4 ms·
The latter version doesn't sound so bad, because the USS is a dead giveaway "this here is the name of a ship." The former, on the other hand, would seem rather
by BrandonMarc 10y ago
The latter version doesn't sound so bad, because the USS is a dead giveaway "this here is the name of a ship." The former, on the other hand, would seem rather strange. It would sound a bit like this:
> General Patton has never seen combat, nor would she be of much practical military use.
(given Gen. Patton is a widely known character thus those familiar know he's a "he")
- chii 10y agoWhen referring to things with a name, it's usually preceded by 'the', I.e, the General Patton. It's perfectly clear that the name isn't referring to the person.
- wtbob 10y agoBut correct usage is never to use the definite article with a ship: it's always just 'HMS Indefatigable,' never 'the HMS Indefatigable.'
- dragonwriter 10y agoAFAICT, that's not actually a statement of "correct" vs. "incorrect" usage generally, so much of practice of certain organizations (including, inter alia, the US Navy.) And, IME, its fairly common even in formal writing -- but, again, not from particular entities, like the USN -- to use the definite article when no prefix (HMS, USS, etc.) is used.