Definite article for "Evidence"

Question

The original sentence is:"Campaigners now have compelling documentary evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years."Several different versions made up by me:1. "Campaigners now have the compelling documentary evidence of the human  rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years."Does the extra "the" imply some of the documentary evidence aren't compelling?2. "Campaigners now have the documentary evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years."Does the extra "the" imply some of the evidence aren't documentary?3. "Campaigners now have documentary evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years."Is this one ok?4. "Campaigners now have the evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years."Is this one ok?5. "Campaigners now have evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years."Is this one wrong because "evidence" is made definite by "the human rights absuses"?Thanks a lot!!

Tattered · Accepted Answer

StarstuffThe original sentence is:
"Campaigners now have compelling documentary evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years."

Several different versions made up by me:
1. "Campaigners now have the compelling documentary evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years."
Does the extra "the" imply some of the documentary evidence aren't compelling?

2. "Campaigners now have the documentary evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years."
Does the extra "the" imply some of the evidence aren't documentary?

Nope, get rid of both uses of the.

Starstuff3. "Campaigners now have documentary evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years."
Is this one ok?

Sounds good. Only one change I would make: change had-->have ....sounds better.

Starstuff4. "Campaigners now have the evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years."
Is this one ok?

Delete the.

Starstuff5. "Campaigners now have evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years."
Is this one wrong because "evidence" is made definite by "the human rights absuses"?

It's fine.

Your basic sentence, "Campaigners now have evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years." can be reworked to sound better. Maybe, "After alleging human rights abuses for several year, campaigners now finally have evidence to prove the abuses." You probably want the word alleging to come first, because your reader/listener will want to know WHAT the human rights have to do will allegations....its nit-picking, so if you don't like it, keep your own sentences [K]

Hope I helped

Starstuff · Answer

Thanks tattered

Tatteredthe word the is more commonly used in reference to a singular thing, or a group (like the teachers at your school).

"I like the teachers of my school".
"They have (no the?) evidence of human rights abuses".

Why isn't "evidence" also treated as a definite group to which is being referred? (like the teachers of my school)
It's "the evidence of human rights abuses" but not "the evidence of something else.", and I always try to add "the" to a noun that has a reference to it. In this case, "my school" refers to "teachers", and "human rights abuses" refers to "evidence", no? Is it just like "They have the keys to those doors."

I just encountered three sentences:

"We have (no the?) evidence that at least some dark matter blahblahblah"

"a supercluster is most likely to have formed in (no the?) regions of space where blahblahblah"

"What do (no the?) observations of galaxies tell us about blahblahblah"

Are "evidence", "regions" and "observations" above all definite just like "the teachers at my school"? If they are, how come there's no "the" before it? I'm really confused now, please tell me what you think.

Thanks a lot!!

Paco2004 · Answer

Starstuff"I like the teachers of my school".
"They have (no the?) evidence of human rights abuses".
Why isn't "evidence" also treated as a definite group to which is being referred? (like the teachers of my school)
It's "the evidence of human rights abuses" but not "the evidence of something else.", and I always try to add "the" to a noun that has a reference to it. In this case, "my school" refers to "teachers", and "human rights abuses" refers to "evidence", no? Is it just like "They have the keys to those doors."

Hello Starstuff

What is your first language? Mine is Japanese, and with the sense of the Japanese language, I too feel as if we should put "the" before "evidence of" in such a sentence "We now have evidence of a new state of matter where quarks and gluons are not confined".

However, English speakers rarely say "have the evidence of". I think we should learn the whole of "have evidence of" as a kind of fixed verbal phrase similar to "take care of". Maybe you know we cannot say "I have to take the care of my old parents". Likewise you cannot say "We have the evidence of a new state …".

paco

Margie · Answer

The use of the zero article in English depends on the kind of noun this article refers to.

Within your second sentence: "I like the teachers of my school", the noun "teacher" is a countable concrete noun and thus requires the definite article.

The noun "evidence" on the other hand is a non-count abstract noun (in English you can't count evidence, it's the same as with "literature", "time" or "science"). This is generally expressed by the zero article!

Starstuff · Answer

Thanks Paco and Margie.

Yes I got what both of you mean, but please take a look at my other post. How come countable nouns sometimes don't have "the" either?

Thanks.

Margie · Answer

Just tried to answer at least a tiny bit of it...

If I happen to find out more, I'll post it here!!

Starstuff · Answer

Settled.

Big thanks to everyone that helped!

Believer · Answer

StarstuffThanks tattered
Tatteredthe word the is more commonly used in reference to a singular thing, or a group (like the teachers at your school).
"I like the teachers of my school".
"They have (no the?) evidence of human rights abuses".

Why isn't "evidence" also treated as a definite group to which is being referred? (like the teachers of my school)
It's "the evidence of human rights abuses" but not "the evidence of something else.", and I always try to add "the" to a noun that has a reference to it. In this case, "my school" refers to "teachers", and "human rights abuses" refers to "evidence", no? Is it just like "They have the keys to those doors." (I think) As told in one of the following posts (possibly by Mr. Paco) that the nature of the nouns "teachers" and "evidence" is different: One is countable and the other is uncountable. Aside from that, when you ask why there is no definite article in front of the word "evidence," I would say that a person normally wouldn't put the definite article in the sentential context you had it on.

I just encountered three sentences:

"We have (no the?) evidence that at least some dark matter blahblahblah" Same sort of explanation

"a supercluster is most likely to have formed in (no the?) regions of space where blahblahblah" Could work either with no the and with the, I think.

"What do (no the?) observations of galaxies tell us about blahblahblah" Same sort of explanation
Are "evidence", "regions" and "observations" above all definite just like "the teachers at my school"? If they are, how come there's no "the" before it? I'm really confused now, please tell me what you think.

Thanks a lot!!

Definite article for "Evidence"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions