a tiger is vs tigers are

Question

Hi,I think I am slightly being confused. For a long time, I have been thinking the sentences blew mean totally different things, but a textbook that I read yesterday says, they are generally the same. a) A tiger is a dangerous animal.b) Tigers are dangerous animals. The book says, "a tiger" in the sentence (a) do represent tigers in general, like the word, "any" but for me "a tiger" in that sentence means more like a "certain" tiger.  (Actually the sentence (a) sounds a bit awkward for me. If anything, the awkwardness is fairly close to how I feel when I hear a sentence like "I like a cat."In the end, I believe it is correct to say (c), while sentence (d) is not true. c) A lion can jump through fire. d) Lions can jump through fire. Thank you,M

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

The following are correct and mean the same thing: You don't want to get in a cage with a tiger.:

A tiger is a dangerous animal.
Tigers are dangerous animals.
The tiger is a dangerous animal.

The following are correct and mean the same thing: Lions can be trained to do things that are unnatural for them.:

A lion can jump through fire.
Lions can jump through fire.

Mitsuo23 · Answer

Thank you for the reply, but I'm still confused.

AnonymousThe following are correct and mean the same thing: You don't want to get in a cage with a tiger.:A tiger is a dangerous animal.Tigers are dangerous animals.The tiger is a dangerous animal.

Yeah, you are making sense, one would likely to say, "a tiger is a dangerous animal" just in front of a cage with a tiger, rather than saying "tigers are dangerous animals" to mean tigers in general. But

AnonymousThe following are correct and mean the same thing: Lions can be trained to do things that are unnatural for them.:A lion can jump through fire.Lions can jump through fire.

I have to disagree with you here. Some lions can jump through fire but some eventually can't, and so the second sentence should be wrong to say. And that means, those two sentences mean essentially different.

Please let me make another example to clarify my point.

(a) A dog does skateboarding everyday.

(b) Dogs do skateboarding everyday.

(a) is true, but (b) isn't. is it?

Thank you,

M

CalifJim · Answer

You are confusing what is grammatically correct as a generic statement with what is a true statement.

Generally speaking, when considering the grammar of a sentence, we do not bother about whether it is true or not.

The sky is always green with purple dots.
Elephants are tiny creatures.
Every person on earth has two noses.

The three statements above are all grammatically correct, but none of them is true.
______________

You have three ways to make generic statements (whether they are true or not).

1. With "a".
2. With "the".
3. With the plural.

Most commonly, we use the plural.

Be sure, however, that your statement is really generic. That is, it has to apply to a whole class of entities, not just an individual. For example, you can't turn "The dolphin is sick" into a generic statement about all dolphins.

CJ

Mitsuo23 · Answer

Thank you for the reply, CJ

Let me get back to where I was. Are the sentences below mean the same to you?
a) A tiger is a dangerous animal.
b) Tigers are dangerous animals.

I have been thinking "a tiger" in the sentence (a) means more like a certain tiger, not tigers in general.

This assumption of mine comes from, I believe, the comparison between the sentences below.
(c) I hate a girl. (meaning a certain girl.)
(d) I hate girls. (meaning girls in general.)

In addition to that, I would take it as a reasonable statement if someone said, "A dog does skateboarding. It's true! I saw it on TV" while I immediately would disagree with the statement, "Dogs do skateboarding. It's true!"

Do you see my confusion? I have no idea why people says, (a) and (b) means the same. They are totally different to me.

Thank you,
M

Mitsuo23 · Answer

Hi, CJ.

I just read your reposting. If I understood you correctly, "a tiger" can mean, in a way, "any tiger" and, in a way, "a certain tiger" depending on the contexts. But isn't it confusing occasionally?

Let's say, if someone said, "You know what? I just saw this on a Discovery channel. A monkey is capable of doing the math." Then, you would wonder, if he is talking about monkeys in general or a particular monkey, wouldn't you?

Thank you,

M

CalifJim · Answer

mitsuwao23Let me get back to where I was. ~~Are~~ Do the sentences below mean the same to you?a) A tiger is a dangerous animal.b) Tigers are dangerous animals.

Yes. They have the same meaning.

mitsuwao23I have been thinking "a tiger" in the sentence (a) means more like a certain tiger, not tigers in general.

You have to stop thinking like that! It means tigers in general.

mitsuwao23This assumption of mine comes from, I believe, the comparison between the sentences below.(c) I hate a girl. (meaning a certain girl.)(d) I hate girls. (meaning girls in general.)

It doesn't work the same when you're not dealing with the subject of the sentence. Here 'a girl' and 'girls' are not subjects. Besides, the sentence I hate a girl is anomalous. A native speaker would say something different: There is a girl that I hate.

mitsuwao23In addition to that, I would take it as a reasonable statement if someone said, "A dog does skateboarding. It's true! I saw it on TV" while I immediately would disagree with the statement, "Dogs do skateboarding. It's true!"Do you see my confusion?

Yes, I see your confusion, but your confusion is caused by your mistaken interpretation of what meaning "a" imparts to sentences like A dog does skateboarding. You think it means a certain dog does skateboarding, but a native speaker conveys that meaning by saying There was a dog skateboarding on TV or I saw a dog skateboarding on TV. A native speaker would never say A dog does skateboarding or A dog skateboards to mean A certain dog does skateboarding.

Anyway, if you've followed what I've written above, you'll see now that "A dog does skateboarding" is taken as a generic statement with the same meaning as "Dogs do skateboarding". It doesn't make sense to agree that the first one is true while the second one is false because they mean the same thing.

CJ

Mitsuo23 · Answer

Geeeeeee. I was going to make a terrible, terrible mistake. I almost explained the difference between "a tiger" and "tigers" based on my stupid logic that I interpreted from the "a girl vs girls" to some of my friends.

Damm, I can't appreciate your help more.

REALLY THANK YOU for this one and also for another.

M

CalifJim · Answer

mitsuwao23"a tiger" can mean, in a way, "any tiger" and, in a way, "a certain tiger" depending on the contexts.

Yes. You are correct on this point. "a tiger" can also mean "all tigers", as in generic statements. A tiger is a dangerous animal = All tigers are dangerous animals.

mitsuwao23But isn't it confusing occasionally?

I seem to manage without being confused very often. And I assume the same is true of other native speakers.

mitsuwao23A monkey is capable of doing the math.

OK. The problem here is the. Once you start talking about something as specific as the math, the statement is no longer generic. This sentence will be taken as Any monkey is capable of doing the math— the particular mathematical calculation already mentioned in the conversation. The sentence A monkey can do math will be taken as generic: All monkeys can do math.

mitsuwao23Then, you would wonder if he is talking about monkeys in general or a particular monkey, wouldn't you?

No. I wouldn't wonder. As explained above, with the math, I'd assume 'any monkey' and with just math, I'd assume 'all monkeys'. I would not think of it as a particular monkey unless one of these were used:

1. There is a monkey which is capable of doing (the) math.
2. The monkey is capable of doing (the) math.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

mitsuwao23REALLY THANK YOU

You're very welcome.

CJ

Mitsuo23 · Answer

I MEAN REALLY.

a tiger is vs tigers are

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions