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

[Anonymous]

See you would know that it is English without the, does it even need "articles are useless in the English language?" What is the purpose of the, a, an? Grammar police please give me examples of where AN article is useful and helpful to the meaning of the sentence. I think they are useless and you always discern the meaning from the sentence. Who is to assume Boy is a bad runner, for all the boys, the boy, I have no clue at all when, how, why to use an article.

[Anonymous]

There is a big difference between "the" and "a." Look at these two sentences:

1) The boy is running down the street.
2) A boy is running down the street.

In #1 you know it is a specific boy, one who within the context of the paragraph has been identified. In #2 you only know that some random boy is running down the street.

[Anonymous]

A bison

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a big difference between "the" and "a." Look at these two sentences:

1) The boy is running down the street.
2) A boy is running down the street.

In #1 you know it is a specific boy, one who within the context of the paragraph has been identified. In #2 you only know that some random boy is running down the street.

Not much difference, though, and who is ever saying that other than English teachers? To teach how to use a useless article. When did you hear that sentence in actual use? I know this boy or a random boy is running? You are never going to use it that way, ever. Useless.

[Anonymous]

Look at this even: On the long journey, we drank a lot.
Or: On long journey, we drank a lot.
Makes no difference, at all. Sure, it sounds wrong, but the meaning is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A bison

And if you just said: bison.
You would know exactly what you mean, and everyone would know it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at this even: On the long journey, we drank a lot.
Or: On long journey, we drank a lot.
Makes no difference, at all. Sure, it sounds wrong, but the meaning is the same.

*drank lot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at this even: On the long journey, we drank a lot.
Or: On long journey, we drank a lot.
Makes no difference, at all. Sure, it sounds wrong, but the meaning is the same.

The first is referencing a particular, unique long journey. The recerent would be apparent from the previous conversation for pragmatically appropriate English.

The second sentence is totally ambiguous - all long journeys? Some long journeys? A particular long jouney?

Languages which don’t use definite and indefinite articles mark this distinction in other ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at this even: On the long journey, we drank a lot.
Or: On long journey, we drank a lot.
Makes no difference, at all. Sure, it sounds wrong, but the meaning is the same.

*drank lot

Ha! Good catch! Still, even without a lot, same meaning, totally same meaning, no? Could say lots, we drank lots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at this even: On the long journey, we drank a lot.
Or: On long journey, we drank a lot.
Makes no difference, at all. Sure, it sounds wrong, but the meaning is the same.

The first is referencing a particular, unique long journey. The recerent would be apparent from the previous conversation for pragmatically appropriate English.

The second sentence is totally ambiguous - all long journeys? Some long journeys? A particular long jouney?

Languages which don’t use definite and indefinite articles mark this distinction in other ways.

Referent not recerent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at this even: On the long journey, we drank a lot.
Or: On long journey, we drank a lot.
Makes no difference, at all. Sure, it sounds wrong, but the meaning is the same.

The first is referencing a particular, unique long journey. The recerent would be apparent from the previous conversation for pragmatically appropriate English.

The second sentence is totally ambiguous - all long journeys? Some long journeys? A particular long jouney?

Languages which don’t use definite and indefinite articles mark this distinction in other ways.

No, it doesn't. You are just so used to saying it "proper." If I said: On long journeys, we drink lots... that would mean on any or many long journeys we do this. This one uses singular and the meaning of it is very specific.
Of course, other languages have different markings, but in this case useless. That is why I am asking dcum grammar police to find (an) example of where it is absolutely needed.

[Anonymous]

I am not saying it is not proper, but that it is useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A bison

And if you just said: bison.
You would know exactly what you mean, and everyone would know it too.

[Anonymous]

Articles provide additional context. Yes, some languages don't have articles and the world hasn't stopped. You should be happy that English doesn't have gendered and numbered articles.

[Anonymous]

I concur.

Well, there is a slight change in meaning but you can figure it out from context. The Chinese do it every day.