# Use of the articles before adjectives when they're more than one



## Lun-14

Hi

You are <> good and <> brilliant student in your class.

a) a, a
b) no article, no article
c) a, no article
d) no article, a

Which option is correct? I go for_ a)
_
Thanks a lot.


----------



## Copyright

It's an odd sentence. Both "good" and "brilliant" suggest a measure of academic performance, so it's odd to have them describe the same student in the same class.


----------



## Barque

Options (a) and (c) both work, with "good" and "brilliant" describing his qualities as a student.
Option (d) suggests that he's a good person and a brilliant student.
Option (b) would make it incorrect. 

I agree with Copyright that it sounds odd, whichever option you choose.


----------



## Copyright

I should have mentioned that "good" can mean well-behaved, but in this sentence, something more explanatory than "good" should be used if that's what is meant.


----------



## Lun-14

Copyright said:


> something more explanatory


What do you mean, please? An example will do.


----------



## entangledbank

In general, we'd only use the first article if the two adjectives are similar; repeating it is more emphatic.


----------



## velisarius

Let's see those options in full. I hope this wasn't a multiple-choice question from a test, as all the sentences sound very odd. Only one is unacceptable (I agree with Barque). The meaning of "good" here is fuzzy (I agree with Copyright.) I think (d) requires a comma:

_a You are a good and a brilliant student in your class.
b You are good and brilliant student in your class.
c You are a good and brilliant student in your class.
d You are good and a brilliant student in your class.
_


----------



## Lun-14

entangledbank said:


> we'd only use the first article if the two adjectives are similar



But the adjectives are not similar there in my sentence - they are different. _Good_ and _brilliant_.


----------



## Barque

You're confusing _similar_ and _same_. Two words can be different but similar.


----------



## Loob

(A) and (c) make no sense to me.  The meaning of both is 
_You are a good student in your class and you are a brilliant student in your class._
_
_
I agree that (b) is incorrect.


----------



## velisarius

How do you want us to understand "good" in those sentences, Lun?  If you say that someone is a good and a brilliant student it's like saying that "Lun is a pretty and a beautiful young lady". If you're beautiful, "pretty" is redundant. If you're brilliant, "good" in the sense of "good at schoolwork" is redundant.


----------



## Copyright

Lun-14 said:


> What do you mean, please? An example will do.


If by "good" you mean well-behaved, you can use "well-behaved." That will change the meaning of "good," which most people will take to be a comment on your scholastic ability, not your comportment.


----------



## Lun-14

I saw this sentence in a student's performance report. I think the teacher who wrote this sentence meant:
_You are good (student) and brilliant student in your class._


----------



## Barque

Not an English teacher, I suppose.


----------



## Copyright

Lun-14 said:


> I saw this sentence in a student's performance report. I think the teacher who wrote this sentence meant:
> _You are good (student) and brilliant student in your class._


You still have not defined "good" for us – and perhaps you don't know what the teacher meant. But if both words – good and brilliant – are about scholastic performance, it's like saying, _"You are a B student and an A+ student."_ Which doesn't make sense.


----------



## Lun-14

Barque said:


> Not an English teacher, I suppose.



Yes, unfortunately.


----------



## Lun-14

Copyright said:


> You still have not defined "good" for us – and perhaps you don't know what the teacher meant. But if both words – good and brilliant – are about scholastic performance, it's like saying, _"You are a B student and an A+ student."_ Which doesn't make sense.



 "Good" as the quality of the child being a student - _Good_ at the studies.

This is probably what the teacher meant.


----------



## Barque

Copyright said:


> But if both words – good and brilliant – are about scholastic performance, it's like saying, _"You are a B student and an A+ student."_ Which doesn't make sense.


I see Lun-14 has just confirmed that "good" referred to scholastic performance, as I expected. You're right of course. But it's a common enough practice in Indian English - using multiple adjectives. The teacher probably didn't appreciate the difference in degree between "good" and "brilliant". To him/her, they were just different ways of saying that the student was doing well.


----------



## Copyright

Barque said:


> But it's a common enough practice in Indian English - using multiple adjectives.


Can't argue with that.


----------



## Loob

Lun-14 said:


> "Good" as the quality of the child being a student - _Good_ at the studies.
> 
> This is probably what the teacher meant.


If that is what was meant, I find the sentence nonsensical, whatever somersaults you turn with the articles.


Barque said:


> I see Lun-14 has just confirmed that "good" referred to scholastic performance, as I expected. You're right of course. But it's a common enough practice in Indian English - using multiple adjectives. The teacher probably didn't appreciate the difference in degree between "good" and "brilliant". To him/her, they were just different ways of saying that the student was doing well.


Interesting, Barque!

.


----------



## velisarius

In BE, I believe such school report notes are written in the third person. (_Barque is a very hardworking and conscientious student. Loob has been settling down very well this term._)


----------



## Lun-14

_You are a regular (student) and a hardworking student.

You are a regular (student) and <no article> hardworking student.

You are  <no article> regular (student) and a hardworking student.

You are <no article> regular (student) and <no article> hardworking student._


Which of the above is correct?
I'm asking because now adjectives are different.

Thanks.


----------



## grassy

And which do you think is correct?


----------



## Lun-14

grassy said:


> And which do you think is correct?



Only the first sentence - repetition of the article is needed there because the adjectives are different.

I'm not sure about the others.


----------



## RM1(SS)

The first two are both good.  I would prefer the second.


----------



## sagar grammar

Use article once for a single noun even if there are more than adjectives describing the same noun.
.
If I had to answer it , it would be (C).
.
Though I agree that both the adjectives are showing same description, and it is really odd.
.
Edit;- this reply is in reference to #1.


----------



## Lun-14

sagar grammar said:


> If I had to answer it, it would be (C).



Are you referring to #22? I hope you're not.


----------



## VicNicSor

In post #1:
a -- implies that "good" is a noun. The sentence doesn't make sense.
b -- ungrammatical.
c -- "good" and "brilliant" can't both at the same time describe him as a student. So, incorrect too.
d -- works if "good" refers to his personal qualities. The sentence is awkward but makes some sense.


----------



## sagar grammar

Lun-14 said:


> _You are a regular (student) and a hardworking student.
> 
> You are a regular (student) and <no article> hardworking student.
> 
> You are  <no article> regular (student) and a hardworking student.
> 
> You are <no article> regular (student) and <no article> hardworking student._
> 
> 
> Which of the above is correct?
> I'm asking because now adjectives are different.
> 
> Thanks.


For this I would say version #2.


----------



## Lun-14

RM1(SS) said:


> The first two are both good.



Thanks. Which one is _more_ natural?


----------



## VicNicSor

Barque said:


> But it's a common enough practice in Indian English - using multiple adjectives. The teacher probably didn't appreciate the difference in degree between "good" and "brilliant". To him/her, they were just different ways of saying that the student was doing well.


There's nothing wrong in using multiple adjectives, but they must be at least compatible. "Indian English" is not like "British/American/Australian English". It's a mix of English with a completely different language. So, if something is ok in BE and not in AE -- it's a difference between two dialects of English. But if something is not ok in AE/BE/AU English but ok in Hinglish -- it's a difference in "correctness".


----------



## Englishmypassion

You're absolutely right, VicNic.

 ("Indian English" is an oxymoron,  just like _Russian English, Nepalese English, Chinese English, Afghanistani English, Syrian English_, etc)


----------



## VicNicSor

Englishmypassion said:


> You're absolutely right, VicNic.
> 
> ("Indian English" is an oxymoron,  just like _Russian English, Nepalese English, Chinese English, Afghanistani English, Syrian English_, etc)


There's "Runglish" -- a blend of English and Russian, which, for example, some Russian emigrants speak in English-speaking countries


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> There's nothing wrong in using multiple adjectives, but they must be at least compatible. "Indian English" is not like "British/American/Australian English". It's a mix of English with a completely different language. So, if something is ok in BE and not in AE -- it's a difference between two dialects of English. But if something is not ok in AE/BE/AU English but ok in Hinglish -- it's a difference in "correctness".


You need to keep Indian English and Hinglish distinct in your understanding.  Indian English is distinguished from the other Englishes (I always wanted an excuse to confuse learners with that word) mainly by word usages and pronunciation while Hinglish mixes in other languages, often switching between them mid-sentence.


----------



## pob14

I probably shouldn't open this can of worms, but … what is "regular" supposed to mean here? Maybe "average?" "Regular" sounds odd to me in this sentence.


----------



## JulianStuart

pob14 said:


> I probably shouldn't open this can of worms, but … what is "regular" supposed to mean here? Maybe "average?" "Regular" sounds odd to me in this sentence.


(While we are being thorough, the title should be  "Use of articles before adjectives when there is more than one")


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> You need to keep Indian English and Hinglish distinct in your understanding.  Indian English is distinguished from the other Englishes (I always wanted an excuse to confuse learners with that word) mainly by word usages and pronunciation while Hinglish mixes in other languages, often switching between them mid-sentence.


So what's the difference? Is Indian English just closer to the original English?


----------



## Barque

VicNicSor said:


> There's nothing wrong in using multiple adjectives, but they must be at least compatible.


I didn't say there was. I was merely pointing out that this practice is common in Indian English.


VicNicSor said:


> "Indian English" is not like "British/American/Australian English".


Again, I didn't say it was, so I don't see your point. By Indian English, I just mean the type of English that's spoken in India. 


VicNicSor said:


> It's a mix of English with a completely different language.


And you're completely wrong. See #34.


VicNicSor said:


> So what's the difference?


Hinglish is a mixture of Hindi and English. Indian English is English as spoken by Indians, with structure and expressions often influenced by local languages but not necessarily using words from other languages.


----------



## VicNicSor

Barque said:


> And you're completely wrong. See #34.


I can't find in the internet anything about a difference between _Hinglish_ and _Indian English_. This difference is not clear from the links given by Julian either.
So what is it?...

x-posted with edit in #38


----------



## VicNicSor

Barque said:


> Hinglish is a mixture of Hindi and English. Indian English is English as spoken by Indians, with structure and expressions often influenced by local languages but not necessarily using words from other languages.


I still don't see any essential difference. If I, a Russian, speak English influenced and modified by Russian -- will it be a variation of the English language -- "Russian English"? I don't think so.


----------



## JulianStuart

Can't understand how you missed it, Vic
*
Hinglish*, a portmanteau of Hindi and English, is the macaronic *hybrid use of English and South Asian languages, *involving code-switching between these languages whereby they are *freely interchanged within a sentence or between sentences*.[1]

Indian English does not use other languages mixed in like that.  Read the wiki link on Indian English to see how some words/prases are unique to IndE or are used with different meanings (freeship, redressal, upgradation, revert back to you, erc.). There are some differences in tense usage.  Those characteristics are pretty similar to the differences between AE and BE, for example.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> I still don't see any essential difference. If I, a Russian, speak English influenced and modified by Russian -- will it be a variation of the English language -- "Russian English"? I don't think so.


If you frequently switched between Russian and English mid- or between sentences and used many Russian words, it would be Russlish, it would not be Russsian English   If there were a group of people who spoke English with a Russian accent but used some words with different meanings than in AE and/or BE (but only an occasional Russian word) and a few unique phrases and some small differences in tense usage, that might qualify as Russian English.


----------



## VicNicSor

So the difference is in a *degree *-- "Hinglish" is heavily modified by the local languages, "Indian English" -- only slightly.



JulianStuart said:


> If there were a group of people who spoke English with a Russian accent but used some words with different meanings than in AE and/or BE (but only an occasional Russian word) and a few unique phrases and some small differences in tense usage, that might qualify as Russian English.


Well, suppose a foreign accent is normal for a non-native speaker. But would using "some words with different meanings than in AE and/or BE and a few unique phrases and some small differences in tense usage" justify the existence of such a thing as "Russian English"? I would say those Russians would need to just improve their English a little


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> So the difference is in a *degree *-- "Hinglish" is heavily modified by the local languages, "Indian English" -- only slightly.
> 
> 
> Well, suppose a foreign accent is normal for a non-native speaker. But does using "a few unique phrases and some small differences in tense usage" would justify the existence of such a thing as "Russian English"? I would say those Russians would need to just improve their English a little


I think you have missed the point. Would you tell AE speakers the same, about improving their BE ? Or that BE speakers think Indian English speakers just need to improve their English.  In any case, that is a very different issue than the difference between Indian English and Hinglish, which is a MIXTURE of Hindi and English.


----------



## Lun-14

pob14 said:


> I probably shouldn't open this can of worms, but … what is "regular" supposed to mean here? Maybe "average?" "Regular" sounds odd to me in this sentence.



A "regular student" is the student who has maximum attendance - who has been attending the classes _regularly_ during the whole term/semester.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> Would you tell AE speakers the same, about improving their BE ?


No, as I said in #31, it's different. English is the native language for Americans or the British, but not for the Indians.


----------



## pob14

Lun-14 said:


> A "regular student" is the student who has maximum attendance - which has been attending the classes _regularly_ during the whole term/semester.


Ah, thank you. I would say "You have perfect attendance."


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> No, as I said in #31, it's different. English is the native language for Americans or the British, but not for the Indians.


The English they speak in India is English (read the reason why here).  Those who speak Hinglish are not considered to be speaking Indian English.  The English spoken by many in the US ("standard AE") is also not their native language either, but that's not relevant here. We are talking about the language itself, not the speakers.  You might want to seek out some web examples of people speaking Indian English (you would be able to understand them if you learn only the accent) and contrast that with those speaking Hinglish (you would not understand them -nor would I - when they use the other, non-English, language(s') syntax/sentences/words/phrases) 

Even within the UK, there are variations from region to region Scottish English, Welsh English, Scouse, etc  Some of that is accent, some is words/ meanings and some tense usage. Perhaps this concept is hard to grasp because, as I understand, Russian is much more uniform across its large geographical area, while we English speakers are acutely aware of the differences in our own language.


----------



## Barque

VicNicSor said:


> So the difference is in a *degree *-- "Hinglish" is heavily modified by the local languages, "Indian English" -- only slightly.


No. You're way off-track.
Hinglish is not "modified" by local languages. It's a mixture of a local language (most commonly Hindi) and English. It's not a language - it's a way of speaking which uses two (sometimes more) languages.
Indian English is English _influenced_ by local Indian languages, which shows up in sentence structure, the use of literally translated idiomatic expressions, etc. But the actual words that it uses are all legitimate English words.


----------



## siares

Barque said:


> Indian English is English _influenced_ by local Indian languages, which shows up in sentence structure, the use of literally translated idiomatic expressions, etc.


Are the articles used in the same way as in BE?


----------



## JulianStuart

siares said:


> Are the articles used in the same way as in BE?


Often, but I would prefer to wait for Barque's characterization of frequency as better informed than mine


----------



## VicNicSor

Still, when something is "influenced" by something else -- it's a mix, more or less
I see the difference between IndE and Hinglish, but they two are still different from British/American/Scottish/Welsh/etc English, different in origin. English was "imported" into India where a completely different language was spoken, and this language influenced that English. And since English is very common in India, it became "Indian English" with its modifications.
My point basically is that when a BE or AE native speaker says that something is incorrect but an Indian student says "that's how we say it in Indian English", I would still think that was incorrect than an IndE vs AE/BE difference.


----------



## JulianStuart

VicNicSor said:


> Still, when something is "influenced" by something else -- it's a mix, more or less
> I see the difference between IndE and Hinglish, but they two are still different from British/American/Scottish/Welsh/etc English, different in origin. English was "imported" into India where a completely different language was spoken, and this language influenced that English. And since English is very common in India, it became "Indian English" with its modifications.
> My point basically is that when a BE or AE native speaker says that something is incorrect but an Indian student says "that's how we say it in Indian English", I would still think that was incorrect than an IndE vs AE/BE difference.


Still not quite there. Origin and history are still not relevant (English in the US has developed differently enough for us to speak of AE and BE being different _versions_ of English). If I say pavement in the US meaning sidewalk, it is not "incorrect", it is just an AE BE difference.  Same with "revert back (meaning reply)" or the other examples in Indian English, it's the same kind of difference.



JulianStuart said:


> examples of people speaking Indian English (you would be able to understand them if you learn only the accent) and contrast that with those speaking Hinglish (you would not understand them -nor would I - when they use the other, non-English, language(s') syntax/sentences/words/phrases) .


I can understand someone speaking Indian English as well as I can understand people speaking the other various forms of English above (AE, BE, AusE, ScotE etc).  They all have aspects that make them recognizable from each other in the same sorts of ways, but they are all basically the same language.  Hinglish, not so much.


----------



## Barque

siares said:


> Are the articles used in the same way as in BE?


Yes, all rules of grammar apply. Whether they are followed is another matter.


VicNicSor said:


> when a BE or AE native speaker says that something is incorrect but an Indian student says "that's how we say it in Indian English", I would still think that was incorrect than an IndE vs AE/BE difference.


If that's the only justification the Indian has, you could well be right. But I haven't got your point. Starting with your post 31, we have moved from the meanings of Hinglish and Indian English to the issue of AE and BE being the correct "Englishes" (if I may borrow your word, Julian). So if there's no connection to the OP's question, maybe we should end this.


----------



## siares

Thanks, Barque,


Barque said:


> Indian English is English _influenced_ by local Indian languages, which shows up in sentence structure, the use of literally translated idiomatic expressions, etc.





Barque said:


> Yes, all rules of grammar apply. Whether they are followed is another matter.


in that case, I also speak a variant of English.


----------

