A new Hungarian ambassador

Question

Hi everyone..Please, a question about this sentence."The US President later dined with a new Hungarian ambassador."If it wasn't for "new", I know it should be "the Hungarian ambassador" = there is only one.But if . . .1) The writer thinks the reader doesn't know there is a new Hungarian ambassador in the USor2) The Hungarian ambassador is mentioned for the first timeor3) The writer implies "some Hungarian ambassador" without being specific,or4) All of the above,. . . is the indefinite article ("a new Hungarian ambassador") as mentioned in the original sentence? I think so, but I would like to make sure with the native speakers. (Equally, I think "the" is totally appropriate - it's just a matter of style and shifting emphasis, and also assuming that the audience knows that there is a new ambassador or not).I would be most thankful for your help.Andy

AndyOrban · Accepted Answer

Sorry, I left out a word. I meant to ask: "is the indefinite article ("a new Hungarian ambassador") as mentioned in the original sentence correct?" Thank you.

AlpheccaStars · Answer

It's probably just an oversight.

AndyOrban · Answer

AlpheccaStars, Sorry, I didn't understand your answer. I missed out "correct" - that is the oversight?
To clarify: My question was whether "a new Hungarian ambassador" was correct.

AlpheccaStars · Answer

Grammatically it is correct.
Logically is is not correct.
Oversight = an accidental error that the writer and editor missed.

AndyOrban · Answer

Thank you, but I am still unclear. You are saying that I am right and that I am not at the same time.

AlpheccaStars · Answer

"a new Hungarian ambassador" is a grammatically-correct noun phrase.
eg.
We have a new Hungarian ambassador. Her name is ...

In your example sentence, the indefinite article is used incorrectly.

This is a probably an accidental mistake on the part of the writer. Such mistakes are easy to make and hard to catch.

AndyOrban · Answer

Okay, I understand. Thank you.

Xerxes · Answer

AndyOrban,

As I see it, there is nothing wrong with saying "The US President later dined with a new Hungarian ambassador", and your #1-4 list outlines all the reasons why. Suppose that I don't know that the US has a new Hungarian ambassador. If you were to say to me or to write to me that the US President dined with "the new Hungarian ambassador", I would instinctively raise my eyebrows, asking myself, "there is a new Hungarian ambassador? Is that right?" I would wonder if he/she was mentioned before and whether I missed the fact of that new Hungarian ambassador.

Like you say, if you think that your reader does not know that the current Hungarian ambassador is new (and I reckon most people in the US - or anywhere else in the world - wouldn't) and there is no prior context to apprise the reader of that fact, "a new Hungarian ambassador" informs the reader that there has recently been a change at the top of the Hungarian embassy in Washington and the indefinite "a" article signifies that change.

Remember that the articles "a, an" also represent "SOME" in the English language, while "the" means "THAT". So, by opting for an indefinite article or the definite one, you're playing with emphasis.

Compare:

The US President later dined with a new Hungarian ambassador.
Interpretation: the US President dined with some new Hungarian ambassador sometime later after the event under discussion.

The US President later dined with the new Hungarian ambassador.
Interpretation: the US happens to have a new Hungarian ambassador, and the US President dined with him/her later after the event under discussion.

Bottom line: to use "a" in your original sentence is not an error, as far as I am concerned.

AlpheccaStars · Answer

XerxesBottom line: to use "a" in your original sentence is not an error, as far as I am concerned.

Right, it's not a grammatical error. However, it is most probably a logical error.

Dr. Réka Szemerkényi was appointed Ambassador of Hungary to the United States in 2015.
There is only one ambassador from Hungary to the US at a time.
"New" specifies that the person is not one of the former ambassadors. so if the sentence is about a recent event, the best logical choice is the definite article.

Xerxes · Answer

AlpheccaStarsRight, it's not a grammatical error. However, it is most probably a logical error.

Not to nitpick or argue, but the point of grammar - good grammar - is to make sure that you are well understood and to communicate clearly. If what you say is correct grammatically but makes no sense, then it is kind of . . . erroneous. You know? Grammar does not exist "en soi." So there is something of a contradiction in what you're saying. In my not so humble opinion.

AlpheccaStarsDr. Réka Szemerkényi was appointed Ambassador of Hungary to the United States in 2015.

Yes, and if the President were to have dinner with that person, the president would be having dinner with "the Hungarian ambassador". It would be incorrect/unnatural to say "a Hungarian ambassador", since there is only one accredited to the US. But the adjective "new" makes all the difference. The way that I see this: this quality of "newness" is transitory and, if it has not been previously mentioned, "a new Hungarian ambassador" is valid and not at all illogical.

Imagine that there is an international incident of some sort: the US and Hungary are at loggerheads over something. Let's say that the US did something to vex Hungary.
The US President summoned an irritated Hungarian ambassador to the White House.
Unless the Hungarian ambassador in question is always irritated or the fact of his irritation has already been discussed, "an irritated Hungarian ambassador" is perfectly grammatical and logical. The same logic can be applied to "a new Hungarian ambassador". Dr. Réka Szemerkényi won't be - or wasn't - new for long.

AlpheccaStars"New" specifies that the person is not one of the former ambassadors. so if the sentence is about a recent event, the best logical choice is the definite article.

The best logical choice - okay, but it doesn't mean that "a new Hungarian ambassador" is illogical. Also, we have no idea as to whether or not this is in fact a recent event, as this was not indicated in the original post.

My two cents.

A new Hungarian ambassador

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions