Articles are completely useless in the English language, grammar police where are you to weigh in?

[Anonymous]

The United States of America.
United States of America.
Nobody is confusing the country if you skip the article.

[Anonymous]

In the 1980s.
In 1980s.
Again, same thing.

[Anonymous]

OP are you a foreigner? I feel like only non native speakers have these arguments. Articles just sound better.

I remember there was some island in sociology class that we learned about. They brought two languages together and didn't have grammar rules. By the next generation, grammar had developed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP are you a foreigner? I feel like only non native speakers have these arguments. Articles just sound better.

I remember there was some island in sociology class that we learned about. They brought two languages together and didn't have grammar rules. By the next generation, grammar had developed.

Yes, I am from another country. I am not disrupting that article just sounds better. I am saying I don't see any need for them. Grammar develops all the time. Grammatical gender is used in many languages, for example. Does that make English still a simple, not yet developed language compared to other languages with more complicated rules? Articles in English do not even determine gender.
I really think that the use of articles in English is superficial, a remnant of some French/German structures, and absolutely irrelevant in understanding the meaning.

[Anonymous]

^^ not disputing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet you 100 years from now, most of the articles in English will be a thing of the past.

Doubt it. OP is wrong that articles provide no information and are worthless. There's no reason for them to go away.

Ok, so give an example that is better than the boy running across the street? For, nobody needs an article to know the meaning of that. Nobody but kids tortured in classrooms around the world trying to tell someone that some boy they know is running but they can't use his name. Or Meg's brother, or your bro, or he is..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP are you a foreigner? I feel like only non native speakers have these arguments. Articles just sound better.

I remember there was some island in sociology class that we learned about. They brought two languages together and didn't have grammar rules. By the next generation, grammar had developed.

Yes, I am from another country. I am not disrupting that article just sounds better. I am saying I don't see any need for them. Grammar develops all the time. Grammatical gender is used in many languages, for example. Does that make English still a simple, not yet developed language compared to other languages with more complicated rules? Articles in English do not even determine gender.
I really think that the use of articles in English is superficial, a remnant of some French/German structures, and absolutely irrelevant in understanding the meaning.

English would still get by without articles but it would be less precise. The difference between definite and indefinite articles exists, sometimes they're interchangeable but other times they're not. If definite and indefinite articles are not interchangeable, then how can there be no need for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet you 100 years from now, most of the articles in English will be a thing of the past.

Doubt it. OP is wrong that articles provide no information and are worthless. There's no reason for them to go away.

Ok, so give an example that is better than the boy running across the street? For, nobody needs an article to know the meaning of that. Nobody but kids tortured in classrooms around the world trying to tell someone that some boy they know is running but they can't use his name. Or Meg's brother, or your bro, or he is..

A horse is a four legged animal.
The horse is blind.

Are all horses blind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP are you a foreigner? I feel like only non native speakers have these arguments. Articles just sound better.

I remember there was some island in sociology class that we learned about. They brought two languages together and didn't have grammar rules. By the next generation, grammar had developed.

Yes, I am from another country. I am not disrupting that article just sounds better. I am saying I don't see any need for them. Grammar develops all the time. Grammatical gender is used in many languages, for example. Does that make English still a simple, not yet developed language compared to other languages with more complicated rules? Articles in English do not even determine gender.
I really think that the use of articles in English is superficial, a remnant of some French/German structures, and absolutely irrelevant in understanding the meaning.

English would still get by without articles but it would be less precise. The difference between definite and indefinite articles exists, sometimes they're interchangeable but other times they're not. If definite and indefinite articles are not interchangeable, then how can there be no need for them?

Sure, yet I struggle to find examples of this. I write academic papers, yes I do have an editor, clearly. But, No meaning is ever changed with the use of articles in anything I write. The Second World War, the First World War, I mean are you confused about what people mean by First World War?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet you 100 years from now, most of the articles in English will be a thing of the past.

Doubt it. OP is wrong that articles provide no information and are worthless. There's no reason for them to go away.

Ok, so give an example that is better than the boy running across the street? For, nobody needs an article to know the meaning of that. Nobody but kids are tortured in classrooms around the world trying to tell someone that some boy they know is running, but they can't use his name. Or Meg's brother, or your bro, or he is..

A horse is a four legged animal.
The horse is blind.

Are all horses blind?

Horse is a four legged animal.
Horse is blind.

Why would anyone wonder if you are talking about a specific horse being blind without an article? Clearly, you are; the meaning is not improved. Yes, every single 9-year-old in classrooms around Europe knows the difference between The and A and An in English.
Let's put your example in a real-life situation.
OMG, what is going on with your horse? The horse is blind.
Beth got a horse. Sadly, the horse is blind. (or horse is blind)
Surely, you see it too?
Sure, I am a bit obtuse on purpose, but I struggle to find an example where it is truly necessary. In my sentence "knows the difference" if I left it out would the meaning change at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP are you a foreigner? I feel like only non native speakers have these arguments. Articles just sound better.

I remember there was some island in sociology class that we learned about. They brought two languages together and didn't have grammar rules. By the next generation, grammar had developed.

Yes, I am from another country. I am not disrupting that article just sounds better. I am saying I don't see any need for them. Grammar develops all the time. Grammatical gender is used in many languages, for example. Does that make English still a simple, not yet developed language compared to other languages with more complicated rules? Articles in English do not even determine gender.
I really think that the use of articles in English is superficial, a remnant of some French/German structures, and absolutely irrelevant in understanding the meaning.

English would still get by without articles but it would be less precise. The difference between definite and indefinite articles exists, sometimes they're interchangeable but other times they're not. If definite and indefinite articles are not interchangeable, then how can there be no need for them?

Yes, tell me how and why is there is a need for them? Instead of asking, I am asking you, the dcum grammar police to analyze what is gained by the use of articles in the English language.
(why do I need the use and in the English language, what is the benefit?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP are you a foreigner? I feel like only non native speakers have these arguments. Articles just sound better.

I remember there was some island in sociology class that we learned about. They brought two languages together and didn't have grammar rules. By the next generation, grammar had developed.

Yes, I am from another country. I am not disrupting that article just sounds better. I am saying I don't see any need for them. Grammar develops all the time. Grammatical gender is used in many languages, for example. Does that make English still a simple, not yet developed language compared to other languages with more complicated rules? Articles in English do not even determine gender.
I really think that the use of articles in English is superficial, a remnant of some French/German structures, and absolutely irrelevant in understanding the meaning.

English would still get by without articles but it would be less precise. The difference between definite and indefinite articles exists, sometimes they're interchangeable but other times they're not. If definite and indefinite articles are not interchangeable, then how can there be no need for them?

Sure, yet I struggle to find examples of this. I write academic papers, yes I do have an editor, clearly. But, No meaning is ever changed with the use of articles in anything I write. The Second World War, the First World War, I mean are you confused about what people mean by First World War?

Proper names function as articles do - so, yes, “the First World War” has a certain level of redundancy. That is not true when comparing “horse is thirsty” vs “the horse is thirsty” vs “a horse is thirsty”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP are you a foreigner? I feel like only non native speakers have these arguments. Articles just sound better.

I remember there was some island in sociology class that we learned about. They brought two languages together and didn't have grammar rules. By the next generation, grammar had developed.

Yes, I am from another country. I am not disrupting that article just sounds better. I am saying I don't see any need for them. Grammar develops all the time. Grammatical gender is used in many languages, for example. Does that make English still a simple, not yet developed language compared to other languages with more complicated rules? Articles in English do not even determine gender.
I really think that the use of articles in English is superficial, a remnant of some French/German structures, and absolutely irrelevant in understanding the meaning.

English would still get by without articles but it would be less precise. The difference between definite and indefinite articles exists, sometimes they're interchangeable but other times they're not. If definite and indefinite articles are not interchangeable, then how can there be no need for them?

Sure, yet I struggle to find examples of this. I write academic papers, yes I do have an editor, clearly. But, No meaning is ever changed with the use of articles in anything I write. The Second World War, the First World War, I mean are you confused about what people mean by First World War?

Proper names function as articles do - so, yes, “the First World War” has a certain level of redundancy. That is not true when comparing “horse is thirsty” vs “the horse is thirsty” vs “a horse is thirsty”.

Because I just talk about thirsty horses out of the blue? Without a horse in sight?

[Anonymous]

So they help track referents, in a similar way that pronouns do.

We can refer to the same entity as: a kid/this kid/Andrew/the kid/him ... but if we have more than one boy that we might be talking about, then the articles help us keep track of them.

1. "I saw Andrew this morning. A kid drove his scooter straight into the wall."
2. "I saw Andrew this morning. The kid drove his scooter straight into a wall."

In #1, Andrew is NOT driving the scooter, but in #2, he could be.

[Anonymous]

Of all the things to complain about the English language, you pick.........articles?