[The] Blood around the body has already started to congeal.

Both are correct.

Maybe is there any difference between them? Some clue which one to choose in which situation? Or are they completely interchangeable?

I must say that now I feel pretty comfortable with the majority of article usages. There are few things that are troubling me though - one of them is how to make sure if something is enough specific in contexts like above.

Could anyone help?

Only The blood . . . sounds natural to me. In most contexts, speaker and listener would not be surprised by specificity.

It seems views on this matter are divided among native speakers... Ehhh, what am I to do with this?

Perhaps is it a matter of taste?

By the way, may I ask why did you use zero article in the sentence quoted below?

Clivespeaker and listener would not be surprised by specificity.

Maybe it is best to get used to the thought that I a

By the way, may I ask why did you use zero article in the sentence quoted below?

Clivespeaker and listener would not be surprised by specificity.

I was thinking very generally.

I thought before, that in such contexts to express general thoughts we can say either 'the speaker and (the) listener' or 'a speaker or (a) listener'. Now we have another option...

The more I know, the less I feel that I know anything. Definitely time to give up on articles:(

ReegisWhich of the sentences below is correct?1) Blood around the body has already started to congeal.2) The blood around the body has already started to congeal.

My take on it goes like this:

Without 'the', blood reads as "some (of the) blood (around the body)".
OR it reads like a coroner's abbreviated report, i.e., written in a style wher

Live and learn, little by little.

Yep, trying:) On this bumpy road...

Perhaps I will bring this up in a new thread to better understand this matter.

Thanks a lot AlpheccaStars, Clive and CalifJim!