0
Henryt Posted 11 years ago
Grammar
The food vs. food
Hi all,
I am forever having these problems with articles.
Food (or beer) is tasty in Hong Kong.
The food (or beer) is tasty in Hong Kong.
Food (or beer) is very good here [in Hong Kong].
The food (or beer) is very good here [in Hong Kong].
Is either correct? I asked my teacher and although he is a native speaker and is smart, I am not always 100% sure with him.
He explained it thusly: Both are correct, but there is a subtle difference in his opinion.
Food/beer is tasty in Hong Kong = zero article suggests to him that all/any food/beer in HK is good, even if comes from abroad to be sold in Hong Kong. Something you might see in an economist's report.
The food/beer is tasty in Hong Kong = the definite article suggests to him that it's the local food that is being referred to, the food and beer that Hong Kong is famous for. Something you might see in a travel guide.
The same goes for the 2nd example. In the end, he says that it is not a big deal either way.
Do the native speakers agree with this?
Thank you.
Henry
I am forever having these problems with articles.
Food (or beer) is tasty in Hong Kong.
The food (or beer) is tasty in Hong Kong.
Food (or beer) is very good here [in Hong Kong].
The food (or beer) is very good here [in Hong Kong].
Is either correct? I asked my teacher and although he is a native speaker and is smart, I am not always 100% sure with him.
He explained it thusly: Both are correct, but there is a subtle difference in his opinion.
Food/beer is tasty in Hong Kong = zero article suggests to him that all/any food/beer in HK is good, even if comes from abroad to be sold in Hong Kong. Something you might see in an economist's report.
The food/beer is tasty in Hong Kong = the definite article suggests to him that it's the local food that is being referred to, the food and beer that Hong Kong is famous for. Something you might see in a travel guide.
The same goes for the 2nd example. In the end, he says that it is not a big deal either way.
Do the native speakers agree with this?
Thank you.
Henry
Top answer
henryt Do the native speakers agree with this? Not really. I don't think I would say either sentence without the article.
- henryt Do the native speakers agree with this?
- Not really.
- I don't think I would say either sentence without the article.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
8 Answers
0
henrytDo the native speakers agree with this?Not really. I don't think I would say either sentence without the article.
00
Thanks, Fivejedjon. Really?
From Fodors: "Food in Brazil is delicious, inexpensive . . . and bountiful." No article.
From USAToday: "Food in France is very regional." No article.
??
From Fodors: "Food in Brazil is delicious, inexpensive . . . and bountiful." No article.
From USAToday: "Food in France is very regional." No article.
??
00
0
Thank you for responding. I did not mean to question you by saying really, well, actually I did. But I don't understand it. I found a number of books (not online forums) on Google where writers seem to use no article before such statements as "food in Singapore is delicious" and so on.
So when you say that you wouldn't say it without the article, I rack my brains for an explanation.
So when you say that you wouldn't say it without the article, I rack my brains for an explanation.
00
HenryT,
I don't wish to cast aspersions on your teacher but, although I do agree that both are correct (contrary to fivejedjon, who is otherwise a most competent gentleman!), I do not agree with the implication that your teacher has made. To me, the two mean essentially the same thing.
In your first example, I would be inclined to omit the definite article:
Food in Hong Ko
I don't wish to cast aspersions on your teacher but, although I do agree that both are correct (contrary to fivejedjon, who is otherwise a most competent gentleman!), I do not agree with the implication that your teacher has made. To me, the two mean essentially the same thing.
In your first example, I would be inclined to omit the definite article:
Food in Hong Ko
00
I've made two typos in my earlier message:
". . . what many English speakers might be inclined to do . . ."
"As the English language is a highly context- and meaning-driven language . . ."
Sorry.
". . . what many English speakers might be inclined to do . . ."
"As the English language is a highly context- and meaning-driven language . . ."
Sorry.
00
henrytwhen you say that you wouldn't say it without the article, I rack my brains for an explanation.Relax! I wrote "I don't think I would say either sentence without the article". That is what I meant. I did not say that using the article was incorrect.
00
I understand this better now. Thank you both, Xeres and Fivejedjon.
0
Related Questions