Just a sample of the Echomail archive
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]
|  Message 3833  |
|  Ardith Hinton to alexander koryagin  |
|  Old stuff  |
|  16 Feb 22 23:54:15  |
 
MSGID: 1:153/716.0 20dd2832
REPLY: 2:5075/128.130 bc4a687f
CHRS: IBMPC 2
Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:
AH> The head is part of the body.
ak> It can be understood that "This head is a part of
ak> this body" A criminal investigation. :)
Archaeologists & criminologists may at times be called upon to
identify various body parts which have been separated for whatever reason(s).
In such a situation, however, I'd say "xxx is part of yyy" as I did there.
In my example I used "head" & "body" in a general sense... and as
Anton has pointed out, "the" is often used in such a context. When
grammarians speak e.g. of "the article" or "the dictionary" they don't mean to
imply there's only one they regard as worthy of serious consideration. They
believe that if their readers aren't quite sure what an "article" is they know
how to look it up, and that they'll get +/- the same answer regardless of
where they look.... :-)
ak> And why not "a body"?
I guess because it's already been taken. In dialectical English it
may mean a person, not necessarily identified... as in the Scottish folk song:
If a body meet a body coming through the rye
If a body kiss a body, need a body cry?
AH> The capital of Canada is Ottawa, Ontario.
AH> The President of the US remarked yesterday that...
AH> [blah blah].
ak> Well, it seems, I see, "The" is necessary when there is no
ak> definition before the countable noun and this noun defines
ak> something unique.
Okay, I think you're on the right track.... :-)
ak> In my case we will have "the" if we paraphrase the
ak> sentence:
|
[ << oldest | < older | list | newer > | newest >> ]