookies.


How it is not specific? In the room there are no other chocolate cookies, and the speaker and the hearer know this.


----------



## velisarius

When we talk about containers and their contents, we use  "a (container) of (substance)":

_A jar of jam
A box of chocolates
A crate of aranges
A vase of flowers
_
Your example of "the box of the cookies" is odd , but it might suggest to me that you were asking for just the box, without its contents.

To distinguish between two diferent types: give me the box *with* the chocolate chip cookies, not the other one.


----------



## piter00

velisarius said:


> When we talk about containers and their contents, we use "a (container) of (substance)":


How about examples like "the set of real numbers" or "the set of monotonically increasing functions"? I think the word "substance" limits all possibilities.
And finally how about the following example?
the set of (the) books that you bought last year​Here we use a relative clause to indicate specific books. Should we still say "the set of books that you bought last year" despite the indication?


----------



## RM1(SS)

You bought a set of books.  It is the set of books you bought.


----------



## piter00

@RM1(SS) How about "You bought books. It is the set of the books you bought"?


----------



## suzi br

piter00 said:


> How it is not specific? In the room there are no other chocolate cookies, and the speaker and the hearer know this.



The specific bit “in the room” is the BOX. 
The specific bit between the two boxes is chocolate or raisin contents. 

Pass me the box of chocolate cookies. 

In your next scenario, You would not usually have any reason to say “the set of the books”. 

It might be possible to imagine a specific context where it MIGHT be used, but the example dialogue you have created here just sounds odd. I can’t imagine what the speaker is trying to establish.


----------



## piter00

suzi br said:


> In your next scenario, You would not usually have any reason to say “the set of the books”.


Not "the set of the books", but "the set of the books you bought last year" ("You bought books. It is the set of the books you bought")


suzi br said:


> The specific bit “in the room” is the BOX.
> The specific bit between the two boxes is chocolate or raisin contents.


Why it can't be a specific box with specific contents?


----------



## RM1(SS)

piter00 said:


> @RM1(SS) How about "You bought books. It is the set of the books you bought"?





piter00 said:


> Not "the set of the books", but "the set of the books you bought last year" ("You bought books. It is the set of the books you bought")


No.  Definitely not.


----------



## piter00

@RM1(SS) Any reasoning?


----------



## PaulQ

piter00 said:


> As I have found out, there is a difference between a phrase like "the leader of the group" and a phrase like "the set of real numbers" - in the first one we have a possessive form and in the second a genitive form,


They are the same.
The preposition "of" is *not *actually one of possession, it is one of *association*.

[of + noun/noun phrase] = modifier
In "the leader [of the group]" and "the set [of real numbers]", [of the group] and [of real numbers] is the equivalent of "the leader *associated with* the group]" and "the set *associated with* real numbers]"

The genitive 's' implies possession (but not necessarily ownership).

The theory is that only humans (and legal entities) can "possess" stuff and therefore "*The thing of the *thing", but "the *man's (company's*) thing."

This is not straight forward and there are many common exceptions.

The other point is that adjectives and adjectival phrases operate in different ways, thus whereas "*man's" *is a determiner and operates as an adjective*, of the thing *is an adjectival phrase and operates differently. Sometimes they give the same result, sometimes they don't.


----------



## piter00

@PaulQ Thank you for your comments about the of phrase, but I don't see how it clarifies my main problem.

I will modify my scenario a bit. Let's assume that the chocolate cookies have been given to me by my friend recently, I have put them into a different box. And the rest of the example is the same (the raisins cookies are still in the room). Can I say to the friend "give me the box of the chocolate cookies that you have given me" or should I still say "give me the box of chocolate cookies that you have given me"? I can't understand how this is different from the sentence "give me the box with the chocolate cookies that you have given me" where I can use a definite article.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

We would not use 'the' in any of the examples you have presented us with.
'That you gave me' further defines which chocolate cookies we are talking about.

If you leave out 'the box' then you can talk about 'the chocolate cookies'. The box is sufficient identification.
Now, let's say there are two sorts of chocolate cookies, one home-made and the other shop-bought. There are only two boxes, and let's further assume that instead of simply saying "Please give me the home-made cookies", you also want to specify which box, for some bizarre reason:

"Please give me the box with the home-made cookies in."


----------



## VicNicSor

Hermione Golightly said:


> Now, let's say there are two sorts of chocolate cookies, one home-made and the other shop-bought. There are only two boxes, and let's further assume that instead of simply saying "Please give me the home-made cookies", you also want to specify which box, for some bizarre reason:
> 
> "Please give me the box with the home-made cookies in."


What if there was several boxes of one sort and several of the other. Would we then have to say "Please give me *a* box with Ø home-made cookies in."?


----------



## piter00

@Hermione Golightly It seems to me that the of phrase makes the container and the contents inseparable somehow, and that's the difference between the "with" word which treats them separately. Am I right?


----------



## PaulQ

piter00 said:


> Can I say to the friend "give me the box of the chocolate cookies that you have given me"


Yes.
*The *is a demonstrative adjective (as well as a determiner). Historically, it is closely related to "that/those" The sentence would be more recognizable as
"Give me the box of those chocolate cookies that you have given me1." *The *modifies its noun by adding the meaning of "of which we are aware"


> or should I still say "give me the box of chocolate cookies that you gave me"?


Yes.

(There's a degree of awkwardness in your examples: I would see them as more naturally spoken as
"Give me the box of [the] chocolate cookies you gave me.")

There is another difference between
of *the *chocolate cookies
and
of chocolate cookies
caused by another, weaker, modification given by "the": *The *modifies its noun by adding the meaning of "specifically". This would distinguish the chocolate cookies from, for example, the creme cookies or the ginger cookies.

So in "Give me the box of chocolate cookies that you have given me", "the" would usually be omitted as its function has been performed and it is otiose.

You do not need to distinguish which *"chocolate* cookies *that you gave me*" with "*the*", as *chocolate *and *that you gave me both *specify.


1There's a degree of awkwardness in your examples: I would see them as more naturally spoken as
"Give me the chocolate cookies." There are only two boxes and he is not going to give you the cookies one by one.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

The goal posts keep  changing. In the new scenario, I'd say 
"I'd like some/the/(zero) chocolate-chip cookies, please".
They are _all_ in boxes so there's no need to ask for 'a/the box of'.
If I were American, I think I might say "I'll _take_ the chocolate-chip cookies, please".
All you need is one item specified by 'the', I think.


----------



## piter00

PaulQ said:


> So in "Give me the box of chocolate cookies that you have given me", "the" would usually be omitted as its function has been performed and it is otiose.


But outside the of phrase I should use "the". So it's not only this specific function of "the" that allows us to ommit "the". As I have written above, it seems to me that the of phrase makes the container and the contents inseparable somehow, and that's the difference between the "with" word which treats them separately.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

I can't keep track so please give sentence examples of your theses. For example, how does the "_with_ word" fit in to the OP?
We don't talk about a box/bag _'with _cookies'.



> ...it seems to me that the of phrase makes the container and the contents inseparable somehow, ...



That might seem so, if we say "I'd like a box of chocolate cookies", but we are, or were, talking about '*the box *of chocolate cookies'. Using 'the' has at least one implication. To me, the implication is that there is only one box. There might be bags of them too or perhaps they can be bought 'loose', singly.
There has to be some contextual reason for using 'of the/some/zero cookies' in a phrase starting with either definite or indefinite articled 'container', such as 'the/a bag of/box of the/some/zero cookies.
Please give us a very detailed context.


----------



## JulianStuart

piter00 said:


> It seems to me that the of phrase makes the container and the contents inseparable somehow, and that's the difference between the "with" word which treats them separately. Am I right?


Well if the items were not in the container, we wouldn't think of them as contents - so, yeah, the container and contents are inextricably linked that way.  Hence the phrase "{container} of {contents}". It's the same structure as:  A can of beer.  A piece of fabric. A slice of cheese.  If you wish to specify the nature of the word after of, you may : A can of the beer you ordered yesterday.  A slice of the blue cheese.  A piece of the red fabric.
In "the box of the chocolate cookies" the chocolate cookies have been mentioned before in the context and are specified to distinguish from the boxes of other cookies(or other items available in boxes).


----------



## piter00

I'm confused a bit. Some of you are writing that my sentences are fine, and others that they are unacceptable. I'm thinking to myself that some native speakers treat "the box of the/zero chocolate cookies" as a whole and further specification (e.g "that you gave me") is about this whole (even when the grammar indicates that the specification is about the second part - "the box of cookies which are.."), while I treat "the box" and "the chocolate cookies" separately.


----------



## JulianStuart

piter00 said:


> I'm confused a bit. Some of you are writing that my sentences are fine, and others that they are unacceptable. I'm thinking to myself that some native speakers treat "the box of the/zero chocolate cookies" as a whole and further specification (e.g "that you gave me") is about this whole (even when the grammar indicates that the specification is about the second part - "the box of cookies which are.."), while I treat "the box" and "the chocolate cookies" separately.


See how much influence context has   Have any cookies/chocolates been mentoned before? That has a big influence on the sentences/phrases that follow.  In any case, there seem to be too many sentences under discussion to get clarity unless you focus the discussion by reformulating a specific question .


----------



## piter00

@JulianStuart

1. Let's imagine the following situation: there is a table in a room, and two boxes of cookies on the table: one with chocolate cookies and the other with raisins cookies; should I say to a person in this room "give me the box of chocolate cookies" or "give me the box of the chocolate cookies"?

2. I will modify my scenario a bit. Let's assume that the chocolate cookies have been given to me by my friend recently, I have put them into a different box. And the rest of the example is the same (the raisins cookies are still in the room). Can I say to the friend "give me the box of the chocolate cookies that you gave me" or should I still say "give me the box of chocolate cookies that you gave me"?


----------



## PaulQ

"give me the box of chocolate cookies" -> you get the box with the biscuits in it
or 
"give me the box of the chocolate cookies" -> you get a box but no biscuits.


----------



## PaulQ

piter00 said:


> 2. I will modify my scenario a bit. Let's assume that the chocolate cookies have been given to me by my friend recently, I have put them into a different box. And the rest of the example is the same (the raisins cookies are still in the room). Can I say to the friend "give me the box of the chocolate cookies that you gave me"


It is not particularly idiomatic, but you are asking for the box alone - no biscuits. 





> or should I still say "give me the box of chocolate cookies that you gave me"?


To which the answer will be - "That is no longer logically possible."


----------



## RM1(SS)

piter00 said:


> @RM1(SS) Any reasoning?


The one rule that overrides *all* other rules you have learned, or will learn: We don't say it that way.


----------



## piter00

PaulQ said:


> It is not particularly idiomatic, but you are asking for the box alone - no biscuits.


Would it be the same for "give me the box of *those* chocolate cookies that you gave me"?
And would it be the same for "give me *a* box of *the* chocolate cookies that you gave me" if there were more such boxes?


----------



## piter00

PaulQ said:


> To which the answer will be - "That is no longer logically possible."


How that is no longer logically possible? I am not talking about the box, but about the cookies (he gave me the cookies, not the box) which I put into the box, and now we are sitting in the room with the box.


----------



## PaulQ

piter00 said:


> I am not talking about the box,


Yes you are. If you wanted just the biscuits in the box, you'd say "Pass me the chocolate biscuits", and your friend would pass you the box containing the chocolate biscuits regardless of which one it was.

I can't speak for AE or Polish, but in BE, when someone says "Pass me the chocolate biscuits", we pass all of them including any container.

The box of the chocolate biscuits is just that... a box. "Oo look! The box of the chocolate biscuits says that they have garlic in them."

A box of chocolate biscuits is expected to contain chocolate biscuits.

If the chocolate biscuits have been taken out of the original box, that original box becomes "the box that the chocolate biscuits came in." or "the box of the chocolate biscuits."

If the chocolate biscuits have been taken out of the original box, and put in another box, that latter box becomes "The box with the chocolate biscuits in [it]."

If you have just bought the chocolate biscuits and they are in the manufacturer's box, BUT you have a particular box into which you always put chocolate biscuits and no other biscuits, then "Put the biscuits into the box" or "Put the biscuits into my chocolate biscuit box."

If you have taken out the raisin biscuits from the manufacturer's box and put them in the dog, and then you put the chocolate biscuits into the box that contained the raisin biscuits, then the box that the raisin biscuits came in becomes "the box that the chocolate biscuits are in" (There is no point confusing matters by adding "raisin biscuits" to the sentence.)



piter00 said:


> Would it be the same for "give me the box of *those* chocolate cookies that you gave me"?


Technically, and you are being technical, "Yes." You get the box not the biscuits.


piter00 said:


> "Give me *a* box of *the* chocolate cookies that you gave me"


No, "a" would be understood as "another". The reason for this is that "a/an" qualifies its noun with the meaning of "one example of one", and when you ask someone to give you something, they realise they cannot give you something that you already have, and so they have to give you another example. 

If you said "Pass me *a* box of *the* chocolate cookies that you gave me" The we would assume that you had been given multiple boxes of chocolate biscuits."


----------



## PaulQ

Please read #12.


----------



## piter00

@PaulQ I have read, I am not talking about possession.


----------



## PaulQ

And neither does the first part of #12. "Of" speaks of "association" and can be locative.


----------



## piter00

The genitive form in Polish also speaks of "association" and yet there is no problem to say "the box of those cookies" when we think about a box with its contents, not just an empty box.


----------



## sdgraham

piter00 said:


> The genitive form in Polish also speaks of "association" and yet there is no problem to say "the box of those cookies" when we think about a box with its contents, not just an empty box.


Attempts to force English into a learner's native language sntax lead only to confusion, in addition to being irrelevant.


----------



## JulianStuart

(As far as this forum and discussion go, what happens in Polish stays in Polish - it's not relevant and does not carry any weight in logic about English)


----------



## winds2clouds

I was taught that I can treat “box of chocolates” as a noun. That noun simply means a box containing chocolates. “Of” in this phrase doesn’t mean possession. Its function is just to join two word “box” and “chocolates” to make a noun.
However, “of” in “the box of the chocolates” can mean possession just like its meaning in “the roof of the house”, “the headlight of the car”, etc. I can rewrite the phrase as “the chocolates’ box”. Of course, it is incorrect because chocolates are not living things. I want to show that “the box of the chocolates” can be understood that way.
So as I understand, “pass me the box of the chocolates” can mean “pass me the chocolates’ box”. I want the box.
It’s like “give me the seed of the apple you’re eating”. I want the seed, not the apple.
That’s the way I understand how English works.
Reading this thread made me dizzy.


----------



## piter00

@sdgraham @JulianStuart Where did I say that we can translate from Polish to English literally? Could you cite, please? I was showing that it's possible for me to think about the specific association, change the definiteness of one element of the association and yet preserve the meaning of the association, and that that was my main problem. As it is impossible in English (which I haven't been aware of) I used Polish (with grammatical remarks in English). I would use an abstract language semanticists use in their articles, but I am not a semanticist and I don't want to pretend one. I didn't use Polish to communicate with others or to prove that we can translate from Polish to English literally.


----------



## piter00

winds2clouds said:


> It’s like “give me the seed of the apple you’re eating”. I want the seed, not the apple.


My understanding was the same.


----------



## sdgraham

winds2clouds said:


> So as I understand, “pass me the box of the chocolates” can mean “pass me the chocolates’ box”. I want the box.


“pass me the box of *the* chocolates" is sill as unnatural as it was in post #2 and is likely to continue that way given the unanimous comments of educated native English speakers.


----------



## JulianStuart

piter00 said:


> @sdgraham @JulianStuart Where did I say that we can translate from Polish to English literally?


I didn't actually say you were "translating literally"  - rather I implied you were tryng to apply the _logic_ of the Polish version to a discussion of the English explanations being given.


----------



## piter00

No, I wasn't. I showed the source of my problem and why it was easy for me to imagine myself the association with the same meaning after changing the definiteness of one element of the association. I think this tread might be reading by many other non-native speakers whose language has the same "feature", so it will be helpful to point out the source of the problem. And I thought that it would be interesting for native English speakers. Apparently I was wrong.


----------



## RM1(SS)

PaulQ said:


> If you have taken out the raisin biscuits from the manufacturer's box and put them in the dog,


----------



## piter00

@PaulQ I have just realized that I haven't asked one important question: if "the box of the chocolate biscuits" is a box with no biscuits, how to name a box with no biscuits (but some chocolate biscuits were in this box in the past, this is a box designed to contain chocolate biscuits), without indicating specific chocolate biscuits? "the box of chocolate biscuits" which can also mean a box with cookies in some contexts? Is it possible with "of"?


----------



## PaulQ

piter00 said:


> how to name a box with no biscuits


A box.


----------



## piter00

PaulQ said:


> A box.


This tells nothing about the fact that the box is designed to contain chocolate biscuits (for example, it has a picture of chocolate biscuits, I always put chocolate biscuits in it, but now it's empty).


----------



## PaulQ

In the UK, we have things called "a biscuit tin"- they are usually made of thin metal with a design printed on the outside. They are cleverly designed so that they will accept both chocolate and non-chocolate biscuits. (I think that in the US they have "cookie jars".)

This is a biscuit tin that has been bought empty for the purpose:






This is a biscuit tin that was filled with biscuits when bought but may be kept to keep any biscuits in:





I have never heard "biscuit box" to mean anything other than the cardboard packaging of some types of biscuit, i.e. the container in which they are purchased.


----------



## velisarius

If it no longer has biscuits in it, it's an "empty box". 

_- Is that an empty shoebox? 
- No, it's an* empty biscuit-box*. 
- Give me the empty box.
- What, the shoebox? 
- No, *the box that had biscuits in it*._


----------



## piter00

@PaulQ Can't you use *freely *(to some extent) such phrases as "a chocolate biscuit box", "a medicine box" (from what I know the last one is correct)?


velisarius said:


> If it no longer has biscuits in it, it's an "empty box".


If a medicine box is empty (the last medicine in it has been used up, but I am going to buy a new and put it in it), I have to say "it's an empty box" and I can't say "it's a medicine box"?


----------



## PaulQ

piter00 said:


> Can't you use *freely *the phrase "a chocolate biscuit box"


No. Your use of that phrase has caused immense confusion. I'm sure everyone here has thought that you meant "that cardboard packaging in which the chocolate biscuits were purchased from the shop."

Yet it is now slowly becoming apparent that you mean "a biscuit tin/cookie jar", i.e. a permanent container into which biscuits are put after they are unpackaged. And these are not referred to as "boxes".


----------



## piter00

@PaulQ Ok, I didn't notice the last sentence.


----------



## piter00

@PaulQ So, is it possible to use the word "tin" and "of" to name such a tin or it always has to be "a biscuit tin"?


----------



## PaulQ

piter00 said:


> or does it always have to be "a biscuit tin"?


It only needs to be "biscuit tin" if the context does not make it clear.

A: "Where are the biscuits?"
B: "In the tin."

C: "Where did you put the mince pies?"
D: "In the biscuit tin."


----------



## piter00

I was asking if we can use a construction with "of" which would mean the same as "a biscuit tin".


----------



## PaulQ

piter00 said:


> I was asking if we can use a construction with "of" which would mean the same as "a biscuit tin".


In the future it would be helpful to give full sentences as examples.

In #47, the first picture is a biscuit tin, the second picture is, *at the time of being purchased and while the original biscuits are in it,* a tin of biscuits. Once the biscuits have been eaten, it becomes a "tin" and can be qualified by any noun (or other modifier) in order to describe its current use. It can also be called "the tin that the biscuits came in".


----------



## piter00

PaulQ said:


> I have never heard "biscuit box" to mean anything other than the cardboard packaging of some types of biscuit, i.e. the container in which they are purchased.


As it has turned out that I should have used "tin" instead of "box": does this fact have any impact on my scenarios? Would "the tin of *the* biscuits that you gave me" still be incorrect to describe a tin with specific biscuits in it?


----------



## PaulQ

piter00 said:


> "the tin of *the* biscuits that you gave me"


 Not idiomatic - "the tin that *the* biscuits you gave me came in."


----------



## piter00

@PaulQ My friend made cookies, gave me them. Are the following sentences equivalent regarding the meaning?
1. I like the cookies you gave me yesterday.
2. I like cookies you gave me yesterday.
Is "the" optional here?


----------



## PaulQ

No, it is compulsory because the biscuits have been specified.


----------



## piter00

And what about the following sentence?
I like biscuits he makes every Saturday.​Is "the" still compulsory? The sentence doesn't tell about a specific portion of biscuits.


----------



## PaulQ

piter00 said:


> Is "the" still compulsory?


Are the biscuits specified?


----------



## piter00

I think they are specified the same way polar bears are specified.


----------



## PaulQ

I am not sure what polar bears have to do with biscuits, but in "I like biscuits that he makes every Saturday." the biscuits are very clearly specified - they are the ones "that he makes every Saturday." They are not any other biscuits in the universe - they are *very *specific biscuits.


----------



## piter00

Yet another modification of the scenario. What if I put the biscuits that my friend gave me yesterday into many tins in the kitchen . Now I want my roommate to bring me (from the kitchen) :
1. One of the tins (no matter which).
2. Some of the biscuits, not a whole tin (no matter from which tin), maybe on a plate.
Which of the following sentences is correct in each case?
"Bring me the biscuits that he gave me yesterday" or "Bring me biscuits that he gave me yesterday"?


----------



## PaulQ

piter00 said:


> What if I put the biscuits that my friend gave me yesterday into many tins in the kitchen .


You may have won the prize for the most unlikely example. 


piter00 said:


> 1. I like the cookies you gave me yesterday.
> 2. I like cookies you gave me yesterday.
> Is "the" optional here?





PaulQ said:


> No, it is compulsory because the biscuits have been specified.





piter00 said:


> Which of the following sentences is correct in each case?
> "Bring me the biscuits that he gave me yesterday" or "Bring me biscuits that he gave me yesterday"?


Can you explain which part of 





PaulQ said:


> No, it is compulsory because the biscuits have been specified.


you do not understand?


----------



## piter00

PaulQ said:


> No, it is compulsory because the biscuits have been specified.


In the first sentence of "Yesterday I met a girl who I had already seen somewhere. The girl said that..." "a girl" is also specified. I think that there is a difference between specified and definite.


----------



## PaulQ

piter00 said:


> I think that there is a difference between specified and definite.


For the purpose of this exercise, there isn't.

All singular countable nouns must be qualified by a determiner
Plural countable nouns may or may not be qualified by a determiner or number
Uncountable nouns may or may not be qualified by a determiner but not a number

See Determiners and quantifiers



piter00 said:


> "Yesterday I met a girl (= one example from the class of objects called 'girl') who I had already seen somewhere. The girl (= that girl of whom we are [now] both aware) said that..."


----------



## piter00

I am thinking about the processing of the above sentences by native English speakers. Do native English speakers understand "the tin of biscuits" in "the tin of biscuits that he gave me yesterday" as a set of biscuits which is contained in a tin, biscuits which are contained in a tin? So the futher specification ("that he gave me yesterday") refers to the biscuits and there is no need to put "the" before "biscuits" in "the tin of biscuits that he gave me yesterday", because "the" before "tin of biscuit" does the job.


----------



## sdgraham

piter00 said:


> I am thinking about the processing of the above sentences by native English speakers. Do native English speakers understand "the tin of biscuits" in "the tin of biscuits that he gave me yesterday" as a set of biscuits which is contained in a tin, biscuits which are contained in a tin? So the futher specification ("that he gave me yesterday") refers to the biscuits and there is no need to put "the" before "biscuits" in "the tin of biscuits that he gave me yesterday", because "the" before "tin of biscuit" does the job?


We dont have "tins" of "biscuits" in the U.S.
Here's a can of cookies:


----------



## piter00

Good to know, but I think that the fact doesn't affect the sense of my question.


----------



## velisarius

The thing he gave me yesterday was "a *tin of biscuits*" (a tin with biscuits in it). If I then want to talk about it, I can call it "the *tin of biscuits* that my friend gave me", even if I've already eaten them all. The "tin of biscuits" isn't just the biscuits, but the container as well. I don't have to mention that they came in a tin, so I can also talk about "the biscuits my friend gave me yesterday".


----------



## piter00

velisarius said:


> The thing he gave me yesterday was "a *tin of biscuits*" (a tin with biscuits in it).


No, he gave me the biscuits which I put into the tin.


----------



## velisarius

I was answering this post. I'm confused now.



piter00 said:


> I am thinking about the processing of the above sentences by native English speakers. Do native English speakers understand "the tin of biscuits" in "the tin of biscuits that he gave me yesterday" as a set of biscuits which is contained in a tin, biscuits which are contained in a tin? So the futher specification ("that he gave me yesterday") refers to the biscuits and there is no need to put "the" before "biscuits" in "the tin of biscuits that he gave me yesterday", because "the" before "tin of biscuit" does the job.


----------



## piter00

velisarius said:


> I was answering this post. I'm confused now.


Yes, but I wrote:


piter00 said:


> I am thinking about the processing of the above sentences by native English speakers.


By "the above sentences" I referred to the sentences which were being discussed in this thread in the contexts presented in #24.


----------



## PaulQ

piter00 said:


> By "the above sentences" I referred to the sentences which were being discussed in this thread in the contexts presented in #24.


As there were about 67 posts before that one, and each post has about 3 sentences, you can see why "the above sentences" might not be the clearest description.


----------



## Myridon

piter00 said:


> By "the above sentences" I referred to the sentences which were being discussed in this thread in the contexts presented in #24.


If you want us to know that sentences in post #24 are "the above sentences" in post #68, it might be better to quote them instead.


piter00 said:


> @JulianStuart
> 
> 1. Let's imagine the following situation: there is a table in a room, and two boxes of cookies on the table: one with chocolate cookies and the other with raisins cookies; should I say to a person in this room "give me the box of chocolate cookies" or "give me the box of the chocolate cookies"?
> 
> 2. I will modify my scenario a bit. Let's assume that the chocolate cookies have been given to me by my friend recently, I have put them into a different box. And the rest of the example is the same (the raisins cookies are still in the room). Can I say to the friend "give me the box of the chocolate cookies that you gave me" or should I still say "give me the box of chocolate cookies that you gave me"?





piter00 said:


> I am thinking about the processing of the above sentences by native English speakers. Do native English speakers understand "the tin of biscuits" in "the tin of biscuits that he gave me yesterday" as a set of biscuits which is contained in a tin, biscuits which are contained in a tin? So the futher specification ("that he gave me yesterday") refers to the biscuits and there is no need to put "the" before "biscuits" in "the tin of biscuits that he gave me yesterday", because "the" before "tin of biscuit" does the job.


There's no "tin of biscuits" nor "he gave me yesterday" in "the above sentences" from post #24.


----------



## PaulQ

You might find these sites useful:
Using Articles
Special Cases in the Use of the Definite Article


----------



## piter00

I have already received the answer elsewhere.


----------



## JulianStuart

piter00 said:


> I have already received the answer elsewhere.


Would you care to share it with the members here who have spent time trying to help with your questions?


----------

