# artículo definido - Fumar causa (el) cancer



## roareeve

I've spent some time working with the definite article in Spanish and the more I learn about the rules governing its use, the more it perplexes me.  Could someone please help me decide if it is necessary or not in the following sentences:

Fumar causa (el) cancer.

Es prohibido en casis todos (los) lugares.

Eso es necesario en todas (las) partes.  

In the following sentence, would it be necessary to include the definate article before every noun?

"Antes, se podia fumar en todos lados, como (las) tiendas, (los) cafes, (las) bibliotecas, (los) colegios, (las) universidades y algunos cines."

Also in this sentence: 

"Todos sabemos los efectos peligrosos del fumar: (la) adicion, (el) cancer, (las) arrugas, (los) malos dientes, etc."

Thanks for your help


----------



## alexacohen

The definite article in Spanish works more or less the same as in English. 

Would you use the definite article in the English sentences?


----------



## Jaén

roareeve said:


> *Fumar causa cáncer*. (in general) "*El cáncer de pulmón es uno de los más mortales...*" (Hablas específicamente de un tipo de cáncer)
> 
> *Es prohibido en casi todos los lugares*. (it sounds weird) Lo más común es "*en todas partes/en todos lados*"
> 
> Unless you want specify something: "*Es prohibido en casi todos los lugares donde antes era permitido"*.
> 
> *Eso es necesario en todas partes*. (Again, in a general speaking, undetermined situation)


 
I hope it helps!

Saludos.


----------



## etwin2

I would actually say that the definite article doesn't always work the same in the two languages.  For example, "I go to school" in Spanish would be "Voy al colegio" where in English the definite article is not used.  Whereas in English you can say "Love cures all", in Spanish you have to say "El amor lo cura todo".  In your question you need the definite article only in the 2nd sentence:

Fumar causa cáncer.

Está prohibido en casi todos los lugares.

Eso es necesario en todas partes.  (this example may be confusing, but "partes" when you're talking about places is usually used without the article)


----------



## mathetria

roareeve said:


> I've spent some time working with the definite article in Spanish and the more I learn about the rules governing its use, the more it perplexes me. Could someone please help me decide if it is necessary or not in the following sentences:
> 
> Fumar causa (el) cancer.
> 
> Es prohibido en casis todos (los) lugares.
> 
> Eso es necesario en todas (las) partes.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


 
Hello Roareeve,

These are my suggestions:

"Fumar provoca/produce cáncer."

"Está prohibido en *casi* *todas partes*." or, if that's the case, "Está prohibido en sitios públicos/cerrados."

"Tendría que prohibirse* en todas partes*."

I understand your difficulty to learn the proper use of the definite article in Spanish. If it's any consolation to you, it's almost as difficult for us Spanish speakers to learn how to use it in English 

mathetria


----------



## roareeve

Thanks to everyone.  Etwin2, I agree that the use of the definate article is definately NOT the same as in English in some cases, which is why it is so confusing for a native speaker of English, and apparently for many native speakers of Spanish when it comes time to explain its use. 

Could someone please help me to think of a reason why the definate article is not needed in the first sentence "El fumar causa cancer"? 

The reason this is confusing for me is that we learn that in Spanish the definate article is needed when refering to specific things (as it is in English): 

"El cancer que tiene Julia es muy agresivo" (The cancer that Julia has is very aggressive).

And when refering to a group or class of things in general (different from English):

"El cancer es una enfermedad agresiva."  (Cancer is an agressive disease) or

"El cancer de pulmon es causado por el humo del tabaco" (Note that in English, even though 'cancer' and 'humo' are modified here with 'de pulmon' and 'del tabaco' we would still say "Lung cancer is caused by tabaco smoke", with no need of the article).

With that in mind, why does the example "El fumar causa cancer" not follow the same rule of being a group or class of things in general?

I know this is pretty technical but help is much appreciated!


----------



## Jaén

I don't see any problem in using "El" at the beginning of the sentence, but your request was about "Fumar causa 'el' cáncer", in this case it is wrong as we've told you before.

"El (acto de) fumar causa cáncer" is correct, although not much used when we refer to an action/activity with the indefinite verb.

"(El acto de) Practicar ejercicios es bueno para la salud"

Diferente de cuando nos referimos a una actividad con un sustantivo.

"El sexo sin protección es un caso de salud pública". Here we need the article.

I hope it help you a little!


----------



## deuruguay

roareeve said:


> I've spent some time working with the definite article in Spanish and the more I learn about the rules governing its use, the more it perplexes me.  Could someone please help me decide if it is necessary or not in the following sentences:
> 
> Fumar causa (el) cancer.
> 
> Es prohibido en casis todos (los) lugares.
> 
> Eso es necesario en todas (las) partes.
> 
> Thanks in advance!



Algunas frases no quedan muy claras en español, por lo que entiendo, yo diría:
Fumar (causa) produce/genera cáncer.
Está prohibido en casi todas partes/todos lados/en locales cerrados/públicos
Es necesario prohibir fumar en todas partes/en todo tipo de local cerrado.


----------



## roareeve

Gracias a todos por la ayuda

I'm still confused, not because it is incorrect to say "Fumar causa el cancer".  I understand that that sounds wrong and to me it sounds wrong as well.  What I'm trying to find out is _why_it's incorrect, given that the rules of the definate article in spanish say that the article must be used with a group or class of things in general.  

For example, it's ok to say "Los infartos son tan peligrosos como el cancer", but not to say "Fumar causa el cancer"


----------



## organist

I agree with others who have expressed how difficult the subject of articles in Spanish is. I find it a nightmare. In the example you give, I think that if you put the definite article, it implies you are referring to one particular cancer. It's more obvious in the past tense "Smoking caused the cancer" implies you are identifying one individual that had cancer. I think it's because that's the effect of the verb "causar" in both Spanish and "cause" in English as well. 

I'm trying to think if the article would be omitted with all verbs "I study law"  is "estudio derechos". You see, the example you gave where the article is included _Los infartos son tan peligrosos como el cancer_ doesn't have a verb immediately before it so "el cancer" clearly refers to cancer in general and so, according to the rules of Spanish grammar, you need to put the article. 

After a verb, even though you may still be referring to cancer in general, you can't put the article because to do so would have the opposite effect ie. it would seem to narrow the cancer about which you are speaking. "el cancer" after a verb would mean an identifiable cancer, not cancer in general. 

That's the best reason I can think of at the moment. It would be interesting to hear other opinions on this one.


----------



## minnkidd

roareeve said:


> Gracias a todos por la ayuda
> 
> I'm still confused, not because it is incorrect to say "Fumar causa el cancer".  I understand that that sounds wrong and to me it sounds wrong as well.  What I'm trying to find out is _why_it's incorrect, given that the rules of the definate article in spanish say that the article must be used with a group or class of things in general.
> 
> For example, it's ok to say "Los infartos son tan peligrosos como el cancer", but not to say "Fumar causa el cancer"



The definite article is not always required for direct objects when it would be for subjects.  I think the reason is logical, because the meaning of the subject can  more easily extend to the whole class than the object.  Some concrete examples:

Me gusta el pan.  "Pan" is the subject, and you mean all bread, hence the use of the article.
Me gusta comer pan.  "Pan" is now an object, and you can't possibly mean you like to eat all bread, so there is no article.
El cancer mata.  Again, the entire class of things requires the article.
Fumar causa cáncer.  Smoking doesn't cause all cancer, only some.

I not sure if my explanation holds up to close scrutiny, but it's a starting point at least.


----------



## organist

_
*Me gusta comer pan. "Pan" is now an object, and you can't possibly mean you like to eat all bread, so there is no article.*

Surely, the reason there is no article here is the same as in the phrase of the original poster. If you say "Me gusta comer el pan" it implies that you are identifying a particular piece of bread rather than bread in general.
_


----------



## minnkidd

organist said:


> _
> *Me gusta comer pan. "Pan" is now an object, and you can't possibly mean you like to eat all bread, so there is no article.*
> 
> Surely, the reason there is no article here is the same as in the phrase of the original poster. If you say "Me gusta comer el pan" it implies that you are identifying a particular piece of bread rather than bread in general.
> _




But when would you ever say "Me gusta comer el pan", period?  "Me gusta comer este pan", "Me gusta comer el pan de este restaurante", etc.  "Me gusta comer el pan", sin más, sounds strange, but maybe it's just me.


----------



## organist

Well, in English

"As part of my diet I have to eat 2 carrots followed by 3 slices of white bread twice a day. I really don't like eating the carrots but me gusta comer el pan"


----------



## minnkidd

organist said:


> Well, in English
> 
> "As part of my diet I have to eat 2 carrots followed by 3 slices of white bread twice a day. I really don't like eating the carrots but me gusta comer el pan"



Good example!  But the question remains, why does the article always narrow the meaning of a direct object but not necessarily of a subject.  I.e., _Me gusta comer el pan_ must mean a specific bread (as in your example), but _Me gusta el pan_ can have either a specific or general meaning.  What I was trying to get at with my original post is that the direct object function somehow preempts the universal meaning of the noun.  That's my instinct, at any rate, but I may be way off -- it certainly wouldn't be the first time!


----------



## organist

Then,

_Me gusta el pan_

can mean

The bread (in general) pleases me. _I like bread._ 

as you say, "_the bread_" is the subject of the sentence and when we speak of subjects in a general sense, they take the definite article in Spanish but not in English. 

All in all, an earlier poster who wrote that use of the articles is the same in both languages is mistaken. I have endless problems with definite and indefinite articles in Spanish.


----------



## San

roareeve said:


> Could someone please help me to think of a reason why the definate article is not needed in the first sentence "El fumar causa cancer"?



Porque no se dice tengo el cáncer, sino tengo cáncer, o tengo un cáncer. Es distinto con otras enfermedades como el sarampión, donde se emplea el artículo definido: tengo el sarampión o tengo sarampión. Más ejemplos:

Tengo un resfriado
Tengo paperas
Tengo el cólera
Tengo la peste

Supongo que tiene que ver con la naturaleza de cada enfermedad, nunca me he parado a pensarlo.

Por otro lado, claro que puedes hablar del cáncer, como del hambre en el mundo, pero a mí el trabajar me da hambre, no el hambre


----------



## roareeve

I believe that the two earlier posters that mentioned the idea of quantity (_some _of the thing being discussed but not _all_) when the noun is the direct object of the verb are correct.  I think this idea of quanity also extends to the objects of some prepositions, in the case of "Conozco gente _sin dinero _que es feliz."  In this case, I'm not referring to all money but rather to some(any, in the negative sentence) money.  

I think the problem with the article specifically is that it's impossible to make generalizations.  For example, the generalization of 'no article when the noun is the direct object of a verb' doesn't apply in every case, only in some cases.  For example, the following sentence doesn't follow this rule:

En 1939 volvio' _la paz _a Espana y Francisco Franco tomo' _el poder_.  

So it seems that each case must be examined on an individual basis as to whether 'some' or 'all' of the thing is being referred to.  Please correct me in this if I'm wrong! I would love to hear that there is an easier way! : )


----------



## minnkidd

roareeve said:


> For example, the generalization of 'no article when the noun is the direct object of a verb' doesn't apply in every case, only in some cases.  For example, the following sentence doesn't follow this rule:
> 
> En 1939 volvio' _la paz _a Espana y Francisco Franco tomo' _el poder_.



The rule I was getting at (at least in my head) was not "no article when the noun is the direct object of a verb" but rather "no article _with universal meaning_ when the noun is the direct object of a verb."  Perhaps abstract nouns are an exception to this rule, as in your example.

Bottom line: yes, articles are extremely complex!  Someone once said that the smallest words are the hardest to master in any language, and this certainly proves true with articles and prepositions.  And no, they certainly don't work the same as they do in English.


----------



## roareeve

Thank you, minnkidd.  I do see the difference now between a group or class of things with universal meaning ('el pan' for example), and noun that expresses an abstract concept, such as 'el poder' and 'la paz'.  Thanks to you and to all for helping me wrap my mind around this complex topic!


----------



## carola_fariasm

roareeve said:


> Hi all:
> 
> In the following sentence, would it be neccessary to include the definate article before every noun?
> 
> "Antes, se podia fumar en todos lados, como  en tiendas, cafés, bibliotecas, colegios, universidades y algunos cines."
> 
> Also in this sentence:
> 
> "Todos sabemos los efectos peligrosos del fumar:  adicción,  cáncer, (las) arrugas, daños en los dientes , etc."
> 
> Thanks for your help



En realidad en estos ejemplos no era necesario utilizar el artículo
Saludos
carola


----------



## rosicler

Estoy de acuerdo con Carola. En estos ejemplos no era necario usar los artículos.


----------



## patin

I would say:

"Antes, se podía fumar en todos lados, como en las tiendas, cafés, bibliotecas, colegios, universidades y algunos cines."

Also in this sentence: 

"Todos sabemos los efectos peligrosos de fumar (del fumado): adicción, cáncer, arrugas, problemas dentales, etc."



Patin


----------



## carola_fariasm

patin said:


> I would say:
> 
> "Antes, se podía fumar en todos lados, como en las tiendas, cafes, bibliotecas, colegios, universidades y algunos cines."
> 
> Also in this sentence:
> 
> "Todos sabemos los efectos peligrosos de fumar: adicción, cáncer, arrugas, problemas dentales, etc."
> 
> Thanks for your help


 

Patin[/quote]

Patin, yo creo que no es necesario "como en *las* tiendas, cafés..." Pienso que ese *las *está de más.

Carola


----------



## ter_

Just a small spelling correction: definate = definite. 

("Definitely" is probably the most incorrectly spelt word on the internet).


----------



## roareeve

I really wish I understood the definite article!  Sorry, I'm a horrible speller.

Does anyone know how to explain the lack of article?  Is it because in the examples I gave one is not referring to the concept in general, but rather to the idea of 'some' of a specific group.  For example:

Los efectos malos del fumar son: adiccion (some but not all adiccions), cancer (some but not all cancers), arrugas (some but not all), etc.

Thanks


----------



## alexezln

You don’t necessarily need to place the article, but you do need to place the preposition “en” before the first noun (or before all of the nouns):
  "Antes, se podia fumar en todos lados, como *en* (las) tiendas,  cafés, bibliotecas, colegios, universidades y *en* algunos cines."


----------



## Rayines

roareeve said:


> Hi all:
> 
> In the following sentence, would it be neccessary to include the definate article before every noun?
> 
> "Antes, se podia fumar en todos lados, como (las) tiendas, (los) cafes, (las) bibliotecas, (los) colegios, (las) universidades y algunos cines."
> 
> Thanks for your help.


Puedes decirlo de las dos maneras, pero si usas el artículo, tienes que agregar "en", y suprimir "como": 
_"Antes, se podia fumar en todos lados, como *en *las tiendas, *en *los caf*é*s, *en *las bibliotecas, *en *los colegios, *en *las universidades y *en *algunos cines."_


----------



## roareeve

So the article isn't necessary, but it's possible??  Could anyone explain to me why it's not necessary?  I thought the definite article was used to talk about groups or classes of things in general in Spanish, and don't 'tiendas', 'restaurantes' etc. fall into this category?


----------



## roareeve

Rayines, de acuerdo con 'en'.  But I still don't understand why the article is used in this way.  : (


----------



## Rayines

roareeve said:


> Rayines, de acuerdo con 'en'. But I still don't understand why the article is used in this way. : (


Por lo que dices antes, porque usas la expresión "en todos lados", que significa "everywhere", o "anywhere". En cambio si dijeras, por ejemplo: _"Antes se podía fumar en distintos lugares, como las tiendas, los cafés....etc."_, sí podrías omitir el "en". Pero no queda muy bien usar el artículo, el lenguaje permite abreviar el concepto no usándolo . (Lamento si la explicación no es suficiente). No te desanimes y sigue preguntando si necesitas.


----------



## Christian

>>>>I understand your difficulty *to learn* the proper use of the definite article in Spanish. If it's any consolation to you, it's almost as difficult for us Spanish speakers to learn how to use it in English 

I hope Mathetria, whose quotation that is, will smile when I point out that it should be: 

"I understand your difficulty *learning* the proper use of...."

Thanks all for a good thread.


----------



## patin

roareeve said:


> So the article isn't necessary, but it's possible?? Could anyone explain to me why it's not necessary? I thought the definite article was used to talk about groups or classes of things in general in Spanish, and don't 'tiendas', 'restaurantes' etc. fall into this category?


 
I am still thinking that the right way is as you said it is necessary "en las tiendas,..." you might just avoid it but I don't think it would be correct grammar but you would need to include "en" because if you don't it gives the idea that what is actually going to be smoked is the "stores, etc".

I hope it helps.

patin


----------



## deuruguay

I´d say:

  “Antes se podía fumar en todos lados, (como por ejemplo) en tiendas, cafés, bibliotecas….”  “*Las* tiendas que acaban de abrir en el shopping son carísimas”

  You say “me gusta* el* pan “(in general) but you also say “me gusta *el *pan que compraste “(this one) .  But:  “Estoy gorda porque me gusta comer pan”. (_me gusta comer el pan no se dice_)

  “Está muy grave, tiene cáncer.” (_no se dice ni tiene un cáncer ni tiene el cáncer)_.  Pero se dice: “*El* cáncer de mama puede prevenirse.”

  On the other hand,
  “Tengo un resfriado”, correct I guess, however, in Uruguay you’d rather say “estoy resfriado” “estoy enfermo, con gripe, con fiebre, tos, etc”
  “Tengo paperas/varicela/rubéola/sarampión/fiebre/tos/catarro/cólera”, y_ no "tengo el cólera"_, sin embargo se dice:  “*El* cólera es una enfermedad infecciosa.”

  Hope this helps but I’m sorry I cannot tell which the grammar rule is.


----------



## patin

Well I don't know if somebody made this comment already but if you want to say in general "I like to eat bread" in Spanish is the same "me gusta comer pan" not "el pan" only if you say for example "I like to the bread that Mary bakes" "Me gusta comer el pan que hace Mary" 

patin


----------

