4 ms·

> The Philippines, The United States, The Great Lakes I see nothing wrong? The Philippine (Islands). The United (States). The Great (Lakes). > the poor This

by kaoD 7y ago

> The Philippines, The United States, The Great Lakes I see nothing wrong? The Philippine (Islands). The United (States). The Great (Lakes). > the poor This is a challenge for NLP but only due to the ellipsis. "the poor (people)", where "people" is elided. I don't think most native speakers realize "poor" is an adjective here. > a means of production > a number of hamsters, the number of hamsters > a shirt, but a piece of garment, and a pair of pants Sorry, non-native speaker here. What do you mean?

yongjik 7y ago
> The Philippines, The United States, The Great Lakes The point is that they are all names for a unique entity. There are no multiple Philippines - there's only one. Yet we should say "The Philippines", while we cannot say "The Switzerland." Similarly, we aren't talking about "a particular group of united states among multiple such groups" - for example, nobody calls Germany "The United States", even if it's made of many states. > "the poor (people)", where "people" is elided. The problem with this analysis is that "the poor people" can be used to mean "these particular group of poor people we are talking about", but "the poor" can't - it's not a definite group of people. E.g., "I met those refugees on the road, so I asked the poor a few questions." (??) > a shirt, but a piece of garment, and a pair of pants I'm saying: why can't we say "a garment" or "a pants"? (Hmm maybe we can say "a garment"? I'm not sure.) Seriously, a pants should be a thing: it's clearly one item. Has anyone ever seen someone wearing "a pant" (i.e., half a pair of pants)?
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > why can't we say "a garment" or "a pants"? (Hmm maybe we can say "a garment"? I'm not sure.) You must say "a garment". "A piece of garment" is not grammatical English and never has been. (The word garment itself, regardless of how you use it, is basically obsolete in modern English, though.)
  - yongjik 7y ago
    Thanks for the correction. Should have sticked to a piece of furniture... :/
    - schoen 7y ago
      It would work as "a piece of cloth".
      - kaoD 7y ago
        But that would still have nothing to do with "a piece of cloth" vs "the piece of cloth" which is still a meaningful difference :/ I'm more confused now.
- saithound 7y ago
  > There are no multiple Philippines - there's only one. Yet we should say "The Philippines", while we cannot say "The Switzerland." I think kaoD's point is that islands, states and lakes are not unique entities, so "the" does designate a particular instance of a class in these examples. I think he might have a point: your three examples are proper nouns that happen to include "the", and they evolved from "definite article (+ attributive) + noun", where the definite article was used to pick out a particular instance of a class.
- kaoD 7y ago
  > The Philippines, The United States, The Great Lakes See saithound's reply. > it's not a definite group of people Yes it is. It's a specific subset of people (the poor) that can be picked apart from the rest (the non-poor). > E.g., "I met those refugees on the road, so I asked the poor [refugees] a few questions." Again, I see nothing weird with this (?) You seem to have a problem with ellipsis (and yes, that's hard!) not articles.
  - Cro_on 7y ago
    > Yes it is. It's a specific subset of people (the poor) that can be picked apart from the rest (the non-poor). I think the issue is that it doesn't necessarily refer to the people mentioned in the first clause. To me it sounds like a non-sequitur, e.g. 'I met those refugees on the road, so I [went elsewhere and] asked the poor a few questions [to see if they would have some insight on the refugees I met earlier].'

by kaoD 7y ago

yongjik 7y ago

> The Philippines, The United States, The Great Lakes The point is that they are all names for a unique entity. There are no multiple Philippines - there's only one. Yet we should say "The Philippines", while we cannot say "The Switzerland." Similarly, we aren't talking about "a particular group of united states among multiple such groups" - for example, nobody calls Germany "The United States", even if it's made of many states. > "the poor (people)", where "people" is elided. The problem with this analysis is that "the poor people" can be used to mean "these particular group of poor people we are talking about", but "the poor" can't - it's not a definite group of people. E.g., "I met those refugees on the road, so I asked the poor a few questions." (??) > a shirt, but a piece of garment, and a pair of pants I'm saying: why can't we say "a garment" or "a pants"? (Hmm maybe we can say "a garment"? I'm not sure.) Seriously, a pants should be a thing: it's clearly one item. Has anyone ever seen someone wearing "a pant" (i.e., half a pair of pants)?

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> why can't we say "a garment" or "a pants"? (Hmm maybe we can say "a garment"? I'm not sure.) You must say "a garment". "A piece of garment" is not grammatical English and never has been. (The word garment itself, regardless of how you use it, is basically obsolete in modern English, though.)
- yongjik 7y ago
  Thanks for the correction. Should have sticked to a piece of furniture... :/
  - schoen 7y ago
    It would work as "a piece of cloth".
    - kaoD 7y ago
      But that would still have nothing to do with "a piece of cloth" vs "the piece of cloth" which is still a meaningful difference :/ I'm more confused now.
saithound 7y ago
> There are no multiple Philippines - there's only one. Yet we should say "The Philippines", while we cannot say "The Switzerland." I think kaoD's point is that islands, states and lakes are not unique entities, so "the" does designate a particular instance of a class in these examples. I think he might have a point: your three examples are proper nouns that happen to include "the", and they evolved from "definite article (+ attributive) + noun", where the definite article was used to pick out a particular instance of a class.
kaoD 7y ago
> The Philippines, The United States, The Great Lakes See saithound's reply. > it's not a definite group of people Yes it is. It's a specific subset of people (the poor) that can be picked apart from the rest (the non-poor). > E.g., "I met those refugees on the road, so I asked the poor [refugees] a few questions." Again, I see nothing weird with this (?) You seem to have a problem with ellipsis (and yes, that's hard!) not articles.
- Cro_on 7y ago
  > Yes it is. It's a specific subset of people (the poor) that can be picked apart from the rest (the non-poor). I think the issue is that it doesn't necessarily refer to the people mentioned in the first clause. To me it sounds like a non-sequitur, e.g. 'I met those refugees on the road, so I [went elsewhere and] asked the poor a few questions [to see if they would have some insight on the refugees I met earlier].'