(the) surrendered Japan.

Question

Ruth Benedict studied how the Japanese behaved, and then instructed how the American government should behave and react to the surrendered Japan.

In the sentence above, is it optional to use THE without a change in meaning?

KrisBlueNZ · Accepted Answer

I assume you're talking about the last the in the sentence?
No, you can't omit it. The surrendered Japan presumably means the nation of Japan, in a state of surrender. A nation, or a country, or a race, or a group of people is an article and needs a/an or the.

Also, your use of instructed is not natural. The first thing to appear after instructed is the person, group, etc that is being instructed. So you would have to say "... instructed the American government ...".

Also, instructed is not used in quite the same way as told, for example. You can say "Ruth Benedict told the American government how they should behave ...", because told uses the form "told <person_or_group_being_told> <what_they_were_told_about>", but instructed doesn't work quite the same way. You would have to say "Ruth Benedict instructed the American government on (or about, or on the subject of, etc) how they should behave ..."

I would say

"Ruth Benedict studied how the Japanese behaved, [and] then told the American government how they should behave in response to the surrendered Japanese nation."
or
"Ruth Benedict studied how the Japanese behaved, [and] then instructed the American government on how to behave in response to the surrendered Japanese nation."

I definitely prefer the first one. Instructed does not fit well with this sentence structure. It works better in sentences like "Attach fitting B to board F as previously instructed".

Johnson13 · Answer

On Wiki, a sentence:

The story revolves around two men in Victorian England

It's also obviously referring to a certain state of England, why no THE?

KrisBlueNZ · Answer

I think the reason relates to both the difference between surrendered and Victorian (surrendered is more of a separate adjective, and is not often used in this way, whereas Victorian England is a common expression, really closer to a single idea expressed in two words), and the difference between England and Japanese nation (one has nation, the other doesn't!)

Maybe some examples of usage (correct except where marked) will make this clearer to you (and to me):

"... the people of Victorian England"
"... the people of 15th century Japan"
"... the people of the surrendered Japanese nation"
"... the people of the Victorian English nation" - doesn't really make sense
"... the people of the English nation"
"... the people of the 17th century English nation"
"... the people of the English nation in the 17th century"
"... the people of the English nation in Victorian times"
"... the people of England in Victorian times"
"... the people of England in the time of Queen Victoria"

Johnson13 · Answer

In

The dark Victoria Park resided in the heart of Hong Kong.

is THE not deletable for the same reason?

KrisBlueNZ · Answer

I don't think so. Are you trying to catch me out? :-)

Assuming Victoria Park is a person, she is being described as dark. You need the the here. Other similar examples:
"The late Michael Jackson"
"The talented Mr. Ripley"

If the sentence didn't have dark, you wouldn't need the:
"Victoria Park resided in the heart of Hong Kong."

If Victoria Park is actually a park (i.e. an open space), the the is also needed. If you said
"Dark Victoria Park is located in the heart of Hong Kong"
you would be implying that the park is actually called "Dark Victoria Park". If you want to avoid the the, you would have to say something like
"Victoria Park is dark, and is located in the heart of Hong Kong"
or
"Victoria Park, which is dark, is located in the heart of Hong Kong".

It is not usual to start a sentence with an adjective then a singular noun like that, unless the adjective is associated with the noun so closely that they're a phrase by themselves. For example "Big Jim the chief stood for law and order". In that case, Big Jim is a way of saying his name; big is not a completely separate adjective. I don't know the rule here.

Johnson13 · Answer

A million thanks!

unless the adjective is associated with the noun so closely

Is it a good example?:

the austerities of wartime Europe

KrisBlueNZ · Answer

No, that wasn't what I was getting at. "Wartime Europe" is the same idea as "Victorian England"; wartime and Victorian are adjectives but they bind closely to the noun and act as modifiers or qualifiers, to restrict the scope of the noun, rather than separate, independent adjectives that simply describe the noun.

(the) surrendered Japan.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions