# <The> simple offer



## Phoebe1200

_Gotham, TV show _
Context: Cobblepot works for Maroni, who is one of the powerful mob bosses (the other one is Falcone) in Gotham. Maroni’s right-hand man, Frankie, isn’t impressed with Cobblepot. Cobblepot and some of Maroni’s guys including Frankie hit a Falcone warehouse that looks to be part of a drug operation. They kill everybody. Then Frankie decides that he’ll take the opportunity to get rid of Cobblepot and solve everything. Only Cobblepot revealed that he had paid off Frankie's henchmen, which was more money than they had seen from Frankie in years, to turn on him, and they hold him up while Cobblepot stabs him to death. Here's the dialog.

*Cobblepot*: When you know what a man loves, you know what can kill him. For you, it's money. You love money. More than power and respect. You're a skinflint, Frankie.  A cheapskate.
*Frankie *(to his henchmen who grab him): What are you guys playing at? Let me go! No, you know me. You don't want to do this. No. No. No, no!
*Cobblepot* (stabs him): As I say, a cheapskate. Consequently, you don't pay your people enough. It is a sad fact that there is no loyalty among thieves. *The* simple offer of a substantial pay raise is all it took to sway these fine men. So, you see, that's your problem! Your greatest passion becomes your greatest weakness! (chuckling)


Could you please explain to me why it's "the" and not "a"?


----------



## london calling

Because it is a specific offer of a substantial payrise.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thanks.

But is using "a" here possible and what would it mean?


----------



## london calling

It would make no sense because they are talking about a specific offer which swayed 'the fine men'.


----------



## VicNicSor

First I wrote this:


> Sorry, I see nothing wrong with "a" instead of "the" in the OP. With "the", he refers to the particular offer; with "a", he tells *what kind of thing* made it possible to sway those people.


But then deleted it because I thought that it's the pattern "the offer *of *(something)", an "of-phrase", which makes the offer specific. But now I googled the pattern "made an/the (adjective) offer of", and the results with "a" were more numerous than those with "the". So, I still think "a" would sound fine in the OP


----------



## Glasguensis

I agree with london calling. The sentence is not idiomatic with "a". It would be idiomatic with "an offer", but adding "simple" makes "a" sound odd.


----------



## VicNicSor

How could the adjective "simple" matter so much?
Google:
"*a *simple offer of" -- 182
"*the *simple offer of" -- 167

Ngram likes "a" more too:
Google Ngram Viewer


----------



## Glasguensis

This is not an expression or simple collocation - those can be analysed using the statistics you quote. Article use depends on the context and the sentence, and in this sentence we are in fact taking about a specific offer. The difference which inserting a word makes is that it tricks us into thinking the opposite, partly due to the length of the sentence. Small differences in a sentence can change article use.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> and in this sentence we are in fact taking about a specific offer


In what way is it specific? What exactly do you mean, could you tell please?


----------



## Glasguensis

It is the specific offer which was "all it took to sway" the henchmen. In the context, we are talking about a single offer (per henchman), so it is one specific offer, and not any one of several offers.


----------



## VicNicSor

Sorry, but it's "specific" in a different way -- it was one single offer. Just like "against a wall" in that thread, where you said that the wall was specific and that's why "a" is possible.

If you swayed someone by a $100 banknote, it doesn't mean you cannot say this, does it?:

"*A *$100 banknote was all it took to sway him."

It would be perfectly correct


----------



## Glasguensis

VicNicSor said:


> "*A *$100 banknote was all it took to sway him."


That is a different sentence, and I agree that "a" is not just possible, but preferable.

The sentence about the walls was also different.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> That is a different sentence


How does "$100 banknote" differ from "simple offer of a substantial pay"?...


----------



## Glasguensis

Firstly, it is much shorter than the original sentence, and secondly I would assume that any $100 note would have sufficed.


----------



## VicNicSor

Shorter? Let's substitute "*a* big leather case filled with new $100 and $50 banknotes" for "a $100 banknote". The same -- the indefinite article, isn't it?


Glasguensis said:


> secondly I would assume that any $100 note would have sufficed


And so would "simple offer of a substantial pay"


----------



## Glasguensis

The length is only important with respect to the distance between the article and "was all it took to sway these fine men", which is what makes this a specific substantial pay rise and not just any substantial pay rise.


----------



## VicNicSor

Sorry I don't understand how the length makes anything specific


----------



## Glasguensis

It is not the length which makes it specific, it is "was all it took...". The length makes a difference to the extent that EVEN THOUGH it is specific "a" could still be used provided that the sentence is short enough that we can see that it is specific within a short distance from the article.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> It is not the length which makes it specific, it is "was all it took...". The length makes a difference to the extent that EVEN THOUGH it is specific "a" could still be used provided that the sentence is short enough that we can see that it is specific within a short distance from the article.



Do you mean the first is correct and the second is not?
"*A *$100 banknote was all it took to sway him."
"*A* big leather case filled with new $100 and $50 banknotes was all it took to sway him."


----------



## Glasguensis

No, a big leather case filled with ... is fine. It is the combination of "simple offer" and "was all it took to sway him" which makes the difference.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> It is the combination of "simple offer" and "was all it took to sway him" which makes the difference.


I don't understand the logic

To me, the OP is just one of those cases when both THE and A would work.


----------



## JulianStuart

(Ahh, I see why this thread is thus long - the OP is asking for logic )


----------



## VicNicSor

No, it's me asking for reasons why "a" would be wrong (and I'm not the OP here)


----------



## london calling

The indefinite article does not work here, as we said above. I quote myself:



london calling said:


> Because it is a specific offer of a substantial payrise.


----------



## VicNicSor

But there were so many questions after post #2. E.g., how does the OP differ from this one: "*A *$100 banknote was all it took to sway him." I can't see any difference
We could say it was a specific $100 banknote, too.


----------



## london calling

VicNicSor said:


> But there were so many questions after post #2. E.g., how does the OP differ from this one: "*A *$100 banknote was all it took to sway him." I can't see any difference


But it is different. 'A' is much better here.


----------



## VicNicSor

I still don't understand, but, to avoid going in circles, let's just leave it be


----------



## SevenDays

Phoebe1200 said:


> _Gotham, TV show _
> Context: Cobblepot works for Maroni, who is one of the powerful mob bosses (the other one is Falcone) in Gotham. Maroni’s right-hand man, Frankie, isn’t impressed with Cobblepot. Cobblepot and some of Maroni’s guys including Frankie hit a Falcone warehouse that looks to be part of a drug operation. They kill everybody. Then Frankie decides that he’ll take the opportunity to get rid of Cobblepot and solve everything. Only Cobblepot revealed that he had paid off Frankie's henchmen, which was more money than they had seen from Frankie in years, to turn on him, and they hold him up while Cobblepot stabs him to death. Here's the dialog.
> 
> *Cobblepot*: When you know what a man loves, you know what can kill him. For you, it's money. You love money. More than power and respect. You're a skinflint, Frankie.  A cheapskate.
> *Frankie *(to his henchmen who grab him): What are you guys playing at? Let me go! No, you know me. You don't want to do this. No. No. No, no!
> *Cobblepot* (stabs him): As I say, a cheapskate. Consequently, you don't pay your people enough. It is a sad fact that there is no loyalty among thieves. *The* simple offer of a substantial pay raise is all it took to sway these fine men. So, you see, that's your problem! Your greatest passion becomes your greatest weakness! (chuckling)
> 
> 
> Could you please explain to me why it's "the" and not "a"?



I think we all recognize that an article is needed; in other words saying "Simple offer of a substantial pay raise is all it took to sway these fine men" doesn't work. What happens is that whenever you _determine/modify_ a noun in some fashion (and here we have the adjective "simple" plus an "of" prepositional phrase modifying the noun "offer"), you start building a _noun phrase_, and the complete _noun phrase_ in this context requires an article. It is true that _specificity_ is a "trigger" (for lack of a better term) for the definite article, and you can certainly use that as your criteria here (as you've seen in this thread). But there are other factors at play. 

"*The *simple offer of a substantial pay raise" suggests that either (1) the idea of "simple offer" _was already mentioned_ before in the text, and is therefore known contextually, or (2) the definite article _differentiates_ this "simple offer" from other "simple offers." In the absence of those two factors, the indefinite article is possible. What happens is this: linguistically, there's an _abstract category_ of "simple offer of a substantial pay raise," and from that category, we select "one" for the purposes of our sentence (in fact, "a" means "one"); moreover, this "a" means "any," _any_ member of this abstract category. (Now, remember, we are talking linguistics; in the real world, of course, there's only _one_ simple offer.) The indefinite article, then, allows you to have a full noun phrase, and the sentence is syntactically sound: _*A *simple offer of a substantial pay raise_. The indefinite article does not specify and does not differentiate in the way that the definite article does.


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you all for the answers.

And, Vic, I want to thank you for participating in my thread because I had the same questions as you after post 4 but just couldn't formulate them.


VicNicSor said:


> To me, the OP is just one of those cases when both THE and A would work.





VicNicSor said:


> how does the OP differ from this one: "*A *$100 banknote was all it took to sway him." I can't see any difference
> We could say it was a specific $100 banknote, too.


I feel the same way about it.
I would still like to know how they differ.


----------



## JulianStuart

Phoebe1200 said:


> I would still like to know how they differ.


Do you think there is an absolute scale by which they will be measured?  It depends on what the speaker wants to mean The speaker in the OP was thinking of the specific offer that was made.  Others might have said a to convey a more general meaning. It is NOT a question of one being right and one being wrong


----------



## Myridon

VicNicSor said:


> We could say it was a specific $100 banknote, too.


Unless you've memorized the serial number or made an identifying mark on it, $100 bills are, for most intents and purposes, identical and interchangeable.  A random bill will sway him just as much as a "specific" one and non-specific bills are a lot easier to find.


----------



## VicNicSor

Myridon said:


> Unless you've memorized the serial number or made an identifying mark on it, $100 bills are, for most intents and purposes, identical and interchangeable.  A random bill will sway him just as much as a "specific" one and non-specific bills are a lot easier to find.


And yet it's specific in that it was one single real banknote, to which you later could refer as "the banknote which I gave them."  Compare: "If I offered them a $100 banknote, they'd take it immediately." This one is hypothetical, abstract, "any $100 banknote".


----------



## Phoebe1200

Thank you very much, everyone, for your replies.


----------



## Myridon

VicNicSor said:


> And yet it's specific in that it was one single real banknote, to which you later could refer as "the banknote which I gave them."


Assuming that this $100 is not all the money they have in the world, this bill would immediately be just part of the $41,233 they have. There's no reason that that banknote is special or different from any other amount of money.  You might be sentimental about the first bill your business took in, put it in a frame, and display it on your wall, but this is a pretty rare sort of occurrence.


----------



## VicNicSor

Myridon said:


> There's no reason that that banknote is special or different from any other amount of money.


The fact that I gave it to them makes it special. I gave them that particular banknote and not any other one...


----------



## Myridon

VicNicSor said:


> The fact that I gave it to them makes it special. I gave them that particular banknote and not any other one...


Once I put it in my pocket, the bill is not special.  It's important that you gave me the amount of $100.  It's not important what bills, coins, checks, credit transfers, etc were involved.


----------



## VicNicSor

In #34 we seem to have drifted from the topic. I meant, it was "*specific*", not "*special*"


----------



## Myridon

VicNicSor said:


> In #34 we seem to have drifted from the topic. I meant, it was "*specific*", not "*special*"


No, that is exactly the point.  There is nothing special about the bill you gave me so it merges with all the other non-specific money.  It's like a drop of water in a glass full of water.  Which drop is "the drop" when it is no longer a drop?


----------



## VicNicSor

Ok, I'll just remind what was the issue: "A $100 banknote was all it took to sway him." The banknote in question is "*specific*", not "*special*", is what I meant and said


----------



## Myridon

VicNicSor said:


> Ok, I'll just remind what was the issue: "A $100 banknote was all it took to sway him." The banknote in question is "*specific*", not "*special*", is what I meant and said


The banknote is just like every other banknote.  It would be better to say "$100 was all it took to sway him."  It doesn't matter if it's one 100, two 50's, five 20's, twenty 5's, a hundred 1s, or some other combination.  The piece of paper is not important, special or specific.  He is not going to frame it and hang it on his wall.  He's not going to show it to other people saying "Look what Vic gave me!"   He's not going to say "I don't like that $100 banknote. I want a different $100 banknote."


----------



## VicNicSor

Myridon said:


> The banknote is just like every other banknote.  It would be better to say "$100 was all it took to sway him."  It doesn't matter if it's one 100, two 50's, five 20's, twenty 5's, a hundred 1s, or some other combination.  The piece of paper is not important, special or specific.  He is not going to frame it and hang it on his wall.  He's not going to show it to other people saying "Look what Vic gave me!"   He's not going to say "I don't like that $100 banknote. I want a different $100 banknote."



Yes, of course! But it doesn't refer to the language question we're discussing here. The language issue is this: I gave some people a piece of paper -- a $100 banknote. It is a real, tangible, one *specific *banknote. Or, let it be a gold bar.

_Once I gave you* a gold bar*. Remember *that gold bar*?_

In the 1st and the 2nd sentence it is a *specific *gold bar, though different articles are used.


----------



## Myridon

VicNicSor said:


> _Once I gave you* a gold bar*. Remember *that gold bar*?_


I remember the event, but not the individual ingot especially when it's next to all the identical ingots in my bank vault.  They are indistinguishable.  I could not find it now.


----------



## VicNicSor

Myridon said:


> I remember the event, but not the individual ingot especially when it's next to all the identical ingots in my bank vault.  They are indistinguishable.  I could not find it now.


I'm just using the word "specific" in the meaning in which native speakers use it sometimes when it comes down to the indefinite article. 
Ok, let's say the ingot was special in my two sentences: non-standart weight/shape, having damages, or anything


----------



## Glasguensis

Sorry Vic but it's entirely related to the language question. Context includes assumed cultural knowledge as well as the immediately surrounding text or speech. It is difficult to imagine that someone would accept a bribe of a specific $100 and not some other $100. We assume that all $100 amounts are interchangeable. This is not the same situation as an offer. We likewise assume that there may be other offers which would be acceptable, but also that there are offers which would NOT be acceptable (if you help me kill your boss I'll give you half a banana). We also know that only one offer was actually accepted.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> someone would accept a bribe of a specific $100 and not some other $100.


I didn't mean that at all, never

Yesterday, I saw *a Mercedes* run into a tree.

"A Mercedes" here is as specific as "a $100 banknote" in my example.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

In 'A $100 banknote is all it took to buy his silence', using the indefinite article also conveys the idea of 'one' as well of course that it is irrelevant which banknote it might be.



> Yesterday, I saw *a Mercedes* run into a tree.



Perhaps you'd like to explain when the definite article might be used instead?


----------



## VicNicSor

Hermione Golightly said:


> Perhaps you'd like to explain when the definite article might be used instead?


When the speaker and listener both know what Mercedes is being discussed. But what did you mean?


----------



## Glasguensis

VicNicSor said:


> I didn't mean that at all, never
> 
> Yesterday, I saw *a Mercedes* run into a tree.
> 
> "A Mercedes" here is as specific as "a $100 banknote" in my example.


You are entirely correct - it is not specific. If we meant a specific Mercedes (Vic's blue Mercedes, for example), we would not use "a".


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> You are entirely correct - it is not specific. If we meant a specific Mercedes (Vic's blue Mercedes, for example), we would not use "a".


I meant it was specific. Just like "I saw him slam against *a wall*" in that thread where you said it was a specific wall.


----------



## Glasguensis

That other thread was a different context and a different sentence structure. The point in this thread is that the original sentence is such that we understand the offer to be specific and therefore expect "the" to be used. In the sentence with the $100 we do not understand the $100 to be specific and therefore expect "a". The supernatural sentence was unusual in that "the" was being used for the general case, so "a" could be used for the specific case. Usually, as you are well aware, it's the other way round.


----------



## VicNicSor

Again, by "specific" I meant something to which you could refer by "the" in a second mention.

"Yesterday, I saw *a Mercedes* run into a tree." [next day, walking by this spot with the listener, pointing at the car which is still there] "Look,* the Mercedes *is still there."

"When I earn enough money, I'll buy *a Mercedes*." This is different. Some unspecific hypothetical Mercedes.



Glasguensis said:


> The point in this thread is that the original sentence is such that we understand the offer to be specific and therefore expect "the" to be used.


But it doesn't mean "a" would be wrong in the OP. That was the issue. The speaker chose to use "the", but he could have just as well used "a".


----------



## Glasguensis

Yes it is wrong, where by "wrong" I mean "unidiomatic". Using "a" in the original sentence simply sounds wrong. We have been trying to explain why it sounds wrong. Quoting different sentences which are perfectly idiomatic is not going to help you understand why the original sentence with "a" isn't idiomatic. If all of the explanations have failed to enlighten you then you are simply going to have to let it go and accept our word for it that this sentence is not the same as the others you have given.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> Yes it is wrong, where by "wrong" I mean "unidiomatic". Using "a" in the original sentence simply sounds wrong. We have been trying to explain why it sounds wrong. Quoting different sentences which are perfectly idiomatic is not going to help you understand why the original sentence with "a" isn't idiomatic. If all of the explanations have failed to enlighten you then you are simply going to have to let it go and accept our word for it that this sentence is not the same as the others you have given.


At least to another native speaker here -- Julian -- it doesn't sound wrong, so there's a disagreement on this.


----------



## Glasguensis

Sorry but I don't see where Julian said that.


----------



## VicNicSor

Glasguensis said:


> Sorry but I don't see where Julian said that.


Post #30.


----------



## Glasguensis

Thanks. As he rightly said, there isn't an absolute scale of right and wrong. I am saying that it sounds wrong to me - perhaps it doesn't sound wrong to some people. Nevertheless, for the purposes of learning English, it's preferable to stick to phrases which sound right to everyone (or practically everyone). Since "the" sounds right to everyone there isn't much point trying to find a justification for using "a".


----------



## JulianStuart

"Could you please explain to me why it's "the" and not "a"?
"The speaker in the OP was thinking of the specific offer that was made."
That is what I said and I stand by it
(Actually I was only re-iterating the very first response to the OP.)

We seem to run quite often into discussions with members whose native language uses no articles about "right" and "wrong" and why in particular examples.  It seems difficult for them to accept that it is not possible to formulate a rule like a computer program that will always give a black and white answer.  This illustrates the distinction between grammar and idiom - the use of "a" would not convey the desired meaning (specifying the offer) in the OP although it would not be grammatically "wrong".  There is also the speaker's choice at play and what feels natural/idiomatic to them and, on occasion, the possibility that the choices make no difference to the meaning communicated.  These are what are most difficult to explain to those new to articles.


----------

