# a computer that ... / the computer that ...



## HSS

I was wondering why while 'a' is used in (1), 'the' is used in (2), a similar construct. (I've come up with both dialogs. So the articles could be unidiomatic) In (2), 'that her father had given the computer to her as her birthday gift only a few days before' is very important. So you don't just use 'a' but 'the.' In (1), the importance of 'a computer' is high; the fact she gave a stranger a computer is important. 'That she had bought at the mall yesterday afternoon is not important; at least it's not as important as 'a computer.' So you use 'a.' Maybe the use of the articles in the dialogs is wrong in the frist place ..... 

(1)
Janet: Hi, Cindy! You know, Missy gave a stranger a computer that she had bought at the mall yesterday afternoon just because she didn't like it! She gave it to him for free!
Cindy: Missy bought a computer? And she gave it away for nothing? No kidding!
Janet: Yeah, she must've gone nuts.

(2)
Janet: Hi, Cindy! You know, Missy gave her boyfriend the computer that her father had given her as her birthday gift only a few days before.
Cindy: Missy got a computer from her father? I didn't know that. And, she gave it to Tom. That's horrible!
Janet: Yeah, I know. She is bad!


----------



## velisarius

Your use of the article in both sentences is perfect.

It would be possible to use the definite article in (1) and the indefinite in (2), but you have correctly reasoned that your version is better.

In (1) if Janet said "Missy gave the stranger the computer she bought in the mall ...", I would think she was assuming Cindy already knew she had bought a computer yesterday.


----------



## HSS

Hi, Velisarius.

Thanks. I've been thinking one pointer for deciding if the definite article should be used is how important the restricting modifiers are versus the base noun. In the first example, as I said, the modifier 'that she had bought ...' is, in a manner of speaking, not so important to the whole meaning of the sentence; therefore, I decided to use 'a.' But in the second the modifier 'that her father had given ...' is really important. So I used 'the' to tell the readers that what kind of computer is important to the whole meaning of the sentence. Am I on the right track?

I wonder if I could apply this thinking to other examples ....


----------



## velisarius

Yes, "*the* computer that ..." signals that she is talking about a specific computer, so you can say that she is focusing attention on the particular computer, because where the computer came from is important.  It isn't just "*a *computer. In both your sentences, Cindy isn't aware that Missy bought a computer; so the idea of "the computer" referring to a computer already mentioned is not in play.

Why don't you try another example, since this thinking seems to work for you.


----------



## HSS

Tom: Although the people who we don't know from our Sendai factory came to the party, the ones who we know didn't.
Sam: Oh, I didn't even know you have a factory in Sendai.

In this, Velisarius, because Tom is comparing two types of people --- the people they know and the ones they don't, who we don't know from our Sendai factory and who we know are important. So I presumed you used 'the.' How about this? I'm not confident at all, Velisarius.

Hiro


----------



## velisarius

This is a different case, where the alternative would be "the" or zero article.

You do need the article "the", and for me it implies "all the people who we don't know and who are from our Sendai factory". "Those we do know" could be used instead of "the ones we know". "Ones we know", with no article, isn't possible.
Without the article it would mean "some of the people who we don't know from our factory".


----------



## HSS

After your last message, I thought about one of my previous threads, and pondered on how the following two sentences are different. I suppose the first one is different from the second in that the first with 'the' is taken to mean all the people they don't know and they know, and that it's possible. But that all the adults who weigh more than 200lbs tend to develop diabetes is implausible. That's how 'the' sounds unnatural in the second. What do you think?

Although (the or Ø) people who we don't know from our Sendai factory came to the party, (the or Ø) ones who we know didn't.
(Ø) Adults who are more than 200 lbs tend to develop diabetes  while (Ø)adults who are less than 100 lbs tend to develop kidney  disease. (one of my previous threads)


----------



## velisarius

As we said on the previous thread, "Adults who  are ..." means "all adults", but speaking in a general way. 

The article "the" makes us focus on them as a particular group: "the adults who are more than 200 lbs.", maybe because they have been the subject of a study which also includes lighter adults, but both are sub-groups  that we have picked out in some way.

For me the basic difference is still between speaking in a general way and speaking about something specific. I think this is the difference that will help you decide between definite article or zero article.

With the Sendai factory example, "people who we don't know" is a general way of speaking about them, and since "people who we don't know" is not a restricted group like "adults over 200lb.", it just means "some people" we don't know.

I think I understand your confusion over the zero article in your examples in #7, but I believe it's because of the semantic difference between the two sentences.


----------



## PaulQ

It is worth remembering that the originates from the same root as "this/that/these/those"

so

"*the *adults who are more than 200 lbs."
"*these *adults who are more than 200 lbs."
"*those *adults who are more than 200 lbs."

all have the same nuance -> a specific group whom we have indicated/are indicating/mentioned earlier.


----------



## HSS

Thanks, everyone.

We, those who don't use articles in our own languages, have difficulty understanding where there is the line for placing the definite article; in other words, a noun is specified at least to a certain degree if it is accompanied by any modifying word(s), phrase(s), clause(s) etc. But it seems you need a certain level of specificity before you start placing the definite article. Where is the line? And how could we locate it?

*adults who are more than 200 lbs tend to develop diabetes*

This is not just any adults in the world. It’s a specified group of adults. However, you don’t need ‘the’ here. This raises a question: how much specificity does it need to be ‘the adults’? 

On another note, ‘who are more than 200 lbs’ --- how important is it? It is important, and so the focus should be on it; therefore don’t you need to place ‘the’ to call the readers’ attention to ‘who are more than 200 lbs’? The fact of the matter is you don’t say ‘the’ here, so I presume it’s a matter of whether it is important enough; I figure it’s not important enough here.

Maybe the author is not referring to all the adults who fall in this category. There may be exceptions. ‘The’ tells you the author is talking about a specific ‘type’ of something, and your mind often but not always interprets it as all of the kind being involved.

*the people who we don't know from our Sendai factory*
*people who we don't know from our Sendai factory*

This is a borderline case. Both are possible depending on what you intend to mean.
The difference from the ‘adults’ example is that the parent population is smaller with this. So, it is realistic all in the category are involved. ‘The’ could be used.

(Note: All this discussion is based on the supposition that the ‘adults’ and ‘people’ are not referred to before)


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, HSS.

_"... adults who are more than 200 lbs ..."_ is an expanded Noun Phrase: the "kernel" NP is "Ø adults" and the qualification is made by means of the relative sentence "_who are more than 200 lbs". _The whole sentence represent a *generalization* about a certain subject.  
The speaker's/writer's choice of a _zero_ article in front of "adults" is justified by the fact that the elements he has in mind, although *not* representing the whole of the population (statistically, the "universe"), do represent the *whole* of the (sub)set of the general population who-way-more-than-200-lbs. 

By the same token we'd have, eg, "Ø fat people". 

GS


----------



## HSS

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, HSS.
> 
> _"... adults who are more than 200 lbs ..."_ is an expanded Noun Phrase: the "kernel" NP is "Ø adults" and the qualification is made by means of the relative sentence "_who are more than 200 lbs". _The whole sentence represent a *generalization* about a certain subject.
> The speaker's/writer's choice of a _zero_ article in front of "adults" is justified by the fact that the elements he has in mind, although *not* representing the whole of the population (statistically, the "universe"), do represent the *whole* of the (sub)set of the general population who-way-more-than-200-lbs.
> 
> By the same token we'd have, eg, "Ø fat people".
> 
> GS



Hi, Giorgio.

I guess I'm picking up what you explained.

(a)* the people who we don't know from our Sendai factory*
(b) *people who we don't know from our Sendai factory

*With (a) the whole population in mind from which you've taken the subset 'the people who we don't know from our Sendai factory' away and talking about it is the entire population in the universe whereas with (b) that is the population of workers from their Sendai factory, aren't they? In other words, the parent population for (b) is the entire group of workers at their Sendai factory, and the author is giving the generalization of the two subsets.

In other words again, for (a) the whole canvas on which this is drawn is the entire population in the universe whilst for (b) that is the entire population at their Sendai factory.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, HSS.

I wouldn't want to be misunderstood, therefore I'll use the diabetes esample because it contains not only a Subject but also a Predicate which turns out to be precious if we want to understand what each element (such as the zero article) _contributes_ to the overall meaning.

In "Ø A*dults who are more than 200 lbs tend to develop diabetes *"

the generalization is achieved by means of two discontinuous elements: the *zero article* and the *plural morpheme. *The speaker is referring to a phisiological feature which he believes to be common to all the elements in the set {_Adults who are more than 200 lbs}_, ie, not to any one of those who weigh even just a gram less.

The sentence  "*The adults who are more than 200 lbs tend to develop diabetes *" seems to me to be less appropriate to a generalization of the kind examined above. This time the generalization is made by means of the discontinuous elements *the *and* the plural morpheme.* My impression is that it could be uttered in a scenario of this kind: I'm visiting a particular department in a hospital, say, and the director tells me that " _those_ adults who are ... tend to develop diabetes".
The generalization is by far weaker than in the previous example, as it refers exclusively to the patients in _that_ hospital. 
The responsibility of the difference is due exclusively to the presence of the definite article. 

GS


----------



## HSS

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, HSS.
> 
> I wouldn't want to be misunderstood, therefore I'll use the diabetes esample because it contains not only a Subject but also a Predicate which turns out to be precious if we want to understand what each element (such as the zero article) _contributes_ to the overall meaning.
> 
> In "Ø A*dults who are more than 200 lbs tend to develop diabetes *"
> 
> the generalization is achieved by means of two discontinuous elements: the *zero article* and the *plural morpheme. *The speaker is referring to a phisiological feature which he believes to be common to all the elements in the set {_Adults who are more than 200 lbs}_, ie, not to any one of those who weigh even just a gram less.
> 
> The sentence  "*The adults who are more than 200 lbs tend to develop diabetes *" seems to me to be less appropriate to a generalization of the kind examined above. This time the generalization is made by means of the discontinuous elements *the *and* the plural morpheme.* My impression is that it could be uttered in a scenario of this kind: I'm visiting a particular department in a hospital, say, and the director tells me that " _those_ adults who are ... tend to develop diabetes".
> The generalization is by far weaker than in the previous example, as it refers exclusively to the patients in _that_ hospital.
> The responsibility of the difference is due exclusively to the presence of the definite article.
> 
> GS


Sorry, Giorgio, I have to ask you about some terminology you used in order to understand you correctly.

which turns out to be precious if we want to understand what each element (such as the zero article) _contributes_ to the overall meaning.
What do you mean by this relative clause? What do you mean by 'precious'? Precious as in rare and not to be wasted?

discontinuous elements
Do you mean 'words'? Why do you not say just words here?



HSS said:


> Hi, Giorgio.
> 
> I guess I'm picking up what you explained.
> 
> (a)* the people who we don't know from our Sendai factory*
> (b) *people who we don't know from our Sendai factory
> 
> *With (a) the whole population in mind from which you've  taken the subset 'the people who we don't know from our Sendai factory'  away and talking about it is the entire population in the universe  whereas with (b) that is the population of workers from their Sendai  factory, aren't they? In other words, the parent population for (b) is  the entire group of workers at their Sendai factory, and the author is  giving the generalization of the two subsets.
> 
> In other words again, for (a) the whole canvas on which this is drawn is  the entire population in the universe whilst for (b) that is the entire  population at their Sendai factory.



Now that I've read my post again, I guess I used the explanation for (a) for (b), and vice versa. But I need to ponder on it.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, HSS.

_Sorry, Giorgio, I have to ask you about some terminology you used in order to understand you correctly._
_which turns out to be precious if we want to understand what each element (such as the zero article) contributes to the overall meaning.__
What do you mean by this relative clause? What do you mean by 'precious'? Precious as in rare and not to be wasted?
__discontinuous elements_
_Do you mean 'words'? Why do you not say just words here?_


1. by "precious" I mean "of great value". In our case, I could say "especially useful"
2. not exactly, HSS. I am referring to the "zero article" and to the "s" of the plural of the noun: I can't call them "words" because they are not (indeed, the former is the _absence_ of a word), so I'll use a term which encompasses both real words and — in our case — markers which are not words: I thought " element" would be reasonable.

GS


----------



## HSS

HSS said:


> I was wondering why while 'a' is used in (1), 'the' is used in (2), a similar construct. (I've come up with both dialogs. So the articles could be unidiomatic) In (2), 'that her father had given the computer to her as her birthday gift only a few days before' is very important. So you don't just use 'a' but 'the.' In (1), the importance of 'a computer' is high; the fact she gave a stranger a computer is important. 'That she had bought at the mall yesterday afternoon is not important; at least it's not as important as 'a computer.' So you use 'a.' Maybe the use of the articles in the dialogs is wrong in the frist place .....
> 
> (1)
> Janet: Hi, Cindy! You know, Missy gave a stranger a computer that she had bought at the mall yesterday afternoon just because she didn't like it! She gave it to him for free!
> Cindy: Missy bought a computer? And she gave it away for nothing? No kidding!
> Janet: Yeah, she must've gone nuts.
> 
> (2)
> Janet: Hi, Cindy! You know, Missy gave her boyfriend the computer that her father had given her as her birthday gift only a few days before.
> Cindy: Missy got a computer from her father? I didn't know that. And, she gave it to Tom. That's horrible!
> Janet: Yeah, I know. She is bad!





velisarius said:


> Your use of the article in both sentences is perfect.
> 
> It would be possible to use the definite article in (1) and the indefinite in (2), but you have correctly reasoned that your version is better.
> 
> In (1) if Janet said "Missy gave the stranger the computer she bought in the mall ...", I would think she was assuming Cindy already knew she had bought a computer yesterday.



Further to my query above, another one popped in mind. I just wondered what if the 'computers' were in plural. (Please ignore the unreality of (2-1) in which a father gives his daughter more than one computer as her birthday gift) In (2-1), 'that *her father* had given the computers to her as her birthday gift only a few days before' is significant. So you don't just use Ø article but 'the.' In (1-1), the importance of 'computers'  is high; the fact she gave a stranger _*computers*_ is important. 'That  she had bought them at the mall yesterday afternoon is not important; at  least it's not as important as 'computers.' So you use Ø article.


(1-1)
Janet: Hi, Cindy! You know, Missy gave a stranger computer_*s*_ that she had bought at the mall yesterday afternoon just because she didn't like it! She gave it to him for free!
Cindy: Missy bought computers? And she gave them away for nothing? No kidding!
Janet: Yeah, she must've gone nuts.

(2-1)
Janet: Hi, Cindy! You know, Missy gave her boyfriend the computer_*s*_ that her father had given her as her birthday gift only a few days before.
Cindy: Missy got computers from her father? I didn't know that. And, she gave them to Tom. That's horrible!
Janet: Yeah, I know. She is bad![/QUOTE]


----------



## JulianStuart

2-1 looks fine.  In 1-1 I would use "some" instead of ø article.


----------



## HSS

JulianStuart said:


> 2-1 looks fine.  In 1-1 I would use "some" instead of ø article.


Good morning, Julian. Good evening there.
With 1-1 with 'some,' it implies only '*some of the computers* that she bought at the mall yesterday,' not all the computers, right?
If you wanted to express '*all the computers* that she bought at the mall yesterday,' then you would have to say just that or 'the computers that she bought ....' Am I right?


----------



## JulianStuart

HSS said:


> Good morning, Julian. Good evening there.
> With 1-1 with 'some,' it implies only '*some of the computers* that she bought at the mall yesterday,' not all the computers, right?
> If you wanted to express '*all the computers* that she bought at the mall yesterday,' then you would have to say just that or 'the computers that she bought ....' Am I right?


If you wanted to ensure the meaning of "all of the computers" you would have to specify that extra piece of information somehow - using the definite article "the" would do it too.  Neither your zero article version nor my "some computers" version provides information on whether more were purchased but not given away.  Further, the fact that the wording "some computers" did not have the "of the" in the middle of the phrase makes it _quite likely_ that the "some computers" does indeed represent all of them.  The choice of articles here is not robust enough to compensate for the lack of context (or surrounding information) that could remove the ambiguity.


----------



## HSS

Thanks, Julian.
How about even if Missy did not give her boyfriend all of the computers her father gave her? Would you still use 'the' here if you were Janet, and knew that?
(2-1)
Janet: Hi, Cindy! You know, Missy gave her boyfriend the computer_*s*_ that her father had given her as her birthday gift only a few days before.
Cindy: Missy got computers from her father? I didn't know that. And, she gave them to Tom. That's horrible!
Janet: Yeah, I know. She is bad!


----------



## JulianStuart

"Missy gave her boyfriend the computers her father had given her."
That specific/definite article refers to "all the computers her father had given her".
If it had not been "all the computers" you would need to say "some of the computers".


----------



## HSS

JulianStuart said:


> "Missy gave her boyfriend the computers her father had given her."
> That specific/definite article refers to "all the computers her father had given her".
> If it had not been "all the computers" you would need to say "some of the computers".


Thank you, Julian.
If you dropped the 'some of the' off, would the statement sound unnatural or unidiomatic?

Janet: Hi, Cindy! You know, Missy gave her boyfriend some of the computers that her father had given her as her birthday gift only a few days before.
Cindy: Missy got computers from her father? I didn't know that. And, she gave them to Tom. That's horrible!
Janet: Yeah, I know. She is bad!

Janet: Hi, Cindy! You know, Missy gave her boyfriend computers that her father had given her as her birthday gift only a few days before.
Cindy: Missy got computers from her father? I didn't know that. And, she gave them to Tom. That's horrible!
Janet: Yeah, I know. She is bad!


----------



## JulianStuart

Yes it would.  The zero article form sounds weird on its own. 

 A possible scenario/context might be where everyone was describing who gave what to whom as Christmas presents.  "I gave socks to Bill, an ugly sweater to my boss, and computers my father had given me to my boyfriend."  I think even then, most people would use "the" or "some of the" depending on how many


----------



## HSS

JulianStuart said:


> Yes it would.  The zero article form sounds weird on its own.
> 
> A possible scenario/context might be where everyone was describing who gave what to whom as Christmas presents.  "I gave socks to Bill, an ugly sweater to my boss, and computers my father had given me to my boyfriend."  I think even then, most people would use "the" or "some of the" depending on how many


The key word here may be 'contrast.' You are comparing what you gave to whom. You, in a manner of speaking, would like to make 'computers your father gave you, spending a lot of money' stand out.


----------



## JulianStuart

No more so than the socks or the sweater - both of which stand out as "tacky gifts"

"I gave a castle to Bill, an apartment to my boss, and computers my father had given me to my boyfriend."  I don;t see any contrast expressed by the sentence structure alone'


----------



## HSS

JulianStuart said:


> No more so than the socks or the sweater - both of which stand out as "tacky gifts"
> 
> "I gave a castle to Bill, an apartment to my boss, and computers my father had given me to my boyfriend."  I don;t see any contrast expressed by the sentence structure alone'


If not contrast, then the word may be 'classifications,' or 'attributes.'
You are lining up nouns with different attributes.

You may use a(n) + singular noun phrase or Ø + plural noun phrase when lining up attributes. Does this rule work? Please see the following sentence.



> Johnny: My girlfriend gave me her old chair. I didn't need it. So at Christmas I gave it to my sister.
> Chris: Gee, Johnny, you gave an old chair your girlfriend gave you to your sister, you gave Ø books your roommate gave you when he moved out to your father, a coffee table you found from the garbage place across the street to your brother .... You spent no money at all!
> (Background: Chris knows Johnny gave all the books his roommate gave him to his father, and that he only found one coffee table at the garbage collection place)


----------



## HSS

Almost two years has passed since the above query was posted. Could anyone please help me  ponder on this?


----------



## PaulQ

I don't think it particularly matters how a noun is adjectival qualified or contrasted. *The *is a demonstrative determiner which is very closely related to *that.
*
All singular countable nouns need to be qualified by a determiner and *the *and *a/an* are the commonest.

Whereas *that *means "the one I am indicating (by whatever means) which is at a distance from me in space or time", *the *has the meaning of "of which we are aware". We become aware by *general knowledge* "The Eiffel Tower"; *by being told *"The cat I told you about yesterday"; *by someone pointing at it* "The end is broken."; *by relating it to something that is already known *"The lift in the Eiffel Tower" although there are other reasons.

In the case of "a/an" for the singular countable nouns, it has the meaning of *an example of* "That is a cat."; *one amongst many*/*a random/unspecified* "Take an apple from the tree."; *any *"Have you got a hammer?"; *one* "This is an example; there are others." etc.

Ø is used for the same reasons as a/an but with plural nouns (you could see it as the invisible form of plural a/an) and carries the same meaning: *examples of* "Those are cats."; *"several/many amongst many/random/unspecified"* "Take apples from the tree.", *any *"Have you got tools?"; *several/many* "These are examples; there are others." etc.

Uncountable nouns are often fronted by Ø "Beer is good for you." "You need advice." This Ø seems to me to be a simple absence of qualification.

When "the" qualifies an uncountable noun, it has the same effect as with countable nouns "Go and see John. He's a lawyer; you need the advice." -> the specific advice that John can give.

Your example can be explained as

Chris: Gee, Johnny, you gave an example of an old chair your girlfriend gave you to your sister, you gave Ø several/many/some books your roommate gave you when he moved out to your father, an example of a coffee table you found from the garbage place...​
and can be stripped of attributes and still require a/an:
Chris: Gee, Johnny, you gave an example of a chair, Ø several/many/some books, an example of a table...​Because all the nouns are countable, the singular ones require a determiner and a/an is appropriate.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, PaulQ.

_Whereas *that *means "the one I am indicating (by whatever means) which is at a distance from me in space or time"_

In space: I really don't know, Paul. If someone asks me which one of two sweaters on a counter I like better, they'll most probably say" ... ,  this or that?". I'm afraid it's hardly a matter of centimeters. More simply, I'd say that THAT is used to refer to _any_thing that's not-THIS.

In time: "Let me tell you more. I'd just arrived in Jönköping from Stockholm. It was approx. a kilometer from the Railway Station to my new home in downtown Jönköping, so I started to walk. All of a sudden _this_ man, obviously drunk, comes up to me and yells "Do you believe in God?"


_Ø is used for the same reasons as a/an but with plural nouns_

My family don't eat Øegg.

Bestest
GS


----------



## PaulQ

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> I'm afraid it's hardly a matter of centimeters.


 I agree. My signature covers this.


Giorgio Spizzi said:


> I really don't know, Paul. If someone asks me which one of two sweaters on a counter I like better, they'll most probably say" ... , this or that?".


Note how you said "this" first. I would expect you to be pointing to the nearer: it's just a habit.



Giorgio Spizzi said:


> All of a sudden _this_ man,


This - the one in question, the nearest in context. If there were two men, you would use "this" for the nearer of the one who is the subject, and that for the next one you mentioned. (Sounds pretty normal for Jönköping.)


----------



## HSS

I'm still looking into the peculiarity of 'Ø + plural noun.' It looks as though the form is used to differentiate a given category with some sort of significance from others. In (3), 'that she owned' is optional.  Janet just wants to share with Cindy the amazement of giving *houses* (a category), not just any inexpensive item (another category) but houses, to some stranger.

In (4) Janet wants to tell Cindy that Missy gave her boyfriend the precious thing her father had given her as her birthday present; hence the particularity explained by 'the' and 'her father had given ...' should be carried over to Cindy.

(3)
Janet: Hi, Cindy! Can you believe it? Missy gave a stranger *houses* that she owned for free!
Cindy: Missy had houses? I didn’t know that. She is living in a tiny motel. She gave them to someone she didn’t know for free? She is crazy!

(4)
Janet: Hi, Cindy! You know, Missy gave her boyfriend *the books that her father had given her as her birthday gift only a few days before*.
Cindy: Missy got books from her father? I didn't know that. And, she gave them to Tom? That's horrible!


----------



## HSS

A:


HSS said:


> (1-1)
> Janet: Hi, Cindy! You know, Missy gave a stranger computers that she had bought at the mall yesterday afternoon just because she didn't like them! She gave them to him for free!
> Cindy: Missy bought computers? And she gave them away for nothing? No kidding!
> Janet: Yeah, she must've gone nuts.





JulianStuart said:


> The zero article form sounds weird on its own.


B:


HSS said:


> Although people who we don't know from our Sendai factory came to the party, ones who we know didn't.



Could anyone please help me understand why 'computers' (A) is not fine there, and why 'people' (B) is? Both are with zero article.


----------



## PaulQ

HSS said:


> Could anyone please help me understand why 'computers' (A) is not fine there,


It is not grammatically wrong - you would not lose marks for writing/saying that in an exam. We would really need to know the full context to say how idiomatic it was - without context, it is only 60% idiomatic. Normally there would be some sort of adjective/determiner before "computers" - the/all the/some/the load of computers, etc. - they are specific.

I'm not happy with B either - *the* ones (*those *is better) who we know didn't. - they are specific. However, you must bear in mind that "one(s)" is a pronoun and that can justify its standing alone.


----------



## HSS

Hi, Paul.

Yes, you're right. I didn't compare the right pair. I intended to mean 'all the computers' by 'computers' in A, and 'some of the people' by 'people.' So I compared the wrong pair.

If I'm trying to mean 'some of the computers' by 'computers' in A, are you happy with it? (I know 'some of the computers' would be better wording because it's clearer in meaning)


----------



## VicNicSor

Hello,





HSS said:


> Tom: Although the people who we don't know from our Sendai factory came to the party, the ones who we know didn't.
> Sam: Oh, I didn't even know you have a factory in Sendai.





velisarius said:


> You do need the article "the", and for me it implies "all the people who we don't know and who are from our Sendai factory". "Those we do know" could be used instead of "the ones we know". "Ones we know", with no article, isn't possible.
> Without the article it would mean "some of the people who we don't know from our factory".


I'm not sure I understand. Is the following sentence possible if I want to mean_ some of the people we (don't) know_ ?:
_ Although *people *who we don't know from our Sendai factory came to the party, *ones *who we know didn't._


----------



## PaulQ

The bare form is a little unusual - not wrong, simply [quite] unusual.

You must never forget that you are reading a story and, in a story, the author can have the characters say anything - anything at all. The author can have characters say things that are not idiomatic; that are grammatically wrong; that are part of that character's idiolect or even invent words and phrases.

You must always be aware that no native English speaker speaks 100% perfect English 100% of the time - Japanese do not speak 100% perfect Japanese 100% of the time - there is no language that is ever spoken perfectly all the time.

The author put these words of informal speech into the character's mouth because it gives the reader an idea of what sort of person Janet is.

English *usually *uses the verb *to give *with a quantity or specifies the item that is given, so in your example we would expect "Missy gave a stranger those/the/some/some of the/all the/all of the/every one of/a load of/hundreds of/etc, etc. computers that she had bought at the mall yesterday afternoon."

We would also expect at least "Missy gave a stranger *the* computers that she had bought at the mall yesterday afternoon." because the computers are specifically described.

Bearing in mind that "to give" is usually followed by a quantity, the omission of a determiner or adjective of quantity has the tendency to convert the unqualified noun into an uncountable noun (compare "Missy gave the stranger money.") 

Thus, when the listener/reader sees "Missy gave a stranger computers ...", the listener/reader expects an uncountable noun - when there is no uncountable noun, the reader/listener reacts and stumbles a little - the unexpected has happened... This is why the construction is strange - not wrong... simply "strange."


----------



## HSS

Gee, thanks, Paul, for such an extensive explanation. Now if you heard this said, though, as you say, this is a strangely sounding sentence all right, would you perceive the speaker was talking about all the computers that she bought at the mall or some of them? (I know people may ask me why I bother to be asking this query about a strange sentence, but I'm really curious)

Also, off the top of your head, do you think 'bare plural noun + relative pronoun clause' phrases are used in some instances other than those where they carry ideas of generic generalization?


----------



## PaulQ

HSS said:


> would you perceive the speaker was talking about all the computers that she bought at the mall or some of them?


All the computers.


HSS said:


> 'bare plural noun + relative pronoun clause' phrases are used in some instances other than those where they carry ideas of generic generalization?


I recall writing in some other thread that relative pronoun clauses are no more than a subcategory of adjectival phrase. Thus, I think that it is the "bare plural noun" alone that causes the idea of generic generalization.

The "bare plural noun" is - obviously - the plural of "a noun", where "a" = any/an example of/one amongst many, etc. and hence the generality of the plural form.


----------



## HSS

So you think 'bare plural + relative pronoun clause' phrases express generic generalization, no other than that, correct?


----------



## PaulQ

I think that the bare plural express generic generalization - the relative pronoun clause merely adds description to the noun.

Cows eat grass./Tigers are on the lawn./Dogs are friendly.
Cows that give us milk eat grass./Tigers that hunt by night are on the lawn./Men who are left-handed have ginger hair./Computers that he owns rarely work.,etc.

You can add all/some/any/many/no, etc to the subject noun and keep the generality.


----------



## HSS

Yes, so generic generalization only. I see. And you can qualify with all/some/any etc. Okay, thanks, Paul  Very informative.


----------

