(the) squirrels

Question

Hi,Is this sentence correct?Our backyard was always invaded by animals. There were raccoons, rabbits and skunks, not to mention squirrels.I did not put the definite article before 'squirrels'. Is that correct?What if I write "the squirrels"? Without mentioning any squirrels before, would it incorrect? Or would you assume that I am mentioning a specific group of squirrels - in this context, those squirrels that happened to be native to the area perhaps (if that's what I mean)?

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

The given sentence is okay, but why is "squirrels" deliberately set off from the other animals?  This would typically be done for some reason, for example, these squirrels had been previously mentioned, or, you will then talk about these squirrels, in particular.  If they weren't mentioned previously, and you don't go on to talk about them, then this sentence structure would not be appropriate.

Anonymous · Answer

OK. "There were raccoons, rabbits and skunks, not to mention (the) squirrels and field mice."

My question remains the same.

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousThere were

The there-construction takes indefinite expressions, e.g., raccoons, rabbits, etc. squirrels is still part of the same construction so there's no logical reason why you would make it definite by adding 'the'.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

"The" cannot be used in this situation.  The sentence, "There were raccoons, rabbits, and skunks, not to mention squirrels and field mice.", would be okay, provided that you then go on to explain why you set squirrels and field mice off from the other animals.  If you do not, then setting squirrels and field mice off from the other animals is not right.

Anonymous · Answer

CalifJimThe there-construction takes indefinite expressions, e.g., raccoons, rabbits, etc. squirrels is still part of the same construction so there's no logical reason why you would make it definite by adding 'the'.CJ

Thank you. That makes sense.

Can I ask on the same topic?

In the living room I saw books that lined the bookshelves along the wall.
In the living room I saw books that lined bookshelves that no one ever cleaned.

Why is there a definite article in the first sentence but not before the second? Is it because in the first, it's "the book shelves [THAT were] along the wall", while in the second, "[some] bookshelves, [which additionally] ~~that~~ no one ever cleaned"? Do you see my analysis here? (Yes, they're mentioned for the first time in both sentences.)

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousWhy is there a definite article in the first sentence but not before the second?

The most obvious answer is that you wrote them that way, assuming that you did, for the sake of having contrasting examples.

If you did not write them, then the writer of the first statement wished to portray the bookshelves as particular bookshelves, as if to say they had an identity of their own, and the writer of the second statement wished to portray the bookshelves as generic bookshelves, as if to say they had no importance as bookshelves in his story. In the second case, the use of the indefinite form shifts the focus to the subordinate clause, namely, to the fact that no one ever cleaned them. Thus, in the first case the focus is on the fact that you saw books in the bookshelves, and in the second case the focus is on the fact that you saw a dusty room.

CJ

Anonymous · Answer

CalifJimThe most obvious answer is that you wrote them that way, assuming that you did, for the sake of having contrasting examples.

Haha, yes, I did. But they were based on real-life examples from works of literature. I just changed the details a bit.

Thanks for your comment. Brilliant and helpful as always!

(the) squirrels

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions