Specifically the and a/an.

Most of us can easily state when to use the as opposed to a/an and, with the exception of use with words like history/historical we can explain when to use a and when to use an, but can we explain when to use either one as opposed to using neither? Why, for example, do we say, "cross the street" rather than saying "cross street"?

I just want to open this for discussion. I know that usage varies from language to language. In English, if we want a second beer after having finished the first we ask for another beer. In Spanish, in the same situation, we ask for, literally translated other beer. Even in English, Rhuby might talk about having been in hospital when I would have said in the hospital.

All contributions gratefully accepted. Or is that all the contributions gratefully accepted?

re:Why do we say, "cross the street" rather than saying "cross street"?

Well actually i say both
Cross the street, is part of a verbal phrase, ("Cross the street with me, and walk in the shade" )
Cross street is an adjective and noun.. (The closest cross street to my office is Reade street.)

Do i use the with specific rules? no..but they are sometimes used to make things clearer.

(The closest cross street to my office is Reade street.)
________________________________________-

Brit requiring assistance here....

What's a 'cross street'? It's obviously not a street that's upset and angry, as that would be plain ridiculous! I'm presuming that it is literally a street that bisects yours. Is this right?

a street that bisects yours

While a nit-picker might quibble about the use of bisect, yes, that is basically it, but helen's response missed my point. In the case of cross street vs. cross the street I meant in an equivalent context, as in "Don't cross (the) street without looking both ways."

Normally we would say that the is used when a specific thing is involved, e.g., "that is a book but it isn't the book I was talking about." In the street example however we are talking about a general piece of advice that holds for all streets (no quibbles about one way streets here, please; you can get killed just as dead by someone driving the wrong way on a one way street as you can by someone driving the right way) so why don't we say, "Don't cross a street without looking both ways", or just "Don't cross street without looking both ways"? We could certainly say, "Don't cross streets without looking both ways."

so why don't we say, "Don't cross a street without looking both ways",
__________________________________________

But you could - for example if you were ticking off a child for running across the road without looking then you could conceivably say to them 'Don't you ever cross a street again without looking both ways', although I would agree that more normally you would tell them not to cross 'the' road.

(Just having a minor flash back to my youth when they used to run adverts on tv with the Jolly Green Giant (I think) teaching children how to cross the road. It used to finish with the instruction: Never Cross the Road without the Green Cross Code)

'Don't you ever cross a street again without looking both ways'

Good example. I think in this case you could go either way. So what's different about this and the more general, less specific to a given instance "Don't cross the street without..."? As I roll them around in my mouth, I feel we could say either of "Never cross a/the street..." But only "Don't cross the street without...". Somehow "Don't cross a street without..." doesn't sound right to me.

yes, delivery truck or directions will often as for a "cross street" Since Broadway in NYC is over 12 miles long in Manhattan, and then continues (called Broadway for the most part,) but not always, all the way up to Montreal, a "cross reference" to where on Broadway is the cross street...

So if you were going to 1225 Broadway, the 'cross street' is 30th, but 1212 6th Avenue, and the cross street is 48th street! NY grid makes it easy to get around (1st street is about Houston, Below that is "lower Manhattan", and there is no rhyme or reason, above, that, the "streets" progress in a neat order (256th is close to the last, in NYC, but 234th St. or so is last in Manhattan (at least at Broadway!)

But Avenues start and stop.. and the numbers always start with 1-- so 1 Madison Avenue.. (23rd St.,) where Madison Avenue starts, and 185 Fifth Avenue (24th St.) are 184 numbers apart, but very close (physically) to each other. and one more block west, you'd be on 6th Ave (Avenue of the Americas for out of towners) and at building/lot number 700!

These are adresses I know, but the same examples could be found anywhere.. there are any number of guides to Manhattan that either give you a formula, of are set up as arrays, to find the cross street.
City's like Amsterdam or London, (or Boston) that don't have a ridged gridwork would find the idea of a cross street less useful.

Oooh my, that sounds complicated! I think I'll just stick to all my nice directions that involve zebra crossings, petrol stations, off licences, traffic lights and bridges and after all that you're there!

Then there's cross dressing and cross dressers, but I suppose that's altogether a different topic.

It sounds so precious to hear Britishers talking about going to hospital. Here in the USA we would say we're going "to the hospital." So there appear to be certain phrases in which we differ in when we use the definite article--or an article at all.

We say, "Open the door" but we have an "open door policy."

Imagine losing the definite article altogether:

You hit nail on head.

I wonder whether it has to do with cadence? Of course, I wouldn't say "it has to do with the cadence."

It reminds me of a bird practicing song--some rhythms work; others don't. And it must be the hell to play for poor souls who have to learn the English.

Beats me the regards,
WW

What? its one of the easiest systems in the world..
Since 99% Streets run east/west, and 99% of Avenues run north/south, (nominally!) 30th street and 6th Avenue is a very easy place to find..and to get from there to 36th Street and 5th Avenue, is clearly 1 Avenue away (1 block) and 6 streets-- if you were uncertain.. just head in any direction.. if you go the wrong way you will be at 7th Avenue and 30th, or 6th Avenue and 29th.. but you will have the information you need to get to the right place in 1 block!

long time NY's know which way the traffic flows on most streets, and even in a strange neighborhood, can quickly figure out which way is Up (north) or down(south) The Empire state building still acts as landmark too, (the great southern landmarks are gone.. i am about 2 miles away from Empire state building, but i can see it from the street, one block away.

<...an "open door policy.">

In this instance "open door" is an adjective modifying policy. As such it wouldn't require an article, but should have a hyphen: open-door policy.

Back to comparing Brit-vs.-US article usage: Here in the US we speak of a shop located "on Main Street." I believe the UK version would include the definite article: "on the High Street." I've heard people, both in Canada and the UK, speak of going to University. Why is it that USns go to college, or to a university?

It sounds so precious to hear Britishers talking about going to hospital

Ich bin kein Britischer, so please tell me which of the following definitions you had in mind when describing my normal usage as "precious", my preciousss.

1 : of great value or high price
2 : highly esteemed or cherished
3 : excessively refined : AFFECTED
4 : GREAT, THOROUGHGOING *precious scoundrel*
–pre£cious£ness noun

The usage that confounds me is the So Cal habit of referring to the freeways as "The Five" or "The 405" or whatever. Maybe it's just because I grew up in an area with only about four major freeways, but the definite article always sounds goofy to me.

It sounds so precious to hear Britishers talking about going to hospital. Here in the USA we would say we're going "to the hospital."
____________________________________________

But that would entirely depend.....
If I were talking about someone who was ill, I'd say that they had to go to hospital to get it sorted out.
But if I were talking to one of my medic friends about what time their shift started or asking what time someone's appointment was, I'd ask them what time they had to be at *the* hospital.

I'd guess that in the first case that would be because I wasn't necessarily sure which hospital was being talked about. Whereas in the second I'd be referring to a very specific hospital.

From American Heritage:

1. Of high cost or worth; valuable. 2. Highly esteemed; cherished. 3. Dear; beloved. 4. Affectedly dainty or overrefined: precious mannerisms. 5. Informal Thoroughgoing; unmitigated: a precious mess.

Precious = dear

That's how I meant it. It sounds dear to my ear to hear a Britisher say that someone has gone "to hospital." Just plain dear, my dear.

talking about someone who was ill, I'd say that they had to go to hospital

talking to one of my medic friends about what time their shift started or asking what time someone's appointment was, I'd ask them what time they had to be at *the* hospital.

This all makes sense. Another USn way of saying, "I was in hospital", (and the one saying that knows which hospital he was in) would be "I was hospitalized". Probably I'd advise someone attempting to learn the vagaries of English to follow the Commonwealth usage. But how far do you carry it? The summer I worked at Arlington Park Race Track I would speak of "going to the track every day" but this is the same idiom a racing fan would have used. Of course, in both cases, a particular track was meant, so maybe it isn't that far from the Common(wealth) usage.

'hospitalized' isn't one I really come across - how would you use it?

For me, if someone went to hospital and they decided to keep them in, I'd say they'd 'been admitted' or 'been kept in overnight.

Amazing how I can wake up and the first thing I think of is the article thread here.

I was thinking:

We would say in the USA, "I'm going to college," but we'd also say "I'm going to the university." We would say we were going to a specific college: "I'm going to the college in Roanoke." But we'd also say, "I'm going to college in Roanoke." We wouldn't say "I'm going to university" as the Britishers do. And we'd say, "I'm going to school." And we'd say, "I'm getting an education." But we wouldn't say, "I'm getting education." And we wouldn't say, "I'm getting a learning," or even "I'm getting learning." We might say, "I'm increasing learning in English," and "I'm learning English" would be possible, too, with a slightly different meaning.

I have a new friend from Macedonia who is learning English. Can you imagine explaining the above examples to her? And they're just the tip of the American English article ice berg.

I have a new friend from Macedonia who is learning English. Can you imagine explaining the above examples to her?

I think this was the point of the thread. When do we use articles and when don't we? The Russian language has no articles, for example. Portuguese has the same ones we do, but they're used differently in that language. Cross-street and open-door aren't really to the point here, one being a noun and the other an adjective. [/clarification]

'hospitalized' isn't one I really come across - how would you use it?

Pretty much just as you would say, "I was in hospital for three weeks with an overwrought ironical gland", you would say, "I was hospitalized for three weeks with an overwrought ironical gland".

I don't think you'll be able to develop a coherent rule to describe when USAns attach an article and when not. I have a vague recollection of having read a piece* about how German? (I think) usages influenced US English and inserted articles in places British English did not. The "going to hospital" and "going to the hospital" distinction was used as an example. And, because we are rather arbitrary in our absorption of language influences, for whatever reason articles were attached to "hospital" but not to "school," so we still say "I am going to school" rather than "I am going to the school" when discussing the concept in general rather than announcing a specific destination.

Perhaps our German speakers can expand on the use of articles.

Oh - and, Wolverine fans like to refer to their school as the University of Michigan, but that use is more attributable to arrogance than German influences.



*heh. At first, I wrote "an article", but that got too confusing.

When giving directions I've notice that articles are omitted in the interest of brevity, i.e. cross street at light, turn into ally, park behind house.

Same goes with other directions/instructions, i.e. in cooking we'll most often see "fold flour and sugar into shortening" rather than "fold THE flour and THE sugar into THE shortening."

=======================================================

Never cross the street v. never cross a street.

This is how I see it...The first refers to a specific street (the one in front of the person you are talking to). The second refers to every street.

Never cross the street v. never cross a street.

This is how I see it...The first refers to a specific street (the one in front of the person you are talking to). The second refers to every street.

Ideally that would be the way it would work, but in practice I think you'll often hear parents saying the former when they are instructing children in elementary safety. At least among USns.

I'd tend to agree since these instructions are usually given by panic-sticken parents who have just seen their three-year-old run across the street to fetch an errant ball.

Proper use of articles is the last thing on their minds.

Proper use of articles is the last thing on their minds.

Except for well thought out, carefully crafted, formal writing, grammar, in general, is not something we spend a lot of time thinking about. Besides, even if a parent is instructing a child on the first day of school, with no panic on the immediate horizon, I would expect to hear, "And remember, Ginette. Don't cross the street until the crossing guard says it's OK."

for whatever reason articles were attached to "hospital" but not to "school,"
Doesn't it depend on why you are going? For example; a child might say, 'I am going to school to learn', a parent might say, 'I am going to the school for parents evening.

'I am going to school to learn'

'I am going to the school for parents evening.

Same with USns.

Actually, I'm pretty sure she said "traverse jamais la rue sans regarder des deux bords"

So you're right on that score since she said "never cross the street not a (une) street without looking on both sides.

Bit of an aside...
I know I'm dating myself but crossing guards are a pretty recent commodity in Québec - well, recent from some 20 years or so.

Doesn't it depend on why you are going? For example; a child might say, 'I am going to school to learn', a parent might say, 'I am going to the school for parents evening.

This suggests to me that there is a subject-object relationship proximity issue rather than a possession issue.

If you say "I'm going to hospital", you aren't specifying the hospital, but it is personally proximate - that is, you are associating yourself and the hospital (whichever) in a close relationship.

Same with a child saying "I'm going to school". It is an intimate part of the child's life and therefore the school, again whichever, is personally proximate to the child and the article is dropped.

However, if the child's parent is going to talk to the child's teacher and says "I'm going to the school to talk to x", you have a much lesser degree of personal proximity. The parent only goes there occasionally and so for him/her the object (the school) is more remote.

In lands other than the US, we would say "I'm going to college" - meaning high school - AND/OR "I'm going to university". Again, the personal proximity to the subject seems to determine whether or not the article is dropped. If you were talking about going to some other college or school and said "I'm going to THE college", you would be implying that you are not going there in an "ordinary" sense. The visit you refer to would have some other purpose (than learning).

Another example which I think applies in both US and non-US English is "I'm going to work", meaning "I'm going to my place of employment", not "I am going to perform some form of labour". Let's not get those two confused anyway!

Yet another example is "I'm going to town", although in this case if you said "I'm going to the town" you would cause confusion, and your interlocutor would probably ask which town you actually intended going to. But again, usually, you are referring to the centre of your current town, or if you live in the country you are referring to the nearest town, or at least the one you go to most often.

Again, it all seems to be down to personal proximity to the object in relation to the subject

But of course there will be exceptions to all of these rules, won't there? It is English, after all!

"I'm going to THE college" v "I'm going to college"

You analogy holds true for Québec also Cap.

New York City grid...or gridlock

Gee, Helen, I didn't notice all these street-structure nuances while I was there...I was too busy drinking beer. You could pluck a nice cold Grolsch out of any deli fridge-box, in those days, and drink it while you strolled. Gave long walks a whole new meaning!

the


It may also be a matter of emphasis, Faldage. For instance, we'd always say, "Don't ever play on the railroad tracks" rather than "Don't ever play on railroad tracks".
"Don't ever cross the railroad tracks when the light is flashing."

And, "Cross on the green, and not in between", not "Cross on green, and...".

Faldage, The Hunter
- by Odgen Nash

The hunter crouches in his blind
'Neath camouflage of every kind
And conjures up a quacking noise
To lend allure to his decoys
This grown-up man, with pluck and luck
is hoping to outwit a duck

Faldage:
(Most know when to use "A" or "THE"), but can we explain when to use either one as opposed to using neither? Why, for example, do we say, "cross the street" rather than saying "cross street"?

My Dear Mister Faldage,
Obviously nits today are becoming scarce entitants to pick. Any word-rooting hog knows that "The" and "A" are mutually dependent so as to convey the meaning of "particular" or "general" entities.

Yours is a question that begs a question.

And as to the exclusion of either one, it is a process that in-groups utilize for economy, ( tsuwm has a cute word for it, but we all forget.) articleless languages survive without the need of this distinction, but they very likely suffer from less than fluid transfer of exacting information.

Bemoan them and move on to other crusades.

This suggests to me that there is a subject-object relationship proximity issue rather than a possession issue.
...

Yet another example is "I'm going to town", although in this case if you said "I'm going to the town" you would cause confusion, and your interlocutor would probably ask which town you actually intended going to. But again, usually, you are referring to the centre of your current town, or if you live in the country you are referring to the nearest town, or at least the one you go to most often.

I just came back from a scene study class, where we worked on Brian Friel's 'Dancing at Lughnasa', an Irish play. The women kept talking about going into the town. It sounded a little foreign to me, and I kept wanting to omit the 'the'.

as this thread is going on my understanding of articles theme goes in waves. i liked the idea of cadences...than i got confused with "the/no article street"...now this thing about "personal proximity" - excelent!

in the end it is all as my British supervisor used to say to me: "One just fells where to put an article". i hope the (?) Native Speakers will forgive me putting wrong articles in wrong places.

do articleless languages suffer from their absence?
not that mutch. but those who know English do say sometimes
in order to emphsize: day mne the knigu (give me the book)

adverts on tv with the Jolly Green Giant (I think) teaching children how to cross the road....Never Cross the Road without the Green Cross Code

Certainly not the US Green Giant, rkay, though he is certainly Jolly, being inclined to a "Ho Ho Ho" rather than a "Fe Fi Fo Fum" (and incidentally partial to sweetcorn niblets rather than bread made from ground-up bones).

You're thinking of the Green Cross Man, a superhero played by none other than Dave Prowse aka Darth Vader.

Check this out:
http://www.toysrgus.com/images-speci/harper/prowse-greencross.html

This is a sideline, but an interesting one, I think..

How would you say:

"I'm on holiday from 1st September"

[non-US (well, Brit, anyway)]
"I'm on holiday from 01/09/02"

[US+ (at least)]
"I'm on holiday from 09/01/02"

Specifically, where do the ofs and thes magically appear, and which bits get translated and/or expanded?

Funny, whenever I think of Jolly Green Giants I smell napalm and burning jungle and wounded soldiers. Dunno why.

How would you say:
"I'm on holiday from 1st September"

Nice to see you back, Shona. I'd say it probably one of two ways: if I wanted to impart generalized info., I'd say I'm going on vacation (around) the first of September. To be specific, I'd say I'm leaving on vacation on September first, or, on the first day of September. Do you-all really say first September? Hmm--now that you've made me think about it, I realize I might say Sept. the first.

Another difference I've become aware of: we say self-rising flour, and you-all say self-raising. When we get a salary increase, it's a raise. When you do, apparently it's a rise. I thought it interesting that the same 2 words were reversed in different contexts.

>we say self-rising flour, and you-all say self-raising. When we get a salary increase, it's a raise. When you do, apparently it's a rise.

While up here we say "self-rising" and pay rise, although pay raise is far from unheard of.

Watch out, Jackie. You've set Faldage to dreaming about transitive & intransitive verbs.

Do you-all really say first September?

Lessee... I was just aware that sometimes I sort of read out what I see as regards date formats, but at others I translate them. Just curious as to regional variations.
Oh, and I forgot about the holiday/vacation thang. D'oh.

But for me,

"I'm seeing Jackie on 1st September"
would be spoken as:
"I'm seeing Jackie on the first o' September"
[the of is in the process of disappearing]

"I'm seeing Jackie on 01/09/02"
would be spoken as:
"I'm seeing Jackie on the first o' the ninth of oh two"
[first of disappearing]

This may be an individual rather than a cultural reading, however.

"I'm seeing Jackie on the first o' the ninth of oh two"
[first of disappearing]
Well now--grant me for argument's sake that it would be acceptable to say a ninth, where you have the ninth. I'd be willing to bet that the statement would become "I'm seeing Jackie on the first of a ninth of oh two". Or if we plan our rendezvous twenty years from now, it would be "I'm seeing Jackie on the first o' the ninth o' twenty-two". I think whether the v sound is dropped or not depends on the first sound of the word that follows it.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say "first of the ninth of oh two". "First of the ninth", yeah, occasionally, but adding the year in like that just seems stilted to me.

This is madness. I have never heard anyone say they're meeting someone on the 1st of the/a 9th....etc. Any of those. Never.

Sure, people would spell it out: I'm seeing someone on the ninth of September.

Or : I'm seeing everyone on the ninth of September in '03 (or 'in two thousand three')...

But never: "I'm seeing Jackie and everybody else on the first of the ninth..." where 9th means a month.

Closest I can get to this (while my head nods and I need to get to sleep) would be my response to an agency for a date. I might say, "O-eight; O-twenty-four; forty-two," for example, for August 24, 1942, but I'd have to be pretty sure that the person on the other end was filling in blanks and was accumstomed to translating dates this way.

Oh, well. It's probably lack of sleep at this point, but those examples up there I've never heard people use in everyday speech.

FTR,
WW

"O-eight; O-twenty-four; forty-two,"

O-eight O-twenty four??? How many days they got in a month down there in Virginia??

Fun Faldage observes:

O-eight O-twenty four??? How many days they got in a month down there in Virginia??

You know, Faldage, I am so happy that you're back writing on AWAD again. A day without your catching me in writing errors just ain't a good day.

By the way, why are articles called "articles." It's weird when you think about it. I mean, to read an article in a newspaper or magazine, well, that's something of length, right?

But articles are little bitty words: one, two, three letters. I mean, the word article has more letters than a, an, and the all added up together. Bet I made everybody add up those letters--ha!

What gives?

Befuddled regards,
DubDub

..I'm seeing everyone on the ninth of September in '03

The year usage is around, though perhaps a bit quaint and/or dated. Stereotype: an old codger offers a remark equivalent to "...why, Ah remember the big hurricaine back in September of Aught-two..."

I've heard people use "first September" in all seriousness; generally they have been British-educated or trained. Never "first Ninth," though.

Afterthought: in the present context, is there a difference between an "article" and a "particle" ?

Afterthought: in the present context, is there a difference between an "article" and a "particle" ?
Not a...

When ought a naught be an aught?

back in September of Aught-two..."

Or even, in a humorous sense, back in September of Aught-twelve..."

"First of the ninth", yeah, occasionally, but adding the year in like that just seems stilted to me.

Yeah, Cap, you wouldn't hear this very often. The "first of the ninth" thing alone would tend to be in a business context, say, setting dates for meetings or actions from meetings, etc. But there are times that the year needs to be specified, and at those times I reckon it would be spoken as "oh two" or whatever.

I was especially curious as to whether 1st September would be preceded by a the and have an of before "September" for everyone. I'd never write either of those, but I'd say (=read) both.

1st September would be preceded by a the and have an of before "September" for everyone.

USns would certainly, in general, say "the first of September" or either "September first". We would not, I think, normally write it "1 September". We most likely would write it "Sep(t(ember)) 1", "8/1" or, less likely but still possibly, "08/01".

We most likely would write it "Sep(t(ember)) 1", "8/1" or, less likely but still possibly, "08/01".

Now, far be it from me to pick nits, but outside the US, September is the ninth (9th) month. Of course, I do understand that the cultural differences between the US and the rest of the world could very well result in the US calendar looking like:

1. July
2. March
3. November
4. January
5. April
6. February
7. May
8. September
9. June
10. December
11. August
12. October

HTH. Live long and prosper. I look forward to Christmas in October this year ...

D'oh!

Oh, happy day! Faldage got caught in a nit!

Well done, Fishpicker!

Talking of the strange ways y'all have with your dates. A visiting US'n company at the Edinburgh Fringe remarked that it was strange that we were using the term 9-11 here. It was pointed out that in general we do not (especially as the telephone number for the emergency services here, as regulars will know, is 999 not 911). We tend say 11th September or sometimes September 11th (out of deference to our friends across the pond).

Someone pointed out that in years to come it is likely that people will see the date written down and wonder what event took place on the 9th November. (For Faldage - don't worry - that will be 3-9 for you).

what event took place on the 9th November.

Wasn't that the day they caught Guy Fawkes, the guy that bombed the Reichstag on 5th November?

The Reichstag?

Ich ne bloody think so pas!

Fald, old bean,

Was that Guy van der Lubbe Fawkes?

Guy van der Lubbe Fawkes?

The veriest one.

Van der Lubbe didn't set fire to the Reichstag either even though he was "convicted" of doing it ... try again!

try again

Try what again, Cap? Are you one of the mindlost?

>mindlost


Too subtle for me. Is this alcohol related? If so, I have no doubt that the Capital Kiwi in question would plead guilty.