# quietly happy marriage



## dinah

Hi everybody,
Does the following sentence make sense to you?

"I fell in love with him after years of quietly happy marriage"

I am writing a creative text and I want to say that I fell in love with this person, after having being married for years but not truly loving each other.

Many thanks for your help!


----------



## cyberpedant

It makes sense, but doesn't truly convey your idea of lovelessness. Perhaps, "merely happy marriage?"


----------



## dinah

Thanks cyberpedant, I will consider your suggestion


----------



## MagdaDH

I am not a native, but for a creative text, I personally feel that your initial version is quite neat and has a freshness that the _merely happy _doesn't have. 

_Quietly happy _suggests, to me, real happiness and contentment, just no great passion. _Merely happy_ would be conventionally happy, a bit empty.


----------



## dinah

MagdaDH said:


> _Quietly happy _suggests, to me, real happiness and contentment, just no great passion. _Merely happy_ would be conventionally happy, a bit empty.



Thank you Magda, I think I will keep "quietly happy" indeed...as long as it is correct, I find it slightly more expressive.


----------



## timpeac

dinah said:


> Hi everybody,
> Does the following sentence make sense to you?
> 
> "I fell in love with him after years of quietly happy marriage"
> 
> I am writing a creative text and I want to say that I fell in love with this person, after having being married for years but not truly loving each other.
> 
> Many thanks for your help!


Others haven't said so, so maybe this is just me, but the sentence


"I fell in love with him after years of quietly happy marriage"

does sound odd to me. I'm finding it hard to say why though as I can't discern a grammatical error.


----------



## Dimcl

timpeac said:


> Others haven't said so, so maybe this is just me, but the sentence
> 
> 
> "I fell in love with him after years of quietly happy marriage"
> 
> does sound odd to me. I'm finding it hard to say why though as I can't discern a grammatical error.


 
I think we're missing a word... to me, it should be "I fell in love with him after years of *a* quietly happy marriage"


----------



## emma42

What about:

*I fell in love with him after years of passionless married contentment*?


----------



## emma42

Dimcl said:


> I think we're missing a word... to me, it should be "I fell in love with him after years of *a* quietly happy marriage"



It doesn't need the article.  "Years of happy marriage" works as well as "Years of hard work" or "Years of deep sadness".


----------



## Cagey

As written (without the article *a*) I understand you to be saying that years after you married him, you (finally) fell in love with your husband.   If that is what you mean, I like the sentence.

If that is not what you mean, the sentence might be revised. Among other possibilities, the article (*a*) might help the reader to make a distinction between the falling in love and the marriage.


----------



## iskndarbey

I have to disagree with emma42; it sounds very strange without the article but perfect with it.


----------



## AngelEyes

dinah said:


> "I fell in love with him after years of a quietly happy marriage."


 
Maybe it's AE to think so, but I totally agree with Dimcl that you need the article.

dinah: What's your sentence before and after this? I have to admit that at first it didn't work for me, but there's something simple and direct about it that I love after reading it a few times.

It feels incomplete somehow, though. 

That's why I'm asking for more context. 

And it also has me curious. Where are you going with this? How will you embellish it?

It feels more like a starting point for lots of other stuff. That's a good thing! 

*AngelEyes*


----------



## Harry Batt

I'm afraid that  years of hard work does not make it synonymous grammatically to years of happy marriage. I've been led to the rule regarding common nouns and how they are handled if countable or noncountable. Work is noncountable and marriage is countable. You can have 5 marriages but not 5 works. The countable common noun such as marriage takes the article. The uncountable work does not. As much as I want to disagree, it should be written as a quietly happy marriage.


----------



## iskndarbey

Harry Batt said:


> Work is noncountable and marriage is countable. You can have 5 marriages but not 5 works. The countable common noun such as marriage takes the article. The uncountable work does not. As much as I want to disagree, it should be written as a quietly happy marriage.



I don't think it's that simple. It's perfectly natural to say, for example, "Years of marriage taught him to never call his wife fat", but something about adding the adjective and adverb just makes 'a' sound better there. Marriage can act as either an abstract or a specific noun, and when you're using adjectival phrases such as 'quietly happy' it makes it sound like you're talking about one particular instance of marriage, thus making an article necessary.


----------



## latinquarternight

Personally, I would leave out the "a" but add "only" to imply how the love came over time.

"I fell in love with him *only* after years of quietly happy marriage."

Maybe my personal preference, but it sounds more expressive.


----------



## Dimcl

emma42 said:


> It doesn't need the article. "Years of happy marriage" works as well as "Years of hard work" or "Years of deep sadness".


 
They are not at all the same.   To use your construction , we would have to say:

"I got out of prison after years of grindingly hard prison term" OR
"I finally felt better after years of appallingly sad period in my life"

The original sentence is referring to a particular marriage.  It doesn't appear to be referring to the concept of marriage.


----------



## dinah

AngelEyes said:


> Maybe it's AE to think so, but I totally agree with Dimcl that you need the article.
> 
> dinah: What's your sentence before and after this? I have to admit that at first it didn't work for me, but there's something simple and direct about it that I love after reading it a few times.
> 
> It feels incomplete somehow, though.
> 
> That's why I'm asking for more context.
> 
> And it also has me curious. Where are you going with this? How will you embellish it?
> 
> It feels more like a starting point for lots of other stuff. That's a good thing!
> 
> *AngelEyes*



Thanks Angel 
I'm afraid I can't give more context because it's just the title of a text for a creative writing module.
I will put the article after all, even if it's a bit controversial...

Thank you all for your help!


----------



## dinah

Cagey said:


> As written (without the article *a*) I understand you to be saying that years after you married him, you (finally) fell in love with your husband.   If that is what you mean, I like the sentence.
> 
> If that is not what you mean, the sentence might be revised. Among other possibilities, the article (*a*) might help the reader to make a distinction between the falling in love and the marriage.



Yes, what I mean is that I married him, our marriage was happy for many years even without love and then I fell in love with him.


----------



## Cagey

dinah said:


> Yes, what I mean is that I married him, our marriage was happy for many years even without love and then I fell in love with him.



What an engaging idea for a story! That is what I liked about the opening sentence: it went against the expectation that falling in love would always be with someone outside the marriage.

Since that is what you mean, I think that the idea comes across better if you omit the "a" as in your first version.  However, I can't explain why it works that way, and it is reasonable for you to go with the advice of the majority


----------



## Loob

I like your original sentence.

It's not "conventional".  But it conveys what you mean perfectly, and I can't think of a better way to put it.


----------



## panjandrum

Dinah:
Please do not use the article if you are writing for a BE audience.
That would be bizarre. ... after years of quietly happy marriage 
... after years of happy marriage 
... after years of marriage 
... after years of a marriage 

As far as I can tell, the original sentence is completely natural and grammatical.

If you were to insist on saying "... a quietly happy marriage ..." I would assume that you fell in love with someone other than your husband.

_(NOTE: This opinion is discussed below so please don't stop here __)_


----------



## dinah

Thanks!
I'm glad you found it engaging.
And I don't want it to be conventional...I just want it to sound maybe unusual but correct, and not too "odd" if you know what I mean. It still is an assignment.


----------



## dinah

panjandrum said:


> Dinah:
> Please do not use the article if you are writing for a BE audience.
> That would be bizarre.
> 
> ... after years of quietly happy marriage
> ... after years of happy marriage
> ... after years of marriage
> ... after years of a marriage
> 
> As far as I can tell, the original sentence is completely natural and grammatical.
> 
> If you were to insist on saying "... a quietly happy marriage ..." I would assume that you fell in love with someone other than your husband.



Yes, I am writing for a BE audience indeed...a VERY BE actually. So I may follow your advice. Thanks a lot!


----------



## timpeac

The thing is, though, that I do find it strange - despite being a BE speaker. I find panjandrum's logic unimpeachable - and indeed had run through it in my head before my last post where I say I can't see a grammatical error. Nevertheless I find the sentence strange sounding. I find "a quiet (and) happy marriage" fine - although I'm aware it's not quite the same. It sounds like this may be just my own impression since some other native speakers don't mind it - but I thought I should point it out. I wouldn't write it myself.

Edit - I wonder if it is because the concept "happy marriage" is such an accepted concept as a unit that it is strange to describe it with an adverb (although of course the actual logic of describing the noun "marriage" with "happy" as an adjective itself described by the adverb "quietly" is perfectly grammatical).


----------



## Dimcl

panjandrum said:


> Dinah:
> Please do not use the article if you are writing for a BE audience.
> That would be bizarre.
> 
> ... after years of quietly happy marriage
> ... after years of happy marriage
> ... after years of marriage
> ... after years of a marriage
> 
> As far as I can tell, the original sentence is completely natural and grammatical.
> 
> If you were to insist on saying "... a quietly happy marriage ..." I would assume that you fell in love with someone other than your husband.


 
This is supposing that "marriage" is not a noun. If asking the question, would we not say:

"Have you had *a* happy marriage?"
"Yes, I've had *a* happy marriage".
"Was your happiness passionate?"
"No, it was *a* quietly happy marriage"

Why would we use "a" in this way and not in the original sentence?


----------



## timpeac

Dimcl said:


> This is supposing that "marriage" is not a noun. If asking the question, would we not say:
> 
> "Have you had *a* happy marriage?"
> "Yes, I've had *a* happy marriage".
> "Was your happiness passionate?"
> "No, it was *a* quietly happy marriage"
> 
> Why would we use "a" in this way and not in the original sentence?



Hi, although I don't agree with panjandrum's conclusions in this case I do agree with his argument. "Marriage" is one of those words that can be countable or uncountable according to the context. So,

Marriage is a good thing. (any old marriage)
A (my, this, her) bad marriage harms the kids. (the specific one which resulted in those harmed kids).

I think that it is purely context dependent whether there is an "a" or not - all I know is that the given phrase of "quietly happy marriage" sounds strange to me, and I really wish I could specify why!


----------



## iskndarbey

timpeac said:


> I think that it is purely context dependent whether there is an "a" or not - all I know is that the given phrase of "quietly happy marriage" sounds strange to me, and I really wish I could specify why!



I think it's because we're so used to hearing 'happily married' that having the 'happy' and the 'ly' right before 'marriage' instead automatically reads as a grammatical error even though it's not.


----------



## timpeac

iskndarbey said:


> I think it's because we're so used to hearing 'happily married' that having the 'happy' and the 'ly' right before 'marriage' instead automatically reads as a grammatical error even though it's not.


Yes, I think that's very possible too. We need some clever soul now to go and devise a test he or she can try on friends without explaining the reason why to see what they prefer.


----------



## אדם

At first when I read it, it didn't make much sense to me.. But after looking over it I think that it actually works great.

"Quietly happy" implies to me that it was a happy marriage, but a quiet one at that without anything real, or excitement. I'm assuming that's what your trying to imply?



Dimcl said:


> This is supposing that "marriage" is not a noun. If asking the question, would we not say:
> 
> "Have you had *a* happy marriage?"
> "Yes, I've had *a* happy marriage".
> "Was your happiness passionate?"
> "No, it was *a* quietly happy marriage"
> 
> Why would we use "a" in this way and not in the original sentence?



I think if you added "a" you would have to change it to, "a quiet, happy marriage." To me, when it's written like that, what I think of is "quiet" and "happy" as two seperate things. However, when it makes "quietly" more just refer to "happy"


----------



## Dimcl

Hauser said:


> I think if you added "a" you would have to change it to, "a quiet, happy marriage." To me, when it's written like that, what I think of is "quiet" and "happy" as two seperate things. However, when it makes "quietly" more just refer to "happy"


 
Did you take a look at the two similar sentences that I posted earlier?  Would you write these without the "a"?

"I got out of prison after years of *a* grindingly hard prison term" OR
"I finally felt better after years of *an* appallingly sad period in my life"

I wouldn't.


----------



## panjandrum

There has to be some deep reason for using _prison _and _a sad period in my life_ as alternative examples 

I wonder if mine is an entirely personal response - I'll edit a note into my earlier post just in case.
It seems to me that the article is fine in Dimcl's examples, but not so when used with marriage.  Could this be related to the fact that the prison term has finished, the sad period is over, but the marriage is still alive and well?


----------



## latinquarternight

Dimcl said:


> Did you take a look at the two similar sentences that I posted earlier? Would you write these without the "a"?
> 
> "I got out of prison after years of *a* grindingly hard prison term" OR
> "I finally felt better after years of *an* appallingly sad period in my life"
> 
> I wouldn't.


 

I'm not quite sure I understand why you make a hard comparison between these examples and "marriage." They operate quite differently.

"I still love my husband after years of marriage."
Would you say "I still love my husband after years of *a *marriage"?
Or even "I still love my husband after years of *our *marriage"?

In the sentence that started this whole thread, "marriage" operates the same way as in this example. Why should it be written with an article?


----------



## dinah

This is why I love languages...because they are open to interpretation.

Anyway, I am quite confused now as there are many different opinions...
What I want to point out is that, since it is a creative text, it's ok if it sounds a bit unusual at a first glance. The important thing is that it's grammatically correct and not TOO unusual - in this case it will count as a mistake.

Many thanks for your help!


----------



## AngelEyes

dinah said:


> "I fell in love with him after years of (a) quietly happy marriage."


 
Maybe it depends on how you view this sentence. Is it a "state of being" of these two people? Then you'd probably interpret it to mean they fell in love after living in the state of quietly happy marriage. (the state of marital joining)

If you look at marriage in general (thus the indefinite article), you'd say they fell in love with each other after existing in a marriage (the institution of) that was only quietly happy, not blissfully so, which can only be found in true, passionate love.

*AngelEyes*

_edit:_
I wonder if this is similar to the BE/AE difference in using an article with *hospital*?
~ I had surgery and spent two weeks in (the) hospital.


----------



## dinah

AngelEyes said:


> they fell in love with each other after existing in a marriage (the institution of) that was only quietly happy, not blissfully so, which can only be found in true, passionate love.
> 
> *AngelEyes*



Yes, this is the case. So, without the article, you would say?


----------



## AngelEyes

dinah said:


> Yes, this is the case. So, without the article, you would say?


 
Because of Panj's statements, I'd tend to say don't use it. Still, AE people would look around for that article, I think.   And the arguments for this particular sentence have strength. Be prepared to defend your choices.

There is even something just as important happening here: that sentence is special, no matter what! It made me think and look at it in a highly different way than I would normally. That's brilliant writing.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## Cagey

A search on Google books for "years of * marriage" shows that both constructions are widely used in all registers.  There is no need to defend the absence of an article.    Here is an example:

The court then held that six and a half *years of happy marriage* was a long marriage. Katz et al. (1979) _Fathers, Husbands, and Lovers: Legal Rights and Responsibilities_.​
As this illustrates, the presence or absence of an article gives _marriage_ different meanings:

marriage (1) the state of being married, wedlock (_no article_)
marriage (2) a legal union between a man and a woman (_article_)​
(To me) The opening "I fell in love with him" raises the question "who is _him_?"  When I understand marriage as the state of wedlock I think that "_him_" is likely to be the partner.  With the "a", the marriage is bounded as one specific relationship, and the falling in love seems to suggest another.

NOTE: Both BE and AmE speakers have expressed opinions in support of each usage.  I suggest that the differences are better explained as individual preferences than as a dialectical difference.


----------



## dinah

Thanks everyone!
Just to let you know: my BR professor was very happy about my initial version (without the article), which he found a bit unusual but expressive.
I think we can conclude it's a matter of personal taste


----------



## parap

For some reason the sentence still sounds awkward to me, with or without 'a' (although with 'a' somewhat less).

I'd be more inclined to say something like: "I fell in love with him after years of quiet, happy marriage" or "after years of being quietly and happily married."


----------



## parap

Cagey said:


> A search on Google books for "years of * marriage" shows that both constructions are widely used in all registers.  There is no need to defend the absence of an article.    Here is an example:
> 
> The court then held that six and a half *years of happy marriage* was a long marriage. Katz et al. (1979) _Fathers, Husbands, and Lovers: Legal Rights and Responsibilities_.​



I don't think the problem is "after years of happy marriage," but "after years of *quietly* happy marriage." It's that adverb 'quietly' that's somehow in the way. Logically, it should work (as in "a luxuriously beautiful house"), but for some reason it seems like it doesn't, perhaps because that construction is so extremely rare.


----------



## timpeac

parap said:


> I don't think the problem is "after years of happy marriage," but "after years of *quietly* happy marriage." It's that adverb 'quietly' that's somehow in the way. Logically, it should work (as in "a luxuriously beautiful house"), but for some reason it seems like it doesn't, perhaps because that construction is so extremely rare.


Yes, you're echoing my thoughts exactly. On paper, can't see a problem but read out loud - sounds odd.


----------

