# the/a story of a young man



## VicNicSor

— What would you think about a 25-cent reprint of The Portrait of Dorian Gray? It's a natural, Sherman! Look what we'll be giving them for a quarter! Vice, lust, and corruption, *the *story of a young man, on the surface clear-eyed and healthy, just like you Sherman, but underneath, ah, dry rot... and the termites of sin and depravity, gnawing at his soul. Well, how does that strike you Sherman?
Seven Year Itch, film

I would have expected "*a* story of a young man", why do you think it's used with "the" here?
Thank you.


----------



## london calling

Because it's a specific story, the young man's story.


----------



## VicNicSor

But it's "*a* young man", not "*the *young man"


----------



## london calling

*The *young man's *story*.


----------



## VicNicSor

There are a lot of stories about young men, and it's just *one of them*, isn't it?


----------



## london calling

*'The* story' is correct here. It is *the* *specific story* of a young man as told in the book.


----------



## VicNicSor

I don't understand this: if it was "*the *story of *Dorian Gray*" — no questions, "Dorian Gray" makes the story specific. But how could "*a* young man"? It's just *any *young man


----------



## london calling

It is  _*the* story of *a* young man_ . This is perfectly normal English.


----------



## dojibear

"The" is perfectly normal in AE.

Shindler's list = the list of Schindler
mom's applie pie = the apple pie of mom
a hound's tale = the tale of a hound
a young man's story = the story of a young man

If this use of "the" contradicts a grammar rule, that grammar rule is wrong.
If this use of "the" isn't an example of one grammar rule, there may be another rule describing this use.

But...
the story of a young man
a story of a young man


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you for the answers.


----------



## pachanga7

Hello,

I’m not sure whether this is helpful, but it occurs to me that if you left out “of a young man” the phrase “the story” would not be correct in this context because we wouldn’t know which story was being referenced. Implicitly the author is answering the question “which story?” and that’s why “the” is acceptable. 

Papa, read me a story. 
Which one, son?
The one about the bear in the woods. 

What tools will we need to hang the picture?
A tape measure, a couple of nails, and the level that’s in the drawer. 
Or, A tape measure, a couple of nails, and a level. 

Do you like this? It’s the necklace my grandmother bequeathed to me.


----------



## VicNicSor

pachanga7 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I’m not sure whether this is helpful, but it occurs to me that if you left out “of a young man” the phrase “the story” would not be correct in this context because we wouldn’t know which story was being referenced. Implicitly the author is answering the question “which story?” and that’s why “the” is acceptable.
> 
> Papa, read me a story.
> Which one, son?
> The one about the bear in the woods.
> 
> What tools will we need to hang the picture?
> A tape measure, a couple of nails, and the level that’s in the drawer.
> Or, A tape measure, a couple of nails, and a level.
> 
> Do you like this? It’s the necklace my grandmother bequeathed to me.


Thank you. Also, I think if it were "story *about*", not "story *of*" it'd more likely be "*a*"...


----------



## pachanga7

VicNicSor said:


> Thank you. Also, I think if it were "story *about*", not "story *of*" it'd more likely be "*a*"...


Yes! Absolutely correct.


----------



## Cenzontle

It may help to think there is an assumption that every young man has a story.
So "story" appears with the definite article prematurely, we might say, in anticipation of becoming specific once we introduce the young man.
More examples:
"*The *trunk of *an *elephant is very flexible."
"I hear *the *song of *a* bird."


----------



## VicNicSor

Cenzontle said:


> "I hear *the *song of *a* bird."


That's interesting though. A man has only one story about him, an elephant has only one trunk too. But, if a song is an act of singing which a bird can make plenty, how woud you explain the difference?


----------



## london calling

It isn't a specific bird.


----------



## VicNicSor

london calling said:


> It isn't a specific bird.


What did you mean?


----------



## london calling

What I said. We're not talking about a specific bird that we can see sitting on a branch or something , so it's 'the song of a bird/thrush/tit etc'.


----------



## VicNicSor

london calling said:


> We're not talking about a specific bird that we can see sitting on a branch or something


But neither am I in #15. I was talking about _trunk/story vs song_...


----------



## london calling

I am replying to your post 15.


----------



## VicNicSor

london calling said:


> I am replying to your post 15.


That's exactly why I don't understand what you're referring to, bacause it's a completely different matter.


----------



## heypresto

From where I'm sitting right now, I can hear:

*The *song of *a* bird, *the *yelping of *a* dog, *the *buzzing of *a* bee, *the *squeal of* a* child playing, and *the *sound of *a *car driving past.


----------



## VicNicSor

heypresto said:


> From where I'm sitting right now, I can hear:
> 
> *The *song of *a* bird, *the *yelping of *a* dog, *the *buzzing of *a* bee, *the *squeal of* a* child playing, and *the *sound of *a *car driving past.


So why "the" in all these instances? Is it because any of these creatuers can only make one such sound *at a time*?


----------



## london calling

VicNicSor said:


> That's exactly why I don't understand what you're referring to, bacause it's a completely different matter.


No it isn't, you were questioning 'song of* a *bird'. It's correct. 



Cenzontle said:


> "*The *trunk of *an *elephant is very flexible."
> "I hear *the *song of *a* bird."





VicNicSor said:


> That's interesting though. A man has only one story about him, an elephant has only one trunk too. But, if a song is an act of singing which a bird can make plenty, how would you explain the difference?


----------



## VicNicSor

london calling said:


> No it isn't, you were questioning 'song of* a *bird'.


I wasn't! "*The *song".


VicNicSor said:


> That's interesting though. A man has *only one story* about him, an elephant has* only one trunk* too. But, if* a song* is *an act of singing *which a bird can make *plenty*, how woud you explain the difference?


----------



## heypresto

VicNicSor said:


> So why "the" in all these instances? Is it because any of these creatuers can only make one such sound *at a time*?


No. In each case, it is _the specific _something of _a general _something.

I'm sure we've discussed this sort of usage zillions of times before.


----------



## VicNicSor

heypresto said:


> No. In each case, it is _the specific _something of _a general _something.


But the question is, why is it specific?

An elephant can have *only one* trunk, but a car can make *thousands *of sounds. Is it simply because of the "*of *phrase"?


----------



## VicNicSor

london calling said:


> Yes indeed. There are loads of threads about it.


But they all are irrelevant here.


----------



## VicNicSor

I suggest we just stop this unproductive discussion.
----------------------
Rephrasing #27.
An elephant can have only one trunk, or a man can only have one story (it's clearly specific, I see), but a car/child can make thousands of sounds/squeals. Is it simply because of the "*of *phrase"?


----------



## heypresto

I wasn't talking about just one of the many noises a car or a child can make, I was talking of the sound that they were making at the time.

The car was making a noise as it drove past. I heard that noise, and described it as 'the sound of a car driving past'. It's all very common and natural.

I also heard 'the buzzing of a bee' and 'the squeal of a child.'

I was also listening to *a* track by Pink Floyd.


----------



## VicNicSor

heypresto said:


> I was talking of the sound that they were making *at the time*.
> (............)
> 
> I also heard 'the buzzing of a bee' and 'the squeal of a child.'



Please consider these two examples:

_I heard *the* squeal *of *a child.

I heard *a* squeal that a child made._

Except for the grammatical structure (the former is an "of-phrase"), is there any difference in meaning? I mean, both are about "the sound made at the time", aren't they?


----------



## heypresto

But in my context, I wouldn't say 'I can hear *a* squeal that a child is making while playing' If I really had to use a construction like that, I'd say 'I can hear *the* squeal that a child is making while playing.'

But this is a very unnatural way to say 'I can hear the squeal of a child  playing.'


----------



## VicNicSor

heypresto said:


> I'd say 'I can hear *the* squeal that a child is making while playing.'


Do I correctly understand you would have to shift to a definite article in the third line in the dialog below?

_— I heard *a *squeal.
— What squeal?
— *The *squeal that a child was making while playing._


----------



## heypresto

Yes.


----------



## VicNicSor

heypresto said:


> Yes.



Do you mean you're defining what kind of squeal it is, as in:

_*The *squeal that a (any) child *makes *while playing. _

Is that it?


----------



## heypresto

No, I don't think so. 

I'm defining the squeal as _the squeal that the child I heard squealing was making when playing_.


If, however, the conversation had been:

— I heard a squeal.
— What squeal?
— The squeal that a child *makes* while playing.

That would mean 'The sort of squeal that any child typically makes while playing.


----------



## VicNicSor

heypresto said:


> I'm defining the squeal as _the squeal that the child I heard squealing was making when playing_.


Maybe if we changed "was making" to "made" it'd change things:

1a. _A child made *a squeal *while playing, and I heard it._

If you were to rewrite it in the way as shown below, would you please choose 'a' or 'the'?:

1b._ I heard *a squeal* that a child made while playing._
1c._ I heard *the squeal* that a child made while playing._

If you did choose '1c', does the phrase "_that a child made while playing_" necessarily feels to you like it *defines *the squeal rather than *describes *it?


----------



## Myridon

For the usage in the first post, the example I have given you many times is "the wheels of a car".  The nearby mention of "car" brings the specific wheels of "a (one) car" into context as specific wheels.  Any one car has specific wheels.


----------



## VicNicSor

Myridon said:


> For the usage in the first post, the example I have given you many times is "the wheels of a car".  The nearby mention of "car" brings the specific wheels of "a (one) car" into context as specific wheels.  Any one car has specific wheels.


Yes, but what about these?:


heypresto said:


> *The *song of *a* bird, *the *yelping of *a* dog, *the *buzzing of *a* bee, *the *squeal of* a* child playing, and *the *sound of *a *car driving past.


Except for "yelping" and "buzzing", which don't seem to be countable nouns as the others.


----------



## Myridon

Once you've picked a bird, its specific song is in context.   "Countable" is not the issue.


----------



## heypresto

VicNicSor said:


> Maybe if we changed "was making" to "made" it'd change things:
> 
> 1a. _A child made *a squeal *while playing, and I heard it._
> 
> If you were to rewrite it in the way as shown below, would you please choose 'a' or 'the'?:
> 
> 1b._ I heard *a squeal* that a child made while playing._
> 1c._ I heard *the squeal* that a child made while playing._
> 
> If you did choose '1c', does the phrase "_that a child made while playing_" necessarily feels to you like it *defines *the squeal rather than *describes *it?



I would choose 1c. When I was hearing the sound, it was *the* sound of *a* child playing somewhere not far away. I described *the *sound as *a* squeal, and said 'I can hear *the* squeal of *a* child playing.'


I'm running out of ways to say the same thing. Please accept that my sentence, as well as the OP sentence and the other sentences people have offered in this thread are all perfectly natural.


----------



## JulianStuart

heypresto said:


> I'm running out of ways to say the same thing. Please accept that my sentence, as well as the OP sentence and the other sentences people have offered in this thread are all perfectly natural.


But Vic usually won't believe us unless we can find something elsewhere, like a grammar rule book or a dictionary, that confirms what we say  No matter how many native speakers say it is OK/natural/correct, we are also obliged to have an "outside source" confirm it   (I can hear the sound of a head banging against a wall in South East England !


----------



## heypresto

JulianStuart said:


> I can hear *the* sound of a head banging against a wall in South East England !



(My boldening)


----------



## JulianStuart

heypresto said:


> (My boldening)


My way of chiming in in support of your bold posts


----------



## heypresto

I'm bold over by your support.


----------

