# EN: definite article "the" / zero article



## Tichwi

*Moderator note*: multiple threads merged to create this one

Hello,

There is a point in English grammar which has always been very difficult for me. It is whether or not I shall put THE before a plural noun. I guess it depends whether the noun is definite, but it is not very clear for me. Is there an "always working" trick??

For example, in the tittle of a section should I say: (solitons are strange mathematical objects which you don't care about)

"Introducing the solitons" or "introducing solitons" and later in the text, should I say, "then, computing the solitons, we find that..."

Thanks!


----------



## Lilmisseh

I'd say there was often a 'the' in front of plural nouns.
I'm a little confused at your example, do you mean 'solutions' as in 'answers'?
Have you got any other examples?


----------



## englishman

Tichwi said:


> For example, in the tittle of a section should I say: (solitons are strange mathematical objects which you don't care about)
> 
> "Introducing the solitons" or "introducing solitons"



It's "Introducing solitons" but better would be "An introduction to solitons" since "Introducing solitons" is rather ungrammatical and sounds like something that you'd hear on a hairspray commercial. You can't use "the" here, since you are not describing a specific soliton, with specific characteristics: you are talking about solitons in general.



> and later in the text, should I say, "then, computing the solitons, we find that..."


Yes, you should (or rather _must_), since you are talking about a particular set of solitons i.e those that are the solution of a previous equation.

So: 

when talking about general cases, don't use "the"
when talking about specific cases, use "the"


----------



## Mugicha

Are you talking about quantum physics?
I would say "Introducing solitons" when referring to them as a general entity, but if you are isolating a specific example of a soliton then you would say, for example, "the solitons observed in this experiment had XXX properties"

[...]


----------



## quoi29

englishman said:


> It's "Introducing solitons" but better would be "An introduction to solitons" since "Introducing solitons" is rather ungrammatical and sounds like something that you'd hear on a hairspray commercial.



I disagree.  I find "Introducing Solitons" to be perfectly grammatical, and is a formulation found in countless textbooks and manuals.  I would love to hear your reasoning though.


----------



## Tichwi

Yeah I know it is confusing, sorry. It is more an object, that I am talking about, maybe, it is the same as if you are talking of, let's say painting, about the impressionists, would you say
"introducing the impressionists" or "introducing impressionists"

and, maybe, "looking at impressionist pictures" or "looking at the impressionist pictures"
I tried to keep the same level of generality, I hope it is OK...

Thanks very much anyway!


----------



## polaire

Tichwi said:


> it is the same as if you are talking of, let's say painting, about the impressionists, would you say
> * "introducing the impressionists"* or "introducing impressionists"


Yes.  But you would say "introducing s___."  Maybe because "The Impressionists" is a defined group even though they are being referred to in a general way?



> and, maybe,* "looking at impressionist pictures" *or "looking at the impressionist pictures"


Yes.  No "the" because you're talking about the impressionist movement in general.


----------



## Tichwi

Thanks all,

Yes, I am talking about quantum physics ;-)

For the French equivalent, we say either "les" or "des", never nothing. And the use of "les" is much broader than the use of "the". But "des" is also "de+les"

Definitely, 
presentons les impressionistes (ou les solitons)
en calculant les solitons, on trouve...

Thanks again!


----------



## Tichwi

Good evening again,

Some more examples of my problems with "the", with singular nouns, this time:
I guess this time, the main point is to decide whether or not this is a fundamental concept...

Let's first have a look at the simplest composed nucleus, (the) deuteron.

It might increase (the) energy.


Thanks!


----------



## zit0un

Hey there !
_
Cars have four wheels.
The cars in this street are pretty fast.
_
I don't really know where/when the word "the" is mandatory, not really needed or change the general meaning of the sentence... Could someone explain me the subtleties of the use of "the"?

If I tend to see this for words in plurial, like in the above example, I'm definitely stuck when it is about singular words. To illustrate this, let's say we have a certain process with a step #1 that is called "Preparation".

_The step #1 is the Preparation.
*Step#1 is Preparation.*
The preparation is the first step.
*Preparation is the first step.
*_
I would say that sentences in bold characters ring better, but I'm not sure... Any explaination, someone?

[…]


----------



## cocomax

Hello
je dirais en première approximation que "_pas de_ the" est le pluriel de "a/an".

Donc dans ton cas :
A preparation is the first step. 
(comme en français)

Mais je peux me tromper ...


----------



## marget

I think the sentences in bold are correct.  I would not say "A preparation... "


----------



## Outsider

zit0un said:


> _Cars have four wheels.
> The cars in this street are pretty fast._


Utilisez l'article défini quand vous parlez de choses concrètes. Ne l'utilisez pas quand vous parlez d'une chose en général.



zit0un said:


> _The step #1 is the Preparation.
> *Step#1 is Preparation.*
> The preparation is the first step.
> *Preparation is the first step.*_


Vous avez raison. N'utilisez pas l'article avec des noms numérés.

Dans ce qui concerne le deuxième pair de phrases, je ne suis pas sûr si la première phrase est incorrecte, mais la deuxième me sonne quand-même mieux.


----------



## Old Novice

In my experience, "Step 1 is Preparation" identifies the name of the step. "Step 1 is the preparation" identifies the function of the step. You'd never use a "the" in front of "Step 1", but you would say "The first step is Preparation/the preparation."

Edit:  Just noticed this is a first post.  Welcome to the forums, zit0un.


----------



## zit0un

All right, thx for all those explainations...
I'm pretty amazed to see that I was answered so quickly, this place is definitely the one I was looking for !


Merci également pour la gentillesse et le message de bienvenue, ça fait toujours plaisir sur ce web si souvent impersonnel...


----------



## sunelav

Hi !

I have looked for information about this grammatical question but could not find any satisfactory answers... So here I am. 
Should we use "the" or no article […] when combining two nouns in a sentence with "of" or "in" […] ?

"*The* increase in the world population might cause serious troubles."   OR   "Increase in the world population..." ?
"*The* degradation of arable lands is a problem in many countries."       OR   "Degradation of arable lands is..." ?
"*The *development of stress tolerant crops may be solution"               OR   "Development of stress tolerant crops..." ?

[…]

Thank you very much in advance for your help.
Cheers,

S.


----------



## gardian

Vraiment, vous devez décider du contexte et aussi - un peu - du flot des mots.


*1. "The increase in the world population might cause serious troubles." *

semble mieux que :
*
  "Increase in the world population..." *

puisque il y en a sans doute une grande croissance.


*2. "Degradation of arable lands is..." *

semble plus appropriée que :

*"The degradation of arable lands is a problem in many countries."*

puisque cette dégradation n'existe pas toujours dans tous les pays.
Ici c'est plus comme un cas d'un nom générique, je pense.

Du même avec 
*
 3. "Development of stress tolerant crops..." *

plutôt que :

*"The development of stress tolerant crops may be solution"*


Cependant, c'est pas du tout un faux-pas grave d'utiliser l'un ou l'autre dans tous ces cas.


----------



## Keith Bradford

There is no rule, over and above the usual one that "the" refers to something specific.  So if you have a specific _degradation of arable lands _in mind, use *the*; if not, not.  Likewise for (_*the*)development_...

However, it has to be* the *_increase in world population _- well, there is only one population and so only one increase.


----------



## Novanas

In all these cases, I'd use "the".  Generally speaking, we use "the" (the definite article) when the thing we're talking about has been defined/specified--i.e. when we know *which thing* we're talking about.

In your first sentence, e.g., we know which increase we're talking about (because the sentence itself tells us): the increase in the world's population.


----------



## Buster78

Bonjour.
J'ai lu dans une fiche de grammaire que l'article zéro était employé entre autre devant des indénombrables. Dans les exemples donnés, on aurait remplacé l'article zéro par "le" ou "les" en français. Je me demande donc si c'est car on s'intéresse au nom dans sa généralité qu'on ne met pas "the" ou car il s'agit tout simplement d'un nom indénombrable.

J'oubliais les exemples:
"_I hate hypocrisy."
"I'm completely opposed to vivisection."_

Merci d'avance


----------



## Maître Capello

L'article zéro s'emploie avant tout pour les *généralités*, que le nom soit dénombrable ou pas, mais lorsqu'il l'est, il ne s'emploie qu'au pluriel.

_I hate hypocrisy_. = Je déteste *l'*hypocrisie. (indénombrable)
_I'm opposed to vivisection_. = Je suis contre *la* vivisection. (indénombrable)
_I like tea_. = J'aime *le* thé. (indénombrable)
_I like cars_. = J'aime *les* voitures. (dénombrable)

S'il ne s'agit pas d'une généralité, on emploie l'article défini _the_ comme en français, que le nom soit dénombrable ou pas.

_I like *the* tea you gave me._ = J'aime *le* thé que tu m'as donné.
_I like *the* car(s) you own._ = J'aime *la/les* voiture(s) que tu possèdes.


----------



## Buster78

D'accord merci beaucoup.


----------



## Buster78

J'ai de nouveau une question concernant cette fois-ci des "expressions".
Je sais que quand on dit qu'on joue un instrument, on dira "play the" alors que quand on parle d'un sport ça sera juste "play".
Aussi écouter la radio se dit "listen to the radio". Mais quand est-il de "la musique". Listen s'exprime toujours avec l'article?
Et pour ce qui est de "watch", est-ce que là aussi ça sera toujours sans l'article?


----------



## Oddmania

Salut,

Cela dépend plus du *nom *en question que du verbe. La radio se dit "*the *radio" en anglais, mais (bizarrement) la télévision se dit "television".
_
He's listening to the radio.
He's watching television.
_​Le mot "music" ne nécessite pas d'article non plus:_ He's listening to music._


----------

