# The gods must be crazy



## The cub

Greetings

In 1980, a movie called _The gods must be crazy_ was released. This movie is set in South Africa, and the plot tells the story of a member of a tribe who finds out a bottle of Coca-Cola. That tribe happens to be detached from civilization, so their members believe that bottle came from the gods, and therefore, the one who found it out sets out on a journey to return the bottle to those gods.

My question is about the tittle of this movie. Why "The gods must be crazy" instead of just "Gods must be crazy"?

Thanks.


----------



## The Newt

"The gods" means _all _the gods that exist; "gods" might mean just a few of them.


----------



## The cub

The Newt said:


> "The gods" means _all _the gods that exist; "gods" might mean just a few of them.



I see. That makes sense in the story.

Thanks


----------



## gengo

The cub said:


> In 1980, a movie called _The gods must be crazy_ was released. This movie is set in South Africa, and the plot tells the story of a member of a tribe who finds *out* a bottle of Coca-Cola. That tribe happens to be detached from civilization, so their members believe that bottle came from the gods, and therefore, the one who found it out sets out on a journey to return the bottle to those gods.
> 
> My question is about the tittle of this movie. Why "The gods must be crazy" instead of just "Gods must be crazy"?



This is unrelated to your question (I agree with Newt), but I'll point out that unlike in Spanish, in English a title (movie, book, etc.) must have all the important words capitalized, and always the first word, even if not important.  Therefore, it's The *G*ods *M*ust *B*e *C*razy.  Compare that to _Gone with the Wind,_ in which the preposition and article are not capitalized.


----------



## Ballenero

The Newt said:


> "The gods" means _all _the gods that exist; "gods" might mean just a few of them.


I don't understand it.
Wouldn't be? Gods are gods in general, that is, all the gods in the world, now and then.
And the gods are the gods of their religion, the gods of that tribe.


----------



## Circunflejo

Ballenero said:


> I don't understand it.
> Wouldn't be? Gods are gods in general, that is, all the gods in the world, now and then.
> And the gods are the gods of their religion, the gods of that tribe.


Es igual en español los dioses (todos, a no ser que se indique lo contrario con algún complemento) y dioses (unos dioses indeterminados, no todos).


----------



## The Newt

Ballenero said:


> I don't understand it.
> Wouldn't be? Gods are gods in general, that is, all the gods in the world, now and then.
> And the gods are the gods of their religion, the gods of that tribe.



It may seem confusing, but it needs the definite article. It's a _defined_ set of gods made up of _all_ the ones that we know to exist or can imagine to exist. Just saying "gods" doesn't define which gods you're talking about or how many. It might mean only two or three of the thousands that may exist.


----------



## The cub

The Newt said:


> It may seem confusing, but it needs the definite article. It's a _defined_ set of gods made up of _all_ the ones that we know to exist or can imagine to exist. Just saying "gods" doesn't define which gods you're talking about or how many. It might mean only two or three of the thousands that may exist.



Actually, I'm still a bit confused, because if "the gods" means "all of the existing gods", why don't we say "the butterflies fly in spring" or "the babies don't chew meat", when we mean all of them?


----------



## The Newt

The cub said:


> Actually, I'm still a bit confused, because if "the gods" means "all of the existing gods", why don't we say "the butterflies fly in spring" or "the babies don't chew meat", when we mean all of them?



What we normally say is "babies don't chew meat," because we're essentially making a statement about _the nature of_ babies, without reference to which babies, or how many, or even whether babies currently exist. Dogs don't have wings, cats kill mice, etc. When we say "the gods must be crazy" we're referring to a defined set made up of all of the gods that exist.


----------



## The cub

The Newt said:


> What we normally say is "babies don't chew meat," because we're essentially making a statement about _the nature of_ babies, without reference to which babies, or how many, or even whether babies currently exist. Dogs don't have wings, cats kill mice, etc. When we say "the gods must be crazy" we're referring to a defined set made up of all of the gods that exist.



I think I get it. So, is it the same as we do when we talk about people from a specific country and we say "the Americans, the British..."?

I was looking for... who knows what on the net, and I've found the following sentence:
*Ancients* or *The Ancients*, also known as *Ancestors*/*The Ancestors*, *Lanteans*, and *Gate Builders*, or *Anquietas* in their language, were those Alterans who left their home galaxy for the Milky Way and seeded it with life. 

In this case, we have both, "Ancients" and "The Ancients". Is there any particular reason for this?


----------



## gengo

The cub said:


> So, is it the same as we do when we talk about people from a specific country and we say "the Americans, the British..."?



It's not really clear-cut in those examples.  We would usually use no article with "Americans" because that is demonym by itself, whereas "British" is really more of an adjective, so we would use the article.  There are many country names that fall into one of these two categories.

Ex.
Americans like baseball, while the British like soccer, the Japanese like sumo, Australians like rugby, and the French like kissing.



> Ancients or The Ancients, also known as Ancestors/The Ancestors...
> 
> In this case, we have both, "Ancients" and "The Ancients". Is there any particular reason for this?



It's just poor writing.  The article is required in "the Ancients" and "the Ancestors."


----------



## The cub

gengo said:


> It's not really clear-cut in those examples



Ok. Let's throw those examples away. How about "the elderly"? Does this "the" have the same reason as the "the" on "the gods"?


----------



## Graciela J

If this is a sentence that a member of the tribe said, then "the gods" means "all the gods that the tribe worship". It doesn't include Ra, Zeus, Marduk, or gods adored by Amazon or Noth American tribes.


----------



## The cub

Graciela J said:


> If this is a sentence that a member of the tribe said, then "the gods" means "all the gods that the tribe worship". It doesn't include Ra, Zeus, Marduk, or gods adored by Amazon or Noth American tribes



Well, it's the tittle of the movie, and I supposed it's also the thinking of those people.

So, if they think the only gods in the world are theirs, they have to say "the gods". But, if they know there are others, then they have to say just "gods". Is this the point?


----------



## gengo

The cub said:


> How about "the elderly"? Does this "the" have the same reason as the "the" on "the gods"?



Yes, because you are referring to all elderly people.  Furthermore, elderly is an adjective, so it can't be used by itself (without an article) as a noun.

Getting back to your original question, if you said "gods must be crazy," it would sound rather like "unas/algunas dioses deben de estar locos."  Not exactly the same, but the point is that it would sound odd.


----------



## The cub

gengo said:


> Getting back to your original question, if you said "gods must be crazy," it would sound rather like "unas/algunas dioses deben de estar locos." Not exactly the same, but the point is that it would sound odd



So, would it be "the gods must be crazy" the same as "all the gods must be crazy"?


----------



## gengo

The cub said:


> So, would it be "the gods must be crazy" the same as "all the gods must be crazy"?



Actually, I think it's the same in Spanish here.  Los dioses versus todos los dioses.


----------



## The cub

gengo said:


> Actually, I think it's the same in Spanish here. Los dioses versus todos los dioses



I see.
Thank you so much and sorry to bother you this way


----------



## Ballenero

Then, saying Gods is like saying God because you are talking about someone specific. Could this be an explanation?


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

Ballenero said:


> I don't understand it.
> Wouldn't be? Gods are gods in general, that is, all the gods in the world, now and then.


El título de la película fue traducido como  "Los Dioses Deben Estar Locos", y está  bien. El original en inglés es "The Gods Must be Crazy".

Lo único que queda por dilucidar, es por qué se usa "The" en el original inglés, cuando "en las enuncuaciones de tipo general suele omitirse el artículo" en dicha lengua.

La razón es: no hay nada de general en la afirmación.
El título de la película pone en boca del bosquimano protagonista esa frase. Él está diciendo que unos dioses determinados (sus dioses) probablemente estén locos. A pesar del carácter dubitativo de la afirmación, no hay nada de general en ella.

Ese "must" no está usado en el sentido de un pronunciamiento general sobre algo que debe pasar forsozamente obligación.

_Even gods must undergo aging and death. = Incluso los dioses deben sufrir la vejez y la muerte._

sino que está siendo usado como una casi certeza por parte del hablante.

_The gods must be crazy = I am almost sure that (my) gods are crazy = Los/mis dioses deben estar locos._

Visto así, el carácter prescriptivo y general de la frase (lo que en inglés habría requerido eliminar el artículo) se difumina bastante.

Si yo dijera en inglés

_Gods must be crazy._

estaría diciendo.

_Los dioses, (como regla) es necesario que estén locos. = Los dioses deben estar locos.  ("deben" en el sentido de "tienen que")_
Algo así como,_ "un dios, para existir, como requisito para su mera existencia, tiene que tener la característica de la locura"._
Ahí sí estaría estableciendo una regla/afirmación general, y omitir el artículo se justificaría.


----------



## Ballenero

Ahora creo que ya lo entiendo.
Gracias.


----------



## Chasint

I find many of the answers here misleading.

_The gods must be crazy_, refers to all the gods that the *tribe* worship or believe in. The tribe are isolated so they do not know about other gods in other places. We are supposed to imagine that the phrase _The gods must be crazy, _is spoken by the tribespeople, not by observers from outside who know about other gods.


_Gods are crazy, _refers to gods in general.  If you meet a god then you know that that god will be crazy.  This is likely to be said by an educated person who knows about many gods worshipped by different religions. It says that all gods, of whatever religion are crazy.  The tribespeople are not aware of anyone else's gods so, to them, the only gods are "*the* gods", i.e. the ones they themselves worship.


----------



## MonsieurGonzalito

I agree with the above.
"The gods are crazy"
is said by a person speaking naturally about his gods, and unwilling or unable to make a generalization in that regard.


----------



## lagartija68

Circunflejo said:


> Es igual en español los dioses (todos, a no ser que se indique lo contrario con algún complemento) y dioses (unos dioses indeterminados, no todos).


No, justamente.  La omisión del artículo en inglés indica un enunciado universal, y en castellano, no. Es más, por lo que ya dijeron, la omisión indica una generalidad aun mayor que la que se indica con el artículo.  La cuestión era dilucidar qué sentido tiene el artículo determinado en una oración en plural.


----------



## Circunflejo

lagartija68 said:


> La omisión del artículo en inglés indica un enunciado universal, y en castellano, no.





gengo said:


> if you said "gods must be crazy," it would sound rather like "unas/algunas dioses deben de estar locos."


----------



## lagartija68

Circunflejo said:


>



A/an and the - English Grammar Today - Cambridge Dictionary:


*General nouns*
We only use _the_ with general plural nouns when we are referring to a specific set within a general class of people or things.

Compare





> _Books are so important in my life._


I mean all books in general.


> _The books were all over the floor._


I mean specific books (that you and I know).

We can make general nouns specific by using an article and adding more information after the noun.







> _Life is wonderful._ (life in general)





> _The life of a soldier is full of danger._ (specifically the life of soldiers, not life in general)





> _She had a life of hard work._ (one specific life)





> _History sometimes repeats itself._ (history in general)





> _He wrote a book on the history of boxing._ (specifically the history of boxing)





> _The country has a history of going to war._ (one specific history of one country)


----------



## Circunflejo

Yes, @lagartija68, but that doesn't apply to the OP's case, as the natives themselves said.


----------



## lagartija68

Perfectamente aplica. Mi señalamiento era la diferencia entre inglés y castellano respecto de la omisión del artículo.
La omisión en inglés implica universalidad y en castellano, lo contrario. Los enunciados generales en español van con el artículo determinado.


----------



## Circunflejo

lagartija68 said:


> Perfectamente aplica.





The Newt said:


> It may seem confusing, but it needs the definite article. It's a _defined_ set of gods made up of _all_ the ones that we know to exist or can imagine to exist. Just saying "gods" doesn't define which gods you're talking about or how many. It might mean only two or three of the thousands that may exist.





gengo said:


> if you said "gods must be crazy," it would sound rather like "unas/algunas dioses deben de estar locos."





Circunflejo said:


> Es igual en español los dioses (todos, a no ser que se indique lo contrario con algún complemento) y dioses (unos dioses indeterminados, no todos).


----------



## lagartija68

Chasint said:


> _Gods are crazy, _refers to gods in general. If you meet a god then you know that that god will be crazy. This is likely to be said by an educated person who knows about many gods worshipped by different religions. It says that all gods, of whatever religion are crazy. The tribespeople are not aware of anyone else's gods so, to them, the only gods are "*the* gods", i.e. the ones they themselves worship.


Acá tienes la posición contraria, acorde con lo que dice Cambridge.


----------



## Chasint

lagartija68 said:


> Acá tienes la posición contraria, acorde con lo que dice Cambridge.


Exactly, and this is even laid out clearly in the original *question!*



> That tribe happens to be detached from civilization, so their members believe that bottle came from* the gods*, and therefore, the one who found it out sets out on a journey to return the bottle to *those gods*.



Even _The cub _who was the one to ask the question, used "the gods" in that explanation, so why be surprised if the film title uses it too?

Sometimes the lack of logic on this site makes me despair!


----------



## The cub

Chasint said:


> Even _The cub _who was the one to ask the question, used "the gods" in that explanation, so why be surprised if the film title uses it too?



Well, I used "the gods" just because the tittle reads so, and I have to assume that the guys who decided to call the movie like that knew what they were doing. But that tittle was quite intriguing to me.


----------



## Chasint

The cub said:


> Well, I used "the gods" just because the tittle reads so, and I have to assume that the guys who decided to call the movie like that knew what they were doing. But that tittle was quite intriguing to me.


 

P.S. Notice the spelling of "title"  (not tittle)


----------



## The cub

Chasint said:


> P.S. Notice the spelling of "title" (not tittle)



Oooops!
I had the feeling that something was wrong there.
Shame on me!


----------

