0
Nkspb Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
An idea of a general group
Hello everybody. By some accident my thread has been deleted and there was a discussion there about the usage of "zero article + noun", where the omitting of the article refers to any within the universe of discourse. The example sentence was:
1) "Schools have introduced a smoking ban. Schools now prohibit smoking"
People explained to me that zero article is okay here because of the meaning conveyed - general reference to all schools within one country and not necessary the World. And since the listeners understand that we refer to any of schools within their local area, we can omit the article and go on saying: "Schools have introduced a smoking ban. Schools have also done... ".
--------------------
Once I heard such a thing like a general group. I am not entirely sure what it means (does it mean just the first introduction of something and nothing else?) and if it is grammatically correct. Here I have an example:
2) "I entered a classroom. Students were paying attention"
"...Students were paying attention" - I was told it is a general group, and can mean "some, all, few..." of those students.
If I said "the students", it would be more clear that I talk about all of them as a group.
But - when I use the zero article with "students" for the first time it can be nothing but the introduction them to the discourse, so later on I cannot just omit the article justifying it by "well, I talk generally about those students, why should I use the article? The listener would understand what I mean anyway." Yes, he will, but this is grammatically wrong. The set has been established. I should use "some/some of the/the students" instead all over the place further.
Going back to my example about schools, I think we can talk there with zero article because we are talking about any schools within that area - but the concept of schools is very general. But an example about students is different - the set is too specific so can't be general.
Am I correct about this all?
Well, I was also told here:
3) "I saw many people at the party. People were cheerful" - and one person told me it is correct to say this (generally they were cheerful), another told it is grammatically incorrect as people were already introduced.
So, how should I understand this, can someone explain to me such a dilemma, please?
If this is correct, then I might be wrong about my thoughts of the example about students - no article with following references to students can be also correct then
---------------------
4) "I entered a forest after a long journey. Trees were dark and clouds were fluffy. Trees were swaying from side to side. Trees were very frightening."
Is it grammatically correct to speak this way here?
Again, I think these trees is a more general set (how I feel it is really hard to explain by writing
) - so we can use "zero article" like in the example about schools without violating grammar.
------------------
Please, help me with this all. Thanks!
1) "Schools have introduced a smoking ban. Schools now prohibit smoking"
People explained to me that zero article is okay here because of the meaning conveyed - general reference to all schools within one country and not necessary the World. And since the listeners understand that we refer to any of schools within their local area, we can omit the article and go on saying: "Schools have introduced a smoking ban. Schools have also done... ".
--------------------
Once I heard such a thing like a general group. I am not entirely sure what it means (does it mean just the first introduction of something and nothing else?) and if it is grammatically correct. Here I have an example:
2) "I entered a classroom. Students were paying attention"
"...Students were paying attention" - I was told it is a general group, and can mean "some, all, few..." of those students.
If I said "the students", it would be more clear that I talk about all of them as a group.
But - when I use the zero article with "students" for the first time it can be nothing but the introduction them to the discourse, so later on I cannot just omit the article justifying it by "well, I talk generally about those students, why should I use the article? The listener would understand what I mean anyway." Yes, he will, but this is grammatically wrong. The set has been established. I should use "some/some of the/the students" instead all over the place further.
Going back to my example about schools, I think we can talk there with zero article because we are talking about any schools within that area - but the concept of schools is very general. But an example about students is different - the set is too specific so can't be general.
Am I correct about this all?
Well, I was also told here:
3) "I saw many people at the party. People were cheerful" - and one person told me it is correct to say this (generally they were cheerful), another told it is grammatically incorrect as people were already introduced.
So, how should I understand this, can someone explain to me such a dilemma, please?
If this is correct, then I might be wrong about my thoughts of the example about students - no article with following references to students can be also correct then
---------------------
4) "I entered a forest after a long journey. Trees were dark and clouds were fluffy. Trees were swaying from side to side. Trees were very frightening."
Is it grammatically correct to speak this way here?
Again, I think these trees is a more general set (how I feel it is really hard to explain by writing
) - so we can use "zero article" like in the example about schools without violating grammar.------------------
Please, help me with this all. Thanks!
Top answer
nkspb By some accident my thread has been deleted I believe that thread only went missing for less than a half hour. I believe you're referring to this thread. Articles usage in a sentence CJ
- nkspb By some accident my thread has been deleted I believe that thread only went missing for less than a half hour.
- I believe you're referring to this thread.
- Articles usage in a sentence CJ
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
48 Answers
0
nkspbBy some accident my thread has been deletedI believe that thread only went missing for less than a half hour. I believe you're referring to this thread.
Articles usage in a sentence
CJ
00
1) Schools have introduced a smoking ban.
"Schools" is general, but its scope is understood from the surrounding context. It is not possible in isolation to say whether it refers to schools within a country, region, or whatever. You can follow with more "Schools ... " sentences, but it would easily become repetitive if you overdo it.
2) I entered a classroom. Students w
"Schools" is general, but its scope is understood from the surrounding context. It is not possible in isolation to say whether it refers to schools within a country, region, or whatever. You can follow with more "Schools ... " sentences, but it would easily become repetitive if you overdo it.
2) I entered a classroom. Students w
00
nkspb By some accident my thread has been deletedI sent you a PM yesterday informing you that the thread had been restored.
00
CalifJimI believe that thread only went missing for less than a half hour. I believe you're referring to this thread.Articles usage in a sentenceFor info, I didn't read the earlier thread.
00
GPYFor info, I didn't read the earlier thread.That's OK. It's not crucial. The OP introduces some new questions here anyway. PCO. Please carry on.
CJ
00
Thank You!
fifejedjon, yes, you told me but today the thread was not available again
You see, I do not get it - why ca
fifejedjon, yes, you told me but today the thread was not available again
You see, I do not get it - why ca
00
nkspbWhy is it grammatically correct without "the"?It is grammatically well-formed according to the rules of English. It does not break any grammatical rules. Even though something is grammatical, it may nevertheless be unnatural or ill-fitting for the context. Even your "trees" sentences are grammatical.
00
nkspbyou told me but today the thread was not available againSorry; I didn't realise that. We are having a few problems with disappearing posts at the moment. I hope we'll have it sorted out soon.
nkspb"I saw many people at the party. People were cheerful." = I saw some unidentified people at the party. Now they are identified so "the
00
fivejedjonIt isn't.You don't think that "People were cheerful" is grammatically correct??
00
GPY fivejedjonIt isn't.You don't think that "People were cheerful" is grammatically correct??In itself, it is grammatically correct. In the context given, I don't think it is.
Perhaps my point becomes clearer if I say "The man gave me a drink. I thanked her". "I thanked her" is a grammatically correct English sentence - but not in that context.
0
Related Questions