Is a “the” always necessary?
Moderator: Official Reviewer Representatives
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: 10 Aug 2021, 21:29
- Currently Reading: Perk's of being a Wallflower
- Bookshelf Size: 42
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-dustin-stopher.html
- Latest Review: Reconfigurement by E. Alan Fleischauer
Is a “the” always necessary?
“The stance was in opposition to common rhetoric of the virus.”
The note said that the sentence was incorrect, and should read:
“The stance was in opposition to THE common rhetoric of the virus.”
While I acknowledge the second sounds better, is the first incorrect? To me, adding a “the” makes the common rhetoric a singular entity, where all parties are saying generally the same thing about the virus. Omitting it makes the rhetoric feel more open, as in there may be several common opinions that do not necessarily agree. Is the “the” necessary? I await your thoughts!
- Elles7ng+
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 12:20
- Bookshelf Size: 0
I don't know if this could actually help you to solve the doubt you have, but for me, who also speaks Spanish, the right way when I translate the sentence to Spanish is by adding the "the" to it. This is because in Spanish the lack of an article before a singular noun is a grammar mistake, cuz it loses the "belonging" sense. Therefore "I assume" in this particular case that's what happens.
I'm sorry for not giving you a further (or exactly right) explanation about why this, but I'm still learning to improve my grammar in both languages (and these posts help me a lot).
I hope you get the actual explanation of this and I hope to learn from it too.
Wish you the best!
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: 10 Aug 2021, 21:29
- Currently Reading: Perk's of being a Wallflower
- Bookshelf Size: 42
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-dustin-stopher.html
- Latest Review: Reconfigurement by E. Alan Fleischauer
Elles7ng+ wrote: ↑09 Sep 2021, 19:33 Hi there!
I don't know if this could actually help you to solve the doubt you have, but for me, who also speaks Spanish, the right way when I translate the sentence to Spanish is by adding the "the" to it. This is because in Spanish the lack of an article before a singular noun is a grammar mistake, cuz it loses the "belonging" sense. Therefore "I assume" in this particular case that's what happens.
I'm sorry for not giving you a further (or exactly right) explanation about why this, but I'm still learning to improve my grammar in both languages (and these posts help me a lot).
I hope you get the actual explanation of this and I hope to learn from it too.
Wish you the best!
Hey!
My only understanding of Spanish is what I took in high school, but from what I remember, I do feel like the “the” would be there from a translation standpoint. You’re absolutely right. I do wonder about the grammatical explanation in English though.
Nevertheless, I appreciate your response and the international perspective. I hadn’t thought of that.
Thanks for the insight!
- Neshboy Aburi
- Posts: 403
- Joined: 06 Jul 2021, 17:33
- Favorite Book:
- Currently Reading: The Great Migration
- Bookshelf Size: 73
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-neshboy-aburi.html
- Latest Review: Darksoul by L. Brooks
I also don't know the correct way about this and to me both sentence seem to be correct. The second sentence may sound better but I agree with you that it limits the scope of the subject to that particular incident. I mean it implies that the common rhetoric of the virus is a one time event.Dustin Stopher wrote: ↑19 Aug 2021, 16:58 Hi everyone! I had a recent note on a review I wrote, and wanted some feedback on it. The sentence I wrote was something like:
“The stance was in opposition to common rhetoric of the virus.”
The note said that the sentence was incorrect, and should read:
“The stance was in opposition to THE common rhetoric of the virus.”
While I acknowledge the second sounds better, is the first incorrect? To me, adding a “the” makes the common rhetoric a singular entity, where all parties are saying generally the same thing about the virus. Omitting it makes the rhetoric feel more open, as in there may be several common opinions that do not necessarily agree. Is the “the” necessary? I await your thoughts!
- Charlize Venter
- Posts: 164
- Joined: 30 Nov 2021, 00:15
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 34
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-charlize-venter.html
- Latest Review: Mysteries Of the First Instant by Daniel Friedmann
In this instance, the first would be considered grammatically incorrect. The subject is necessary.Dustin Stopher wrote: ↑19 Aug 2021, 16:58 Hi everyone! I had a recent note on a review I wrote, and wanted some feedback on it. The sentence I wrote was something like:
“The stance was in opposition to common rhetoric of the virus.”
The note said that the sentence was incorrect, and should read:
“The stance was in opposition to THE common rhetoric of the virus.”
While I acknowledge the second sounds better, is the first incorrect? To me, adding a “the” makes the common rhetoric a singular entity, where all parties are saying generally the same thing about the virus. Omitting it makes the rhetoric feel more open, as in there may be several common opinions that do not necessarily agree. Is the “the” necessary? I await your thoughts!
In spoken English and informal writing one can still get away with it, but considering the quality review expected by OnlineBookClub, we cannot get away with it here.
- Samuel Mamo
- Posts: 232
- Joined: 23 Dec 2021, 03:14
- Favorite Book: The Maestro Monologue
- Currently Reading:
- Bookshelf Size: 36
- Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-samuel-mamo.html
- Latest Review: Man Mission by Eytan Uliel