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

Forum Index » Off-Topic

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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. [/quote]
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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]
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?[/quote]

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”.[/quote]
Because I just talk about thirsty horses out of the blue? Without a horse in sight?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics