"By fear of litigation"

Question

"Instead, they have watched the system become deformed over the years by fear of litigation, by insurance costs, by rising competition, by billowing bureaucracy and even by improvements in technology that introduce new risks even as they reduce old ones."

Why isn't it "by the fear of litigation" since "fear" is countable and restricted...Which one do you prefer?

Thanks.

Milky · Accepted Answer

Starstuff"Instead, they have watched the system become deformed over the years by fear of litigation, by insurance costs, by rising competition, by billowing bureaucracy and even by improvements in technology that introduce new risks even as they reduce old ones."

Why isn't it "by the fear of litigation" since "fear" is countable and restricted...Which one do you prefer?

Thanks.

The main thing being expressed is "deformed by fear".

Starstuff · Answer

Thanks milky, but I just found one with "the":

"Conversations with colleagues appear to be impacted by the fear of litigation."

However, on google, there are twice as many "by fear of" as "by the fear of"

Habit of language?

Milky · Answer

StarstuffThanks milky, but I just found one with "the":

"Conversations with colleagues appear to be impacted by the fear of litigation."

However, on google, there are twice as many "by fear of" as "by the fear of"

Habit of language?

Bad habits everywhere.

Paco2004 · Answer

Starstuff"Instead, they have watched the system become deformed over the years by fear of litigation, by insurance costs, by rising competition, by billowing bureaucracy and even by improvements in technology that introduce new risks even as they reduce old ones."

Why isn't it "by the fear of litigation" since "fear" is countable and restricted...Which one do you prefer?

"Fear" is basically an uncountable noun, although "fears" is possible in certain phrases like "hopes and fears".

We might say both "by fear of" and "by the fear of". Indeed, nearly a half of current English speakers online say "by fear of" and another half say "by the fear of". But it seems formerly the correct form was "by the fear of". The number of hits on Gutenberg.org (an online library containing classic novels written in English) was 655 for "by fear of" and 10,500 for "by the fear of". It appears to be a trend of current English that THE is being dropped off from the phrases in the construct of "preposition+THE+abstract noun+of".

paco

CalifJim · Answer

It appears to be a trend of current English that THE is being dropped off from the phrases in the construct of "preposition+THE+abstract noun+of".

Paco,
I think you're onto something. It certainly rings true to me, though I haven't made a formal study of it, nor heard of any. I'm not sure that the "of" phrase after the abstract noun is even necessary.
Jim

CalifJim · Answer

A comparison:

... the system become deformed over the years by fear of litigation, by insurance costs, ...

Conversations with colleagues appear to be impacted by the fear of litigation.

In the first case it is not any specific person's fear; it is fear in general.
In the second case it is specifically the colleagues' fear. It could even be written as ... impacted by their fear of litigation.

CJ

Starstuff · Answer

Both of your comments are rather insightful

And Paco's comment ringed a bell to me, as the sentences I posted earlier, they both follow the trend:

"Use a noun plus the definite article to refer to systems of communication and the mass media,"
"The first group consists of nouns which refer to shared knowledge of the situation or context."

This discovery is so helpful. Thanks a lot guys!

Starstuff · Answer

Just to show another example of the trend (found on TIME):

"This is an unabashed play to members of the conservative base who are worried about illegal immigration."

The "members" above are a specific group of people, no? However, it does match the trend Paco mentioned...

ps: I have a handful of similar examples.......

Thanks again!

CalifJim · Answer

In the case of the plurals (not the abstract singulars), be careful.
Without "the" they are indefinite; with "the" they are definite.
The implication of the first formulation is "any"; the implication of the second formulation is "all those particular".

This is an unabashed play to members of the conservative base who are worried about illegal immigration.
(... any member of the conservative base who is worried about illegal immigration, no matter who he or she may be.)
This casts the expression in a way in which it is possible to ask "Who are these members?".

This is an unabashed play to the members of the conservative base who are worried about illegal immigration.
(... all those particular members of the conservative base who are worried about illegal immigration, and you know who I mean.)
This casts the expression in a way in which it is not possible to ask "Who are these members?" The writer feels that there is an unwritten, unsaid agreement between him and the reader that both know the group of people being referred to more or less specifically. Also in this second phrasing, there is more of an implication that the reference is only to those particular members ... who .... That is, it is subtly excluding all others. Put differently, it is setting these members in opposition to other possible members: to the members ... who are worried ... as opposed to the members ... who are not worried, to make the simplest example.

The fact that both formulations logically refer to the same group of people is irrelevant to the use of (or lack of) "the".

CJ

Starstuff · Answer

Thank you CJ, but which one would you use if you are to begin a sentence like this?

"Members of the conservative base who are worried..." or
"The members of the conservative base who are worried..."

Let's assume "Members" = "any member of the conservative base who are worried"

ps:
"They are less beguiled by flashy technology, more aware of the risks of even simple procedures and thus more willing to trust their doctor's instincts."

"This rosy picture is marred, of course, by risks of unexpected external shocks -- principally from terrorism or soaring energy prices."

Is it because the "risks" in the second sentence aren't quite specific rather than because of the word "by"?

Thanks.

"By fear of litigation"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions