0
Anonymous Posted 11 years ago
Grammar

Use of article

Is (a) required, optional or wrong?

Trying to catch (a) thunder and lightening.
  

Top answer

Wrong. You don't need it. Also, thunder and ligh tn ing.

  • Wrong.
  • You don't need it.
  • Also, thunder and ligh tn ing.
  • Ligh ten ing refers to less weight or more light.
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

9 Answers
0
Wrong. You don't need it.
Also, thunder and lightning. Lightening refers to less weight or more light.
0
Blue JayWrong. You don't need it.Also, thunder and lightning. Lightening refers to less weight or more light.
Thanks for your help. Why don't you need the article? Are thunder and lightning uncountable nouns?
0
Yes, they are uncountable.
You could say Trying to catch the thunder and lightning, but not Trying to catch a thunder and lightning.
0
Blue JayYes, they are uncountable.You could say Trying to catch the thunder and lightning, but not Trying to catch a thunder and lightning.
Got it. Thanks a lot.

The inclusion of (the) indicates the referral of a specific thunder or lightning, in which the listeners know which ones are referred to, right?
0
Not in this instance, no.
In some cases, such as this one, the can be used to refer to a non-specific example of something. You may encounter it when something intangible is referred to as if it were tangible.
Ride the wind, catch the lightning, own the night.
0
Blue JayNot in this instance, no.In some cases, such as this one, the can be used to refer to a non-specific example of something. You may encounter it when something intangible is referred to as if it were tangible.Ride the wind, catch the lightning, own the night.
I see. Thanks for your explanation. So I think I understand from your explanation that it is no
0
Yes. You could be referring to specific lightning (or other such), but more probably you are referring to "lightning" as the embodiment of lightning in general, and you expect this to be understood by your listeners.
0
Blue JayYes. You could be referring to specific lightning (or other such), but more probably you are referring to "lightning" as the embodiment of lightning in general, and you expect this to be understood by your listeners.
Ooh I see, I got it. So basically the use of the definite article in such cases where it precedes nouns that are not referring to somethi
0
It's not so much common sense as the expectation that your listeners will recognize and understand your use of embodiment.

Related Questions