0
Anonymous Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
"The + singular" when talking generally
Hello guys.
When "the + singular" is a subject of a sentence, it can be a general reference.
"The computer revolutionized publishing"
What if we use slightly different examples:
1) "If you want to play the game, use the computer"
Can it also have the meaning "If you want to play games, use computers" (at least to mean gramatically - because I understand, a person probably won't think about this meaning)?
2) "You should better read the book than the magazine"
Again, can it also mean "You should better read books than magazines" ?
3) "It is better read the book than the magazine"
The same question.
4) "What is more dangerous - the cat or the dog?"
Can it be generally cats? Dogs?
----------------------------
And one more thing:
"I was at the party and saw a lot of people there. People were cheerful"
One source told me that It does not absolutely mean "All the people in the party". It is possible that one or two people at the party were unhappy, but generally 'people were cheerful'. The ommited article is "some of" or "most of". I was said that
this type of generality is fine in literature, in conversation or informal writing.
But from what I heard on this forum, I have doubts about the above.
I think that yes, in informal setting we can say that way. "The people should be used/Some/Some of" should be used. otherwise it will be incorrect gramatically.
Am I right?
Thanks.
When "the + singular" is a subject of a sentence, it can be a general reference.
"The computer revolutionized publishing"
What if we use slightly different examples:
1) "If you want to play the game, use the computer"
Can it also have the meaning "If you want to play games, use computers" (at least to mean gramatically - because I understand, a person probably won't think about this meaning)?
2) "You should better read the book than the magazine"
Again, can it also mean "You should better read books than magazines" ?
3) "It is better read the book than the magazine"
The same question.
4) "What is more dangerous - the cat or the dog?"
Can it be generally cats? Dogs?
----------------------------
And one more thing:
"I was at the party and saw a lot of people there. People were cheerful"
One source told me that It does not absolutely mean "All the people in the party". It is possible that one or two people at the party were unhappy, but generally 'people were cheerful'. The ommited article is "some of" or "most of". I was said that
this type of generality is fine in literature, in conversation or informal writing.
But from what I heard on this forum, I have doubts about the above.
I think that yes, in informal setting we can say that way. "The people should be used/Some/Some of" should be used. otherwise it will be incorrect gramatically.
Am I right?
Thanks.
Top answer
"The computer revolutionized publishing" It can also be in other positions in the sentence: The publishing industry was revolutionized by the computer. Nikolay Komolov 1) "If you want to play the game, use the computer" Can it also have the meaning "If you want to play games, use computers" (at least to mean gramatically - because I understand, a person probably won't think about this meaning)? " - This is the completely general form, both for games and computers.
- "The computer revolutionized publishing" It can also be in other positions in the sentence: The publishing industry was revolutionized by the computer.
- Nikolay Komolov 1) "If you want to play the game, use the computer" Can it also have the meaning "If you want to play games, use computers" (at least to mean gramatically - because I understand, a person probably won't think about this meaning)?
- " - This is the completely general form, both for games and computers.
- " - This is a general reference to games, but with reference to a specific computer.
- " This refers to a specific game and a specific computer.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
55 Answers
0
Nikolay KomolovWhen "the + singular" is a subject of a sentence, it can be a general reference."The computer revolutionized publishing"It can also be in other positions in the sentence:
The publishing industry was revolutionized by the computer.
Nikolay Komolov1) "If you want to play the game, use the computer" Can it also h
00
Nikolay KomolovWhen "the + singular" is a subject of a sentence, it can be a general reference."The computer revolutionized publishing"Yes, but that's pretty formal. For generic sentences, the plural without an article is far more common.
Computers revolutionized publishing.
The wisdom of using the plural becomes a little more obviou
00
Nikolay KomolovAnd one more thing:"I was at the party and saw a lot of people there. People were cheerful"I would have said, "They were generally cheerful" if I meant that most of them were cheerful.
To say only "People were cheerful" at that point in the conversation is not natural. It's pointless to analyze in all its details a sentence that nobod
00
Thanks. I agree there is no point in it. One question - are such generalizations gramatically correct? This is what I wish to know 
00
Nikolay KomolovOne question - are such generalizations grammatically correct?I assume you mean "People were cheerful". Yes, it's grammatically perfect.
Don't confuse "grammatically correct" with "idiomatic" or "useful" or "meaningful". There's a famous sentence in the field of linguistics that is grammatically co
00
CJ, thanks. I have misunderstood you though. I understand that such generalizations are gramatically correct by itself. But if this generalization refers to already introduced set, we should use a determinator.
In another topic I asked about "I saw animals there. Animals were good", and you told me that it is not correct...
When we say this way, we DO NOT refer grammatically
In another topic I asked about "I saw animals there. Animals were good", and you told me that it is not correct...
When we say this way, we DO NOT refer grammatically
00
Nikolay KomolovI understand that such generalizations are grammatically correct byYes. If I'm following you, that's right.itself.themselves.
Nikolay KomolovBut if this generalization refers to an already introduced
00
CalifJimI don't understand this part.Thanks. I mean that when talking about something specific, already introduced etc., zero article can't refer to those items.
We can say in this way for brevity, but it is incorrect, though the listener will deduce the meaning.
Am I right?
00
Nikolay KomolovThanks. I mean that when talking about something specific, already introduced etc., zero article can't refer to those items.That's generally true. I hate to say "always" or "never" because English has exceptions, but what you say is probably almost always true.
Nikolay KomolovWe can say it
00
Related Questions