Dilemmas: [zero article]/the + plural noun + preposition + [zero article]/the + plural noun

Question

Hello everyone,I'm not sure of the use of some of the articles/determiners in the following passage (green = seems correct or less doubtful, red = seems incorrect or more doubtful; A, B, C, D, and X represent latinate names), and I would thus be extremely grateful for any comments or advice:The phylogenetic relationships of the main X-oid genera, based on recent molecular studies [...], indicate a closer relationship within two pairs of most speciose X-oid genera– between A and B, and between C and D. Such a general topology is similar to the present results. The mandibles of representatives of those two pairs of taxa show quite distinctive characteristics.Now, phrase by phrase:1. The phylogenetic relationships of the main X-oid generai. I assume the first the is necessary, because it is specified by the following prepositional phrase (PP);ii. I suppose main almost always has to be preceded by the;2. based on recent molecular studiesI guess ALL recent molecular studies in general are meant here ? zero article;3. within two pairs of most specious X-oid genera - [...]i. The two pairs have not been defined yet ? zero article;ii. But most is a superlative, so there should be a the?4. the present resultsThe results of the present study, clearly defined ? the;(Anyway, what would 'results of the present study' (with a zero article) mean?5. The mandibles of representatives of those two pairs of taxa show quite distinctive characteristics.Judging from the text that follows this passage, the author might want to say the first pair of taxa (i.e. A & B) is distinct from the second pair of taxa (C & D).Perhaps, the author should change the sentence in the following way to make this more obvious:The mandibles of the representatives of each pair of the taxa show quite distinct characteristics.As a matter of fact, I would even leave out 'pair of the taxa' altogether to avoid unnecessary repetition. Would that be ok?And, finally, would there be a difference between 'distinctive characteristics' and 'some quite distinctive characteristics'? I guess the latter would only give a bit more emphasis to the fact that some characteristics might not be as distinctive, but, all in all, some is unnecessary here, right?Many thanks for any help!P.

GPY · Accepted Answer

Overall, I find some of this passage hard to understand, though some of this could of course be due to my lack of familiarity with the technical subject matter and the absence of wider context. For example, I wonder about the use of "closer" -- closer than what? --, the use of "within two pairs", and what "such a general topology" refers to.

petuseki. I assume the first the is necessary, because it is specified by the following prepositional phrase (PP);

Yes, that would be the justification.

petusekii. I suppose main almost always has to be preceded by the;

Normally, yes.

petusekI guess ALL recent molecular studies in general are meant here ? zero article;

Not all, but certain studies that are relevant (or the author deems relevant).

petuseki. The two pairs have not been defined yet ? zero article;

I find this part hard to understand irrespective of article use.

petusekii. But most is a superlative, so there should be a the?

The original text has "two pairs of most speciose X-oid genera"; in the question you wrote "two pairs of most specious X-oid genera". I assume the former is correct. "most speciose X-oid genera" and "the most speciose X-oid genera" have different meanings. The former means the majority of speciose X-oid genera. The latter means the X-oid genera that are the most speciose.

petusek(Anyway, what would 'results of the present study' (with a zero article) mean?

With plural noun + "of ..." modifier, it is normal to include the definite article.

petusekThe mandibles of the representatives of each pair of the taxa show quite distinct characteristics.

"the representatives" may suggests greater inclusiveness than "representatives", but it is not totally clear cut.

"of each pair of the taxa" does not read very well to me. "distinct", in this context, is also not quite the same as "distinctive". "distinct" seems to suggest that A & B have noticeably different characteristics from C & D. "distinctive" seems to mean that members of both A & B and C & D have characteristics that stand out from the crowd. I think this needs to be reworded in the original to make it clearer that the former is meant, if that is the case.

petusekAs a matter of fact, I would even leave out 'pair of the taxa' altogether to avoid unnecessary repetition. Would that be ok?

"The mandibles of the representatives of each ..." is correct English in itself, but I wonder how clear it is what "each" refers to.

Petusek · Answer

Many thanks for the wonderful comments, GPY!

GPYOverall, I find some of this passage hard to understand, though some of this could of course be due to my lack of familiarity with the technical subject matter and the absence of wider context. For example, I wonder about the use of "closer" -- closer than what? --, the use of "within two pairs", and what "such a general topology" refers to.

I am no expert either and also find many other passages of the text difficult to comprehend.

I suppose, the authors want to imply that there are four taxa (genera A, B, C, and D) belonging to the same single higher taxon (X, adjective X-oid), which means they all descend from the same, common genetic ancestor. Perhaps, these four taxa do not comprise all X-oids, only the most speciose ones. I assume recent research indicates that A is closer to B than to anything else within X, and that C is closer to D than anything else within X. In other words, A and B form a single subclade (whence the word 'pair'), and so do C and D (whence the word 'two'). Does it help? I can only hope I understand it myself.

As for 'such a general topology', I guess it refers to this { (A+B) + (C+D) +... } =X classificatory scheme, Is it another foreignism?

GPY: Not all, but certain studies that are relevant (or the author deems relevant).

I see, so 'based on some recent molecular studies' would only imply some of those considered relevant by the author, right? What about 'based on the recent molecular studies'? Would it change the meaning considerably? I'm not sure what exactly it would imply - recent as opposed to out-of-date, emphasis of their recentness, or, maybe, reference to what has been mentioned already?

GPY: I find this part hard to understand irrespective of article use.

I hope my explanation has clarified this a little. Would it matter if paraphyly as opposed to monophyly were taken into consideration?

GPY: The original text has "two pairs of most speciose X-oid genera"; in the question you wrote "two pairs of most specious X-oid genera". I assume the former is correct. "most speciose X-oid genera" and "the most speciose X-oid genera" have different meanings. The former means the majority of speciose X-oid genera. The latter means the X-oid genera that are the most speciose.

I think I corrected that, because, in fact, only the latter made some sense to me. I believe 'the (four) X-oid genera that are the most speciose' was the intended meanining, really. If we replaced speciose with large (or numerous), we would get 'two pairs of the largest X-oid genera', which would make some sense to me, but 'two pairs of most large X-oid genera' would be a bit odd.

Admittedly 'two pairs' could be a foreignism, but otherwise, the wider context, as far as I can understand, suggests it is not 'two pairs out of the majority of large genera'; also, why would they speak of a majority only to reduce it to mere two pairs? I really think it should be the most speciose, but I'll probably have to ask the authors to be sure. Nevertheless, the fact the you find this part hard to understand shows that the whole sentence will require a lot of rewording anyway.

GPY: "the representatives" may suggests greater inclusiveness than "representatives", but it is not totally clear cut.

I see, so there's a continuum between 'the representatives of', 'representatives of' and 'some representatives of', with the second being somewhat closer to the first, perhaps? I mean in terms of inclusiveness...

GPY: "of each pair of the taxa" does not read very well to me.

Perhaps, 'of each of the two pairs of taxa' then?

GPY: "distinct", in this context, is also not quite the same as "distinctive". "distinct" seems to suggest that A & B have noticeably different characteristics from C & D. "distinctive" seems to mean that members of both A & B and C & D have characteristics that stand out from the crowd.

Yes, that's why I changed it, in fact. The context does seem to imply A & B are different from C & D.

GPY: I think this needs to be reworded in the original to make it clearer that the former is meant, if that is the case.

It does. How about something like 'The mandibles of the representatives of the former pair of taxa show / display characteristics quite distinct from those of the latter.'? I'm afraid I can't think clearly anymore!

Thanks a million times! I'm really grateful!

GPY · Answer

petusekDoes it help? I can only hope I understand it myself.

I think the whole thing makes a great deal more sense if "most X-oid speciose genera" is simply changed to "the most speciose X-oid genera" -- provided, of course, that the latter is what is really meant, which I could not say for sure.

Other issues with the first sentence may be the phrasing "within two pairs of ...", which is not expressed massively clearly in my opinion, and the question of whether relationships can indicate a closer relationship.

petusekAs for 'such a general topology', I guess it refers to this { (A+B) + (C+D) +... } =X classificatory scheme, Is it another foreignism?

"such a general topology" is correct English in itself. If the target audience will understand what it refers to then there is no problem with it.

petusekAdmittedly 'two pairs' could be a foreignism,

"two pairs" is, in itself, correct English.

petusekI see, so there's a continuum between 'the representatives of', 'representatives of' and 'some representatives of'

Yes, you could say that. Your ordering is from most to least inclusive.

petusekPerhaps, 'of each of the two pairs of taxa' then?

I think your suggestion below is better.

petusekHow about something like 'The mandibles of the representatives of the former pair of taxa show / display characteristics quite distinct from those of the latter.'?

Yes, that seems better, except that I feel "representatives" is probably preferable to "the representatives". The latter makes it sound as if there is a known, fixed set of "representatives", and all of them are included, which I suspect may not be the intended meaning.

Dilemmas: [zero article]/the + plural noun + preposition + [zero article]/the + plural noun

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions