# the former Yugoslavia



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi,

Is it okay to use "the" in the following?

 the partition of <the> former Yugoslavia

Partition Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

Without "former," would "the" be used?

 the partition of <the> Yugoslavia

I'd appreciate your help.


----------



## lingobingo

It would be referred to either just as Yugoslavia or (more usually) as “the former Yugoslavia”. “The Yugoslavia” makes no sense on its own.


----------



## natkretep

We don't generally use the article with proper nouns, but we do use it when we are thinking of different versions or manifestations of someone or something.

So we might say: '_The young Elizabeth_ did not expect to be queen'.

So when we say 'The former Yugoslavia' we mean 'The Yugoslavia that used to exist'. (Notice that in my gloss, I also use the article: I'm talking about _this_ version of Yugoslavia.)


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

But do we use "the" with "Victorian England"?

Can we simply say "Young Elizabeth" without the "the"?



natkretep said:


> So we might say: '_The young Elizabeth_ did not expect to be queen'.


----------



## natkretep

That's true. We can say 'young Elizabeth' without the article too, but there _young _is just descriptive rather than trying to distinguish between the young, middle-aged and older versions of Elizabeth.

No article with 'Victorian England' either. I think labels like 'Victorian' or 'Elizabethan' function like '19th century' or '16th century', and they isolate a period.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Does "ancient China" isolate a period?


----------



## natkretep

Yes.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

natkretep said:


> Yes.



Doesn't "former Yugoslavia" isolate a period too?


----------



## lingobingo

This is irrelevant.

[the] former Yugoslavia = the country of that name that existed during part of the 20th century
ancient China/Egypt/Britain = that country in its earliest stages as a civilisation, millennia ago


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

lingobingo said:


> This is irrelevant.
> 
> [the] former Yugoslavia = the country of that name that existed during part of the 20th century
> ancient China/Egypt/Britain = that country in its earliest stages as a civilisation, millennia ago



We can draw any number of diferences between many phrases, but what matters is whether those differences are signficant or just random or trivial to the grammatical issue in hand.

Does "the former Persia" sound natural?


----------



## lingobingo

That’s a political matter rather than a grammatical one, I think!


----------



## stream21

lingobingo said:


> “The Yugoslavia” makes no sense on its own.


Is it possible to say in an appropriate context:  The Yugoslavia as I remember it  ?     (a particular reflection in memory)

EDIT: There are examples without the article:  _England as I remember it._


----------



## manfy

stream21 said:


> Is it possible to say in an appropriate context:  The Yugoslavia as I remember it  ?     (a particular reflection in memory)
> 
> EDIT: There are examples without the article:  _England as I remember it._


I guess context determines what version works and which one sounds off.

Without context, I'd be inclined to say:
Yugoslavia as I remember it was...
BUT
The Yugoslavia that I remember was...

PS: I'm not quite sure if the first version needs commas around 'as I remember it'.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

stream21 said:


> Is it possible to say in an appropriate context:  The Yugoslavia as I remember it  ?     (a particular reflection in memory)
> 
> EDIT: There are examples without the article:  _England as I remember it._



What intrigues me is the "The adj. + country name" pattern without a postmodifier:

For example, the US House of Representatives has a publication in which it says, ""As of the late 1980s, the former Yugoslavia was a diverse federation of six republics, comprised of many different ethnic groups that were often based on religious affiliation."

But the pattern "the adj. + country name" is not unusual if followed by a postmodifier such as a relative clause or a prepositional phrase.


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But the pattern "the adj. + country name" is not unusual if followed by a postmodifier such as a relative clause or a prepositional phrase.


Yugoslavia occupies a rare place in political history. Yugoslavia came into existence after World War I in 1918 under the name of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes: It became Yugoslavia in 1929 via a name change. It acquired the territories of Istria, Rijeka, and Zadar shortly after 1945, and was then known as the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia. It changed it's name again in 1963 to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.  The SFRY then comprised six republics: SR Bosnia and Herzegovina, SR Croatia, SR Macedonia, SR Montenegro, SR Serbia, and SR Slovenia. There then followed the Yugoslav wars and the disintegration and abolition of Yugoslavia.

The term "the former Yugoslavia" is a specific phrase/shorthand that describes the area that was Yugoslavia as it was between 1946/7 and 2001.

"The/a former [noun]" is a very common collocation: the former president; the former chairman; the former building", etc.

the former noun = that noun that existed previously.


----------



## stream21

manfy said:


> Yugoslavia as I remember it was...


It seems "as I remember it" is more like a casual remark here which actually means if I remember rightly.


----------



## manfy

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But the pattern "the adj. + country name" is not unusual if followed by a postmodifier such as a relative clause or a prepositional phrase.


It's not only 'not unusual', it is actually required if that relative clause describes a specific version of the noun. The adjective is irrelevant in this case. You cannot say:
Yugoslavia that I remember was... ​because the relative clause limits the meaning of the noun to one specific instance of itself and that needs a determiner.

The other example follows a different rule of English. In *'the *US House of Representatives', the article is part of the name and cannot be dropped (easily). That's similar to *the *White House.

[slowly cross-posted]


----------



## lingobingo

Manfy’s comment in #13 reinforces natkretep’s in #3.

The postmodifier in the form of a relative clause is adjectival, so:
the [manifestation/version of] Yugoslavia *that I remember*​= the *former* Yugoslavia​= the Yugoslavia *that was* (= the one that used to exist but doesn’t any more)​
“Yugoslavia *as* [I remember] it was” is not adjectival, or at least not in the same way. It means Yugoslavia “when considered in the form/way in which I remember it”.


----------



## manfy

stream21 said:


> It seems "as I remember it" is more like a casual remark here which actually means if I remember rightly.


Yes, but it's not necessarily a meaningless remark, e.g. in
Yugoslavia, the way I remember it, was...​the phrase "the way I remember it" adds value to the statement, and yet I wouldn't add an article to Yugoslavia.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

lingobingo said:


> Manfy’s comment in #13 reinforces natkretep’s in #3.
> 
> The postmodifier in the form of a relative clause is adjectival, so:
> the [manifestation/version of] Yugoslavia *that I remember*​= the *former* Yugoslavia​= the Yugoslavia *that was* (= the one that used to exist but doesn’t any more)​



It remains a question why "Victorian England" does not follow the second pattern, although it seems to follow the first and the third:

the [manfestation/version of] England that  Queen's Victoria reigned over
?? the Victorian England
the England that was under Queen Victoria's reign


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

PaulQ said:


> The term "the former Yugoslavia" is a specific phrase/shorthand that describes the area that was Yugoslavia as it was between 1946/7 and 2001.
> 
> "The/a former [noun]" is a very common collocation: the former president; the former chairman; the former building", etc.
> 
> the former noun = that noun that existed previously.



Are you saying "the former Yugoslavia" is an oddball?

I don't find "the former [noun]" odd at all if the noun is a common noun rather than a proper noun.


----------



## lingobingo

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> It remains a question why "Victorian England" does not follow the second pattern, although it seems to follow the first and the third:
> 
> the [manfestation/version of] England that  Queen's Victoria reigned over
> ?? the Victorian England
> the England that was under Queen Victoria's reign


It’s not a pattern. You’re trying to apply a rule that doesn’t exist.

Victorian *Britain* = *Britain* in Victorian times 
— a description of a particular country​*the* 21st century *world* = *the world* of today
— a description of the world​​the former [country known as] Yugoslavia = “Yugoslavia, which is no longer a country,”
the former Soviet Union = “the Soviet Union, which no longer exists,”
the former US President Barack Obama = “Barack Obama, who was once US President,”


----------



## sound shift

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Are you saying "the former Yugoslavia" is an oddball?


It's not.

"The former Czechoslovakia" 
"The former West Germany" 
Etc.


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Are you saying "the former Yugoslavia" is an oddball?


Yes... to a degree... the "Yugoslavia" makes your example less typical as it no longer exists at all, and there are disputed borders within the area, but the phrase "the former Yugoslavia"  = the area that was most recently Yugoslavia and which is now occupied by various states in various degrees of political union.

Historically, (19th century) the area (plus a few other countries) was referred to as "the Balkans": this was acknowledgement that it was difficult to keep abreast of rapidly changing and much fought over borders and allegiances in the area. "The former Yugoslavia" does much the same job.

Also, to be pedantic, "former" is probably a little inexact: "immediately former" might be more accurate.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

lingobingo said:


> It’s not a pattern. You’re trying to apply a rule that doesn’t exist.
> 
> Victorian *Britain* = *Britain* in Victorian times
> — a description of a particular country​*the* 21st century *world* = *the world* of today
> — a description of the world​​the former [country known as] Yugoslavia = “Yugoslavia, which is no longer a country,”
> the former Soviet Union = “the Soviet Union, which no longer exists,”
> the former US President Barack Obama = “Barack Obama, who was once US President,”



Tthe following are valid, aren't they?

the [manfestation/version of] England that Queen's Victoria reigned over
the England that was under Queen Victoria's reign

If they are valid, it begs the question why "the Victorian London" is not valid and does not behave like the various paraphrases of "the former Yugoslavia."

And "the former Soviet Union," "the former US president," etc. are unremarkable in that "union," "president," etc. are common nouns.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

sound shift said:


> It's not.
> 
> "The former Czechoslovakia"
> "The former West Germany"
> Etc.



Thank you. Those are good examples. 
It seems that "the former Yugoslavia" is not an oddball in relation to those examples, but the pattern "the former + country name" remains an oddball compared with other "adj. + country name" sequences.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

PaulQ said:


> Yes... to a degree... the "Yugoslavia" makes your example less typical as it no longer exists at all, and there are disputed borders within the area, but the phrase "the former Yugoslavia"  = the area that was most recently Yugoslavia and which is now occupied by various states in various degrees of political union.
> 
> Historically, (19th century) the area (plus a few other countries) was referred to as "the Balkans": this was acknowledgement that it was difficult to keep abreast of rapidly changing and much fought over borders and allegiances in the area. "The former Yugoslavia" does much the same job.
> 
> Also, to be pedantic, "former" is probably a little inexact: "immediately former" might be more accurate.



Do you find "the former Persia" okay like "the former Yugoslavia"?


----------



## lingobingo

“The former Persia” is not comparable, in that it’s the previous name of a country which – unlike [the former] Yugoslavia/Czechoslovakia/West Germany – still exists. For example, you’ll find references to “Iran, the former Persia”, which construction would not work in the case of any of those former territories.

As for insisting that it would be logical to say “the Victorian London” because it’s a version of London (when it’s actually a reference to London during a specific period), or that *union* and *president* are common nouns even when used in titles such as the Soviet Union and President of the USA, that’s just clutching at straws.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

lingobingo said:


> “The former Persia” is not comparable, in that it’s the previous name of a country which – unlike [the former] Yugoslavia/Czechoslovakia/West Germany – still exists. For example, you’ll find references to “Iran, the former Persia”, which construction would not work in the case of any of those former territories.



What if "the former Persia" is intended to refer to the former Persian Empire, which doesn't exist anymore? (The empire was far more expansive than modern-day Iran, just as the former Soviet Union was bigger than Russia.)



lingobingo said:


> As for insisting that it would be logical to say “the Victorian London” because it’s a version of London (when it’s actually a reference to London during a specific period), or that *union* and *president* are common nouns even when used in titles such as the Soviet Union and President of the USA, that’s just clutching at straws.



Some people actually think it'd be clutching at straws to equate common nouns with proper nouns in discussions of this sort. In fact, the common reason why  the title "The United States of America" takes a definite article is precisely that "state" is a common noun.


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Do you find "the former Persia" okay like "the former Yugoslavia"?


You would have to give context for that but, with general context, "No, I would not use that" Not least because a lot of Iranians still call Iran "Persia."


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> the common reason why the title "The United States of America" takes a definite article is precisely that "state" is a common noun.


This does not seem to be valid as plural common nouns require no determiner. The reason it is the United States of America is that States is defined, i.e. they are "of America" (There are other countries that are defined by "of [insert name of country]".)


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

PaulQ said:


> This does not seem to be valid as plural common nouns require no determiner. The reason it is the United States of America is that States is defined, i.e. they are "of America" (There are other countries that are defined by "of [insert name of country]".)



My statement was not complete; I took the part you supplied (i.e., "States is defined")  to be be presupposed, so I didn't include that bit.

But consider a "proper noun + defining modifier" example such as "Ronald Johnson of LTC ltd." Does it require a definie article?
If not, it stands in contrast to "common noun + defining modifier" examples like "the United States of America" and shows that the crucial reason for the inclusion or exclusion of a definite article has to do with the common/proper noun distinction.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

PaulQ said:


> You would have to give context for that but, with general context, "No, I would not use that" Not least because a lot of Iranians still call Iran "Persia."



In discussions of English usage, I think what matters is how English speakers refer to the said modern country. Do English speakers still refer to it as "Persia"?

Maybe we could drop that example and look at "Siam." Does "the former Siam" sound okay in general context?


----------



## manfy

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But consider a "proper noun + defining modifier" example such as "Ronald Johnson of LTC ltd." Does it require a definie article?
> If not, it stands in contrast to "common noun + defining modifier" examples like "the United States of America" and shows that the crucial reason for the inclusion or exclusion of a definite article has to do with the common/proper noun distinction.


No, when it comes to personal names, you almost (!!) never use articles - of course, as it is with every rule, exceptions exist.
That means: "*The *Ronald Johnson of LTC ltd."  is wrong.

What are you trying to do? Are you trying to create new simpler rules for the use of articles? I fear you will fail -- if a simple universal rule existed, you would find it in every textbook there is about English grammar.
The language evolved from old English to modern English in a period of about 1500 years and it's naive to believe that this process happened in a straightforward way based on mathematical logic. It didn't.

A quick google brought me to this <English/Russian site> that gives a good overview of some general rules for articles with proper names and it shows two more unique and long pages of specific rules for geographic regions and people's names. At first look it seems pretty arbitrary but when you look long enough you may find certain patterns (but none of which come without their own unique exceptions.)
Skim those pages and you will recognise that it's probably futile trying to invent new better rules.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

manfy said:


> No, when it comes to personal names, you almost (!!) never use articles - of course, as it is with every rule, exceptions exist.
> That means: "*The *Ronald Johnson of LTC ltd."  is wrong.



My question "Does it require a definie article?" is only rheotrical; I knew full well that proper names are almost never used with the definite article.



manfy said:


> What are you trying to do? Are you trying to create new simpler rules for the use of articles? I fear you will fail -- if a simple universal rule existed, you would find it in every textbook there is about English grammar.
> The language evolved from old English to modern English in a period of about 1500 years and it's naive to believe that this process happened in a straightforward way based on mathematical logic. It didn't.



But linguists are exactly trying to do that. You may call it their Holy Grail, but it is a goal that is worth pursuing. The effort involved in the process may lead to some insights about English grammar.


----------



## stream21

Sometimes the best policy is to try to memorize things, how to use them in practice....by and by they will settle down in the mind, and only then try to understand the logic (if there is any) or form your own logic if it helps you in practice ...


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Do English speakers still refer to it as "Persia"?


I imagine that some do - probably some of those who remember the country before the revolution and/or when speaking of times when they were there. 


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Does "the former Siam" sound okay in general context?


Only as a a noun phrase in apposition to Thailand. The Google Ngram for "the former Siam" is quite informative on this -Click! -> *the former Siam*. For obvious reasons, there was a sudden appearance of "the former Siam" when the country changed its name in 1939. 

I think we are drifting from your original question and the use of "*the* + country/territory name".

Country names are proper nouns and generally used uncountably. Proper nouns, otherwise unqualified, do not take a determiner. However, adjectives are strongly and weakly partitive:

"The John is my brother." 
"The taller John is my brother"  (Weak: There are two people called John and the speaker is separating them.)
"The younger John was very sociable, but the older John is very reserved."  (Strong: There is only one John, but the speaker is dividing the person's character by the use of age.)

The same is true of the name of a country. There are few countries that have "the" as part of their English name*.

*The* can only be used where an adjective or adjectival phrase/clause is partitive:

"The Yugoslavia was ruled by Tito." 
"The *former* Yugoslavia was ruled by Tito." 
"The Yugoslavia *of the 50s *was ruled by Tito." 
"The Yugoslavia *that I knew as a child* was ruled by Tito." 


*I can only think of "The Netherlands" and here "nether" is an adjective


----------



## manfy

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But linguists are exactly trying to do that. You may call it their Holy Grail, but it is a goal that is worth pursuing. The effort involved in the process may lead to some insights about English grammar.


 Of course, I understand and agree! If you have the time and passion to do that you have my blessings.
But think about it, how many linguists in the last 1500 years have tried the same? My guess is a lot. Looking at the same patterns a native English speaker would will probably not bring you success. 
If you find a new way of analyzing language, a new framework then you're more likely to succeed. That's exactly what some of the newer, more modern grammar theories do: look at the same thing (the language) but from a new, different angle.


----------



## manfy

PaulQ said:


> *I can only think of "The Netherlands" and here "nether" is an adjective


_The Congo_ is another that doesn't readily seem to fit in any rule.


----------



## PaulQ

manfy said:


> _The Congo_ is another that doesn't readily seem to fit in any rule.


I suspect it is simply a shortened form of "The Democratic Republic of the Congo [River]."

Likewise we have "the Thames, the Rhine, etc." but here, "the" is more demonstrative than partitive -> "the [river name]" = That [river name] of which we are all aware.

Compare: "No, I am talking about the John you know, not the John I know."


----------



## lingobingo

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> In discussions of English usage, I think what matters is how English speakers refer to the said modern country. Do English speakers still refer to it as "Persia"?
> 
> Maybe we could drop that example and look at "Siam." Does "the former Siam" sound okay in general context?


When a country changes its name, we automatically adopt that new name – unless we’re either talking about the era when the old name was used, or maybe making some political point.

But where the country remains the same and only the name has changed, the use of *the former* is unlikely (even though you’ll no doubt find a few uses of it). It’s a totally different situation from Yugoslavia, West Germany, Czechoslovakia – all of which are countries that no longer exist at all.


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But consider a "proper noun + defining modifier" example such as "Ronald Johnson of LTC ltd." Does it require a definite article?


You are avoiding the very foundation of English - context. Here is some context.

A: "Who is he?"
B: "Ronald Johnson."
A: "What! Ronald Johnson the famous hero?"
B: "No. The Ronald Johnson of LTC ltd."  

The is *licensed* by definition: it is not compulsory.

As far as "rules" are concerned - see my signature.


----------



## manfy

> A: "Who is he?"
> B: "Ronald Johnson."
> A: "What! Ronald Johnson the famous hero?"
> B: "No. The Ronald Johnson of LTC ltd."


Yes, but that's a special case and isn't affected by the modifier "of LTC Ltd."
The article would also work in:
B: No. _The _Ronald Johnson, you know? The guy we met at the strip club last night; the one who paid one round after the other. 

_[typos corrected -- thanks grassy!]_


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

PaulQ said:


> You are avoiding the very foundation of English - context. Here is some context.
> 
> A: "Who is he?"
> B: "Ronald Johnson."
> A: "What! Ronald Johnson the famous hero?"
> B: "No. The Ronald Johnson of LTC ltd."
> 
> The is *licensed* by definition: it is not compulsory.
> 
> As far as "rules" are concerned - see my signature.



"The" is not compulsory in every context, but if the sort of "the" in the above dialogue is compulsory in contexts which can be characterized in some way, there's a rule at work.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

manfy said:


> Yes, but that's a special case and isn't affected by the modifier "of LTC Ltd."
> The article would also work in:
> B: No. _The _Ronald Johnson, you know? The guy we met at the strip club last night; the one who paid one round after the other.
> 
> _[typos corrected -- thanks grassy!]_



The factor at play is contrastivity, which characterizes the use of the "the."
It's different from the "the" in "the former Yugoslavia," which does not require contrastivity and is thus relatively neutral.


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> there's a rule at work


And what if the "rule" is _"I use "the" if I feel like using "the". Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't."? _Is that a "rule", or is it just random?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

PaulQ said:


> And what if the "rule" is _"I use "the" if I feel like using "the". Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't."? _Is that a "rule", or is it just random?



The "sometimes, I do, sometimes I don't" part" refers to situations with different features, which dictate  the use of "the" or otherwise in a rule-governed manner. 

P.S. We are in danger of getting off-topic.


----------



## PaulQ

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> P.S. We are in danger of getting off-topic.


I'm trying to dissuade you from thinking that the codifying of a living language is possible. This will help when it comes to answering.


----------

