# rich guys get all <the> chicks



## VicNicSor

A cashier in a restaurant like a McDonald's, looking at the employer's daughter kissing with the son of a rich businessman, tells Akeem (who comes from Africa):
_- I don't know how it is in Africa, but here, rich guys get all *the chicks*._
Coming to America, movie

*The *chicks are _the ones here (the US/New York). _
Without the article, however, the sentence would make the same perfect sense, am I right?
Thanks.


----------



## Copyright

You must have the article.


----------



## VicNicSor

Copyright said:


> You must have the article.


He uses "rich guys" generally. And still, we know those are the rich guys in the US. What prevents him from using "chicks" in the same way...


----------



## srk

If "all" were before rich guys as well, it would have to be "all *the* rich guys get all the chicks."


----------



## Parla

That's just the way it works, Vik.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you, all!
----------
Parla, do you mean _using the article_ or_ rich guys getting chicks_? (sorry, I'm joking)


----------



## Glenfarclas

VikNikSor said:


> He uses "rich guys" generally. And still, we know those are the rich guys in the US. What prevents him from using "chicks" in the same way...



The statement is not limited (either as regards rich guys or chicks) to New York or the United States.  It is simply stated to be a truth about rich guys in general.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glenfarclas said:


> The statement is not limited (either as regards rich guys or chicks) to New York or the United States.  It is simply stated to be a truth about rich guys in general.


Do I correctly understand you mean:
The general truth is that rich guys get *all beautiful girls*.
The general truth is that rich guys get *all the beautiful girls*.


----------



## Glenfarclas

Yes.  The first sentence is not one that we would say.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glenfarclas said:


> Yes.  The first sentence is not one that we would say.


Could you explain why "all" cannot be a determiner here?... Usually, it may or may not be followed by "the".
*All horses* are animals, but not all animals are horses. (OALD)
*All children* deserve encouragement. (Macmillan dictionary)
I thought in the case with "*beautiful girls*", it's used in the same general way as "horses" and "children". What's the difference?...


----------



## Dale Texas

I'd say it's because "beautiful girls" is already a subset of "all girls."  Out of all girls, just _the ones_ that are beautiful.

All children deserve encouragement.
All girls are beautiful.
All the girls here tonight are beautiful.


_Rich guys get all the beautiful girls, poor guys get the leftovers  _


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Not really, Vik.
I feel that "all the chicks" is almost the same as "all the chicks around/available, etc."
GS


----------



## Dale Texas

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Not really, Vik.
> I feel that "all the chicks" is almost the same as "all the chicks around/available, etc."
> GS



Yes, per the original post.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you, everyone!

But I'm a little confused. One question:


Dale Texas said:


> I'd say it's because "beautiful girls" is already a subset of "all girls." Out of all girls, just _the ones_ that are beautiful.


It looks like "*all *_* beautiful girls*" _is an ungrammatical at all... Do I misunderstand?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Vik,
both 'all beautiful girls' and 'all the beautiful girls' are perfectly structured English noun phrases. The point is that they would probably be employed in different contexts as they have different meanings.
GS


----------



## pob14

VikNikSor said:


> It looks like "*all *_* beautiful girls*" _is an ungrammatical at all... Do I misunderstand?


It's fine: "All beautiful girls wear makeup." (Which is complete baloney, of course, but never mind.)

I really think this is one of those situations where "it's just how we say it" (as Parla said in #5) is the best answer you'll get.

(Incidentally, how did we shift to "beautiful girls" from the original sentence?)

(Crossposted with Giorgio.)


----------



## VicNicSor

pob14 said:


> how did we shift to "beautiful girls" from the original sentence?


We didn't, I'm just looking for the way to understand the difference.
That is, the difference is:
*All beautiful girls* wear makeup. (= all beautiful girls in general)
The general truth is that rich guys get *all the beautiful girls*. (= as GS said -- all the beautiful girls around/available)
Does it work?...


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

' All beautiful girls wear...' IS a 'general truth', albeit baloney, as pob aptly puts it, while 'All THE beautiful girls wear...' refers only to that particular group of girls, among a lager group of girls, who ARE BEAUTIFUL. Those girls in the same group who are NOT beautiful do not wear make-up. Period. 
GS


----------



## VicNicSor

Well, this thing when "the + plural noun", e.g. "beautiful girls/chicks", is considered as a "group" and hence article THE is used -- is somewhat new for me and not very clear. It's a pity srk deleted his post where he admitted the possibility of "get all chicks", and I didn't have time to ask. 
"it's just how we say it" -- yes. But when can we say it and when can't we not?
Thank you, everybody.


----------



## JulianStuart

VikNikSor said:


> But when can we say it and when can't we not?



"Some people have all the luck." (Perhaps you can think of native English speakers because they grow up "knowing" how to use articles)
That's a similar construction.

Vik, there are some aspects of English (all languages) that can only be acquired through experience, and not be learning the "rules" - often the rules are only guidances and the experience from simply speaking and hearing everyday conversations (how natives learn) is how we know when to "break" the rules and when not.


----------



## VicNicSor

I have an idea, though.

_*All chicks* wear makeup_ (could be replaced by "every chick", "chicks" in general)
_... here, rich guys get *all the chicks*._ (could NOT be replaced by "every chick"; that is, yes, literally 'all chicks' as a group)
That work?__


JulianStuart said:


> "Some people have all the luck." (Perhaps you can think of native English speakers because they grow up "knowing" how to use articles)
> That's a similar construction.


I see it as if there is a certain amount of luck, and some people get it all, which is the reason why the others don't


----------



## Dale Texas

pob14 said:


> It's fine: "All beautiful girls wear makeup." (Which is complete baloney, of course, but never mind.)
> 
> I really think this is one of those situations where "it's just how we say it" (as Parla said in #5) is the best answer you'll get.
> 
> (Incidentally, how did we shift to "beautiful girls" from the original sentence?)
> 
> (Crossposted with Giorgio.)



In post 8


----------



## JamesM

VikNikSor said:


> I have an idea, though.
> 
> _*All chicks* wear makeup_ (could be replaced by "every chick", "chicks" in general)
> _... here, rich guys get *all the chicks*._ (could NOT be replaced by "every chick"; that is, yes, literally 'all chicks' as a group)
> That work?__
> 
> I see it as if there is a certain amount of luck, and some people get it all, which is the reason why the others don't




Yes.  That's a good way to put it.

It's the same in other cases.  "You have all the money" is limited to some subset of money.  You don't have all the money in the world so we can't say "You have all money".   A man might tease his brother by saying "He got all the looks, but I got all the brains".  The subsets here are the handsomeness and intelligence that were possible to receive from their parents.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you!


----------



## pob14

Dale Texas said:


> In post 8


I know, I was trying to figure out _why_. It seemed to derail the discussion.


----------



## VicNicSor

pob14 said:


> I know, I was trying to figure out _why_. It seemed to derail the discussion.


Does it really matter much if it's "chicks" or "beautiful gils"?


----------



## pob14

VikNikSor said:


> Does it really matter much if it's "chicks" or "beautiful gils"?


Several posts seemed to me to be suggesting the adjective had something to do with it, such as:


Giorgio Spizzi said:


> ' All beautiful girls wear...' IS a 'general truth', albeit baloney, as pob aptly puts it, while 'All THE beautiful girls wear...' refers only to that particular group of girls, among a lager group of girls, who ARE BEAUTIFUL. Those girls in the same group who are NOT beautiful do not wear make-up. Period.
> GS


No, in my opinion it doesn't matter; that's exactly why I was mentioning the change, so that readers would not think it was the presence of the modifier that made a difference.


----------



## VicNicSor

Ah, I see what you mean, I agree!


----------



## se16teddy

VikNikSor said:


> *The *chicks are _the ones here (the US/New York). _


To develop #23 a little, I think the implication is more exactly that "the chicks" form a limited group, a finite resource; and you need the definite article because the statement does not make sense without that implication.


----------



## VicNicSor

se16teddy said:


> To develop #23 a little, I think the implication is more exactly that "the chicks" form a limited group, a finite resource; and you need the definite article because the statement does not make sense without that implication.


Thank you.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, pob.
Isn't the function of modifiers that of modifying?
GS


----------



## pob14

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, pob.
> Isn't the function of modifiers that of modifying?
> GS


Of course. Did I imply that it wasn't?  I certainly didn't mean to.


----------



## Kirusha

se16teddy said:


> To develop #23 a little, I think the implication is more exactly that "the chicks" form a limited group, a finite resource; and you need the definite article because the statement does not make sense without that implication.



My first reaction was to expand this to "all the chicks worth getting", so there seems to be a hidden clause here, which justifies the definite article.


----------



## JamesM

Or even "all the chicks that are available".   "Rich guys get all chicks" would mean that rich guys got all women, married or single.  In other words, all women in the world would be married/dating/living with a rich guy.


----------



## goldenband

Another way to parse "rich guys get all chicks" (without the article) is that, of the set of things in a particular category that rich guys get, all of those are "chicks" and not something else. Compare:

"Rich guys get all hotties" (all the women that rich guys get are attractive / if you're rich, you only get attractive women)
"Rich guys get all Armani [and no K-Mart]"
"Rich guys get all caviar [and no tuna fish]"

And so on. The phrasing and context in this case are a bit too tortured for "rich guys get all chicks" to sound natural (it doesn't), but other, similar formulations aren't unknown.


----------



## VicNicSor

goldenband said:


> Another way to parse "rich guys get all chicks" (without the article) is that, of the set of things in a particular category that rich guys get, all of those are "chicks" and not something else. Compare:
> 
> "Rich guys get all hotties" (all the women that rich guys get are attractive / if you're rich, you only get attractive women)
> "Rich guys get all Armani [and no K-Mart]"
> "Rich guys get all caviar [and no tuna fish]"
> 
> And so on. The phrasing and context in this case are a bit too tortured for "rich guys get all chicks" to sound natural (it doesn't), but other, similar formulations aren't unknown.


Do you mean, in this meaning "all" = "only"? That is, there are hotties available for other guys (not rich), but rich ones get hotties only?


----------



## goldenband

VikNikSor said:


> Do you mean, in this meaning "all" = "only"? That is, there are hotties available for other guys (not rich), but rich ones get hotties only?



Exactly. "All" with no article can mean "exclusively" or "just/only", for example:

_All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
When I'm rich it'll be all filet mignon, all the time.
[P]eople who haven’t done what it takes to even compete for, much less hold, those jobs think it’s all caviar and champagne. _(source)

To my ears, formulations with "get all" tend to sound less natural; I'd be more inclined to say "it's all" in many contexts. But I can imagine a context where it's idiomatic, and where the difference between "get all" and "get all the" is quite salient, as others have noted:
_
Today I got all nutjobs. _[Today, everyone who came to see me was crazy, and no one was sane.]
_Today I got all *the *nutjobs. _[Today, it seemed like _every single crazy person in our area_ came to see me.]

Or:

_"How was your Christmas?" "Eh, everyone else did all right, but I got all fruitcake." _(every present I received was fruitcake)
_"How was your Christmas?" "Eh, everyone else did all right, but I got all *the* fruitcake." _(all of the fruitcake was given specifically to me; no one else got any)


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you!
An interesting usage of "all". I haven't met it used with nouns before (or just forgot). I suspect it's this:
all
6. nothing but; only: _The coat is all wool._ (RHU), right?


----------



## goldenband

VikNikSor said:


> Thank you!
> An interesting usage of "all". I haven't met it used with nouns before (or just forgot). I suspect it's this:
> all
> 6. nothing but; only: _The coat is all wool._ (RHU), right?



You're welcome, and that's correct!


----------



## srk

JamesM said:
			
		

> "You have all the money" is limited to some subset of money. You don't have all the money in the world so we can't say "You have all money".


I was attracted to this idea for a time, but we do say "You have all the money in the world" meaning "all money," and it can be the same exaggeration as "You have all the money."  "You have all money" is an unidiomatic way to say the same thing.  I don't know why we don't say it that way.

He does it all the time.  He knows everyone.  Rich guys get all the chicks.


			
				JamesM said:
			
		

> A man might tease his brother by saying "He got all the looks, but I got all the brains". The subsets here are the handsomeness and intelligence that were possible to receive from their parents.


I agree that it is the right explanation for this case, but not for the sentence in the OP.


----------



## VicNicSor

srk said:


> but not for the sentence in the OP.


Why?
"I got all the brains" -- she got two brains, so he got no brains, because only two ones were available.
"Rich guys get all the chicks" -- so no chicks available for other guys, so they get the rest of the females who are not chicks (probably not so beautiful). 
Am I right?


----------



## srk

VikNikSor said:
			
		

> Am I right?


Yes, but it doesn't explain why you used the definite article.  "Rich guys get all chicks" -- so there are no chicks available for other guys.

We can't sit down, because all seats are *taken*.
We can't sit down, because all the seats are *taken*.

I think that either of those is acceptable.  You can argue that the first is wrong, because all the seats in the world are not taken, but I can argue that the second can mean exactly the same thing — all the seats in the world.  What both are intended to mean is "all seats in the auditorium are taken," and I think that both work.

For an exaggeration, like "Rich guys get all the chicks," I don't think it makes sense to argue for "the" on the basis of what is possible and what is not:  it is an exaggeration.

Rich guys get all chicks.
But what if a chick is tied to a railroad track, and some poor guy saves her.  That poor guy can probably get that chick.
Oh, yeah, you're right.  I has to be "Rich guys get all *the* chicks."

"Rich guys get all the chicks" is the way we expect to hear it.  If we hear "Rich guys get all chicks" instead, and we trust the speaker's English, we look for other meanings — like the meaning goldenband found in post 35.


----------



## VicNicSor

srk said:


> Yes, but it doesn't explain why you used the definite article.  "Rich guys get all chicks" -- so there are no chicks available for other guys.
> 
> We can't sit down, because all seats are *taken*.
> We can't sit down, because all the seats are *taken*.
> 
> I think that either of those is acceptable.  You can argue that the first is wrong, because all the seats in the world are not taken, but I can argue that the second can mean exactly the same thing — all the seats in the world.  What both are intended to mean is "all seats in the auditorium are taken," and I think that both work.
> 
> For an exaggeration, like "Rich guys get all the chicks," I don't think it makes sense to argue for "the" on the basis of what is possible and what is not:  it is an exaggeration.
> 
> Rich guys get all chicks.
> But what if a chick is tied to a railroad track, and some poor guy saves her.  That poor guy can probably get that chick.
> Oh, yeah, you're right.  I has to be "Rich guys get all *the* chicks."
> 
> "Rich guys get all the chicks" is the way we expect to hear it.  If we hear "Rich guys get all chicks" instead, and we trust the speaker's English, we look for other meanings — like the meaning goldenband found in post 35.


Do I correctly understand you that "all" and "all the" have the same meaning (like in your example with seats) when it's literally all of something so that there's nothing left. I mean, where there is no exaggeration:
Beautiful girls get *all the* costly gifts rich guys ever give to females.
Beautiful girls get *all *costly gifts rich guys ever give to females.
Usually, my brother gets *all the *costly gifts that our uncle brings us when he comes over; and I get the rest.
Usually, my brother gets *all *costly gifts that our uncle brings us when he comes over; and I get the rest.
(self-made)


----------



## srk

VikNikSor said:


> Do I correctly understand you that "all" and "all the" have the same meaning (like in your example with seats) when it's literally all of something so that there's nothing left. I mean, where there is no exaggeration:


No.  A bridge deck (of cards) contains exactly four aces.  If a player was dealt all of them, I would describe that as "He was dealt all *the* aces."  "He was dealt all aces" would be understood to mean that his hand contained nothing but aces, even if the hand consisted of 13 cards.

All I meant to say about exaggerations in posts 40 in 42 is that it can't be right to attribute the use of "the," as in "all the chicks" or "all the money" to one of avoiding a reading of "all chicks" or "all money" as "all the chicks in the world" or "all the money in the world."  Those "all in the world" meanings might be what are intended, and "the" doesn't guarantee that the phrases won't be read that way.

I'm not sure of what accounts for "the" being used after "all" at some times and not others.

Your original question was essentially "Why is 'the' needed in 'Rich guys get all the chicks'"  Parla said "that's just the way it is." I tried to agree with her in my reason for deleting my post between 17 and 18.  I deleted the post because I had suggested reasons for "the" which turned out to be unconvincing.

"The" is used in front of nouns or noun phrases whose specific nature is already known or about to be defined.  You would expect "the chicks I mentioned to you yesterday" or "the chicks born in California." Why does it exist in front of just plain "chicks"?

I think that the "the" used here is sort of a self-fulfilling "the."  It says "If you don't know the difference between 'chicks" and 'motorcycles,' look those words up, and make sure that "chicks" are a category apart from all others in your mind." "Chicks" then suddenly become definite enough to deserve a "the."

I'm reminded of a popular definition for the word "recursion."  It goes,

*recursion*:  See recursion.

Edit:  I've changed my mind about what is grayed-out.

In parsing "Men have all the fun," one has to be as definite about the difference between men and women as between fun and everything else.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you very much! 
But I admit, it's quite difficult to me. I think it's because when I think about 'chicks' and 'motorcycles' as categories as opposed to other categories, I usually think of zero-article.


----------



## srk

VikNikSor said:


> when I think about 'chicks' and 'motorcycles' as categories as opposed to other categories, I usually think of zero-article.


So do I.  I'm going to gray-out everything about the "magic the", because I don't believe in it at all as much as when I wrote it.


----------



## Dale Texas

Ok, but they're not special categories, they're just nouns like any other, used as general or particular.

(general-anywhere-all) People are fun. Chicks are fun. Motorcycles are fun.
(particular) The (directionally vague pointer) people here are fun.  Those (over at some place) chicks are fun.  The motorcycles are making a lot of noise.

If this isn't what you meant by "special categories" please ignore.


----------



## srk

Dale, the problem is with "people," "chicks," and "motorcycles" (nouns without modifier) after the word "all" and in objective case, as in "Rich guys get all the chicks."  What chicks, exactly?  Not "the chicks here," particularly, and "Rich guys get all chicks" doesn't work or has a different meaning than the original.

James and Kirusha talk about an unspoken qualifier that justifies "the" (posts 23, 33 and 34).  Se16teddy also says that "the chicks" are somehow a limited group (post 29).  Using the definite article certainly imparts that feeling.

In post 11, you define "chicks" as a limited group by substituting "beautiful girls" for the word.  It is harder to do that with "Rich guys get all the women," and "Rich guys get all women," if it works at all, does not work the same way.


----------



## Kirusha

Srk, I think it still fits in with hidden qualification. "Rich guys get all the women", so there are none left for poor chaps (assuming that the initial set is somehow limited). "Rich guys get all women", so that whoever she might be, a rich guy is sure to win her heart (the set is open-ended).


----------



## srk

Then I'm just missing something, Kirusha.  I understand you to say that "all the women" is a set truly limited in some unstated (and unknown) way.

Maybe the light will dawn on me, but right now the reasoning seems to be as circular as mine in the grayed-out portion of post 44.


----------



## VicNicSor

Just a guess:
I agree that the amount is limited. In the movie it's clear that he talks about "here". If it's a place as opposed to Africa, it's America. And it's not Europe, Australia, etc.
It could be the whole world:
_- I don't know how it is on Mars, but here, on the Earth, rich guys get all *the chicks*._

Probably the phrase "rich guys get all the chicks" without context would mean "in the world":
_rich guys get *all the chicks* = *all the chicks* are supposed to go out with rich guys._
If we eliminate the article, we get:
_ rich guys get all chicks = all chicks are supposed to go out with rich guys. _And here, where 'chicks' is the subject, I guess we could also say "every chick" instead of "all chicks". But this replacement doesn't work when "chicks" is the object:
_rich guys get every chick
every chick is supposed to go out with a rich guy_
That's why I guess "rich guys get all chicks" is not good.


----------



## Kirusha

srk said:


> Then I'm just missing something, Kirusha.  I understand you to say that "all the women" is a set truly limited in some unstated (and unknown) way.
> 
> Maybe the light will dawn on me, but right now the reasoning seems to be as circular as mine in the grayed-out portion of post 44.



Let's see if I can make sense of it. In "Rich guys get all women" "all" is more like "any", a rich guy can get any woman he likes. In "Rich guys get all the women" "all the" presupposes "all those that are potentially gettable" (and their gettability may be limited in the speaker's mind in terms of geography, social status, age group, etc). That's why, perhaps, one perceives a gap between "all women" - "all the women" and "all chicks" - "all the chicks", because the word "chick" already connotes desirability. I hope that's not too nebulous.


----------



## Dale Texas

Kirusha said:


> Let's see if I can make sense of it. In "Rich guys get all women" "all" is more like "any",  In "Rich guys get all the women" "all the" presupposes *"all those that are potentially gettable" (and their gettability may be limited in the speaker's mind in terms of geography, social status, age group, etc)*. That's why, perhaps, one perceives a gap between "all women" - "all the women" and "all chicks" - "all the chicks", because the word "chick" already connotes desirability. I hope that's not too nebulous.



Nice explanation.   I was about to post that "any woman" could include unattractive ones per their own tastes, but then stopped because yes, "chick" probably already connotes desirability.
(Per Vik's post 21, "_I see it as if there is a certain amount of luck, and some people get it all, which is the reason why the others don't
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 " _I'd thought everything was resolved and was surprised the thread continued.  )


----------



## Kirusha

Thanks, Dale. I think it's up to Srk now to lay the thread to rest (or challenge us further).


----------



## srk

"I see that tables in this restaurant are occupied."  I’d take this to mean that some are and some aren’t.

"I see that *the* tables in this restaurant are occupied."  I’d understand this to mean that they all are, and that we’ll have to wait.

The role of “the” in the second example is not to be particular about which tables.  This role has already been filled by “in this restaurant.”  Instead, “the” functions to gather together the members of the class “tables in this restaurant” and refer to the class as a whole.

That’s how I understand “the” in “all the chicks” in the sentence at issue in the OP.

Suppose we forget the word "all" for the moment, because "Rich guys get all chicks" is a struggle to understand. Suppose the thread had started instead with this altered movie dialogue and question:


> _I don't know how it is in Africa, but here, rich guys get the chicks._
> 
> Coming to America, movie
> 
> Without the article, the sentence would make the same perfect sense, am I right?



We would certainly have said that both “Rich guys get chicks” and “Rich guys get the chicks” make perfect sense, but not the same perfect sense.  The first seems to mean that rich guys, along with everyone else, get chicks.  The second means to me that all the chicks are taken by rich guys, and the rest of us are out of luck.  In a more general setting, the second sentence could have hidden ideas about the availability of chicks, or about other limitations on that group as the speaker thinks of them, but I don’t see that here.  The sentence in the OP, with or without “all,” simply means to discourage the idea that “here, poor guys can get chicks.”  It does this by using “the” to collect the individuals thought of as “chicks” into a group, and to say that access to that group is limited.

(Interestingly, “… here, it’s the rich guys who get chicks” delivers the same bad news, but with “the” moved from “chicks” to “rich guys.”)


----------



## VicNicSor

srk said:


> "I see that tables in this restaurant are occupied." I’d take this to mean that some are and some aren’t.
> 
> "I see that *the* tables in this restaurant are occupied." I’d understand this to mean that they all are, and that we’ll have to wait.
> 
> The role of “the” in the second example is not to be particular about which tables. This role has already been filled by “in this restaurant.” Instead, “the” functions to collect together the members of the class “tables in this restaurant” and refer to the class as a whole.


There is a difference between *the tables* in this restaurant and *tables *in this restaurant, but there's not one between *all the tables* in this restaurant and *all tables *in this restaurant.
Right?


srk said:


> The second means to me that all the chicks are taken by rich guys, and the rest of us are out of luck.


That is, by analogy with "in this restaurant", you agree that "the chicks in America" is implied, am I right?


----------



## srk

VikNikSor said:


> There is a difference between *the tables* in this restaurant and *tables *in this restaurant, but there's not one between *all the tables* in this restaurant and *all tables *in this restaurant.
> Right?


Right.


VikNikSor said:


> That is, by analogy with "in this restaurant", you agree that "the chicks in America" is implied, am I right?


It could be, but I don't think it has to be.  I would lean more that way if the line from the movie had been "..., but rich guys get all the chicks here."  Even then, it would be ambiguous.

I can see why you draw that inference, Vik, but I chose the restaurant example as one in which there was clearly no role for "the" as differentiating between elements of the set "tables."  That was to establish the fact that "the" could have the special role of identifying the class as a whole instead of its members.  The situation in the movie is not quite that straightforward, but I see it the same way.


----------



## JulianStuart

VikNikSor said:


> That is, by analogy with "in this restaurant", you agree that "the chicks in America" is implied, am I right?



I think posts 52 and 53 have already nailed it.  The "in America" is a limit _you_ bring to the table by wanting specificity.  The speaker in the original "get all the  ..." does not need to specify their limits because all they need to communicate is that the others get them and the speaker doesn't.. _It's not the precise description_ of the what "gettability limits" are, only that the speaker doesn't get them and the rich guys do.


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> is that the others get them


Sorry, who is "the others"? Did you mean "rich guys"?...


----------



## JulianStuart

VikNikSor said:


> Sorry, who is "the others"? Did you mean "rich guys"?...


Yes in the specific example.  It's always the "others" (not the speaker) that get the desirable things/people etc in the general construction  "(some people) get all the (things)" - the speaker is expressing "they get what I want, and I don't get it/them."  As in "Some people get all the luck" and "Rich guys get all the chicks" etc.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you, everyone.



JulianStuart said:


> Yes in the specific example. It's always the "others" (not the speaker) that get the desirable things/people etc in the general construction "(some people) get all the (things)" - the speaker is expressing "they get what I want, and I don't get it/them." As in "Some people get all the luck" and "Rich guys get all the chicks" etc.


I was just confused you said "*the *others". I thought he talked about "others" (esp. "rich guys") who are not him. But if you thought of the guy as the group of "poor guys" and "the others" as the other group, "rich guys", then I understand. (there are two groups of guys) Is that what you meant?


----------



## JulianStuart

VikNikSor said:


> Thank you, everyone.
> 
> 
> I was just confused you said "*the *others". I thought he talked about "others" (esp. "rich guys") who are not him. But if you thought of the guy as the group of "poor guys" and "the others" as the other group, "rich guys", then I understand. (there are two groups of guys) Is that what you meant?



In my post I discuss two specific  parties (1. the speaker and 2. the others) in the general construction.  Therefore I use 'the".


----------



## VicNicSor

JulianStuart said:


> In my post I discuss two specific  parties (1. the speaker and 2. the others) in the general construction.  Therefore I use 'the".


But I take it as _all_ except the speaker get all the chicks, while it's only_ some others_ that get all the chicks...


----------



## JulianStuart

Where did you get that idea???  The general construction is "SOME X get all the Y" - in your case some people is = e.g., the rich guys.


----------



## VicNicSor

"Some" - yes. But if it's "the others", it means "the rest of". If there's the speaker and there's "the others", then "the others" it's the rest, not "some"... Do I misunderstand?...


----------



## JulianStuart

Wow

The "others" does not mean everyone else on the planet - it means members of the group "Some X" - it does not specify "all of the X" it is irrelevant what proportion - the whole point of the expression is that some people in a category (not necessarily all) get *all of the available items in category Y and the speaker gets none*.  It does not seek to define how many of the group "X" nor does it need to. Think of "All the rich guys get all the chicks" as some idea that is quite different from "Rich guys get all the chicks'.  In this case, it is quite possible that there are too many rich guys to get one "chick" each, so we can't say that "all the rich guys get a chick", but we can still say that "the rich guys got all the chicks"


----------



## VicNicSor

I understand you. But whether it's "all the rich guys", "the rich guys", or just "rich guys" -- for the speaker they are "*others*", not "*the others*", that's what I thought...
Look at this please:
_The speaker in the original "get all the ..." does not need to specify their limits because all they need to communicate is that *the others* get them and the speaker doesn't._
_The speaker in the original "get all the ..." does not need to specify their limits because all they need to communicate is that *others *get them and the speaker doesn't._
Why did you say "the others" and not just "others"? -- That's what I don't understand...


----------



## JulianStuart

See #62

*The* others are *the* specific second party in my statement.
If I had just said "others" I could have been referring to other others or to all others


----------



## VicNicSor

Wait... I think we're talking about different things...
By "the others" you just meant the above-mentioned "rich guys":_ the _*others *= _the *rich guys*.
_
I meant by "the others" those others from that guy's point of view. (all others except him)
Correct?


----------



## JulianStuart

I really don't know what your new question is, vik 
Are you clear on the "(Some) X get all the Y" construction?


----------



## VicNicSor

Yes, I think I am.

But you said: _If I had just said "others" I could have been referring to other others or to all others_
... by which you mean:
 I could have been referring to other others (other category than "rich guys") or to all others (all categories except "rich guys")
Did you mean that?


----------



## JulianStuart

VikNikSor said:


> Yes, I think I am.
> 
> But you said: _If I had just said "others" I could have been referring to other others or to all others_
> ... by which you mean:
> I could have been referring to other others (other category than "rich guys") or to all others (all categories except *including* "rich guys")
> Did you mean that?


Yes - any and all categories of "others" except *the* one I want to specify.


----------



## VicNicSor

It was just an unusual _to me_ usage of "the others" for which I hadn't been prepared

Thank you !


----------

