Thread: Use of articles with proper names

If a person's name is preceded by an adjective (as in 'sly Harry'), should the adjective be preceded by an article? For instance, in the sentence 'But [?] sly Harry used his influence...' should there be a zero article or a definite article before "sly"?
Same question, only with 'participle' instead of 'adjective' (as in 'sleeping Harry' or 'disgruntled Harry'). 'I glanced at [?] sleeping Harry' or '[?] disgruntled Harry was sitting apart from the group'. I know an indefinite article is used in this case if the object is mentioned for the first time, but what about the second time? Thanks in advance.

No, if you are using a proper name then there's no article, because by definition a proper name is always definite.

So the sentences would be: -

'But Harry used his influence...' / 'But Sly Harry used his influence...'

'I glanced at Harry' / 'I glanced at Sleeping Harry'

'Harry was sitting apart from the group' / 'Disgruntled Harry was sitting apart from the group'

Because it is a proper name the sly bit needs to have a capital letter > Sly etc - I think.

Maybe you two dismissed this question a little too glibly?

In the example give:
"But sly Harry used his influence..."
I think it would be fine as an example of 'literary style'. I don't think I would even blink if I saw that in a novel. On the other hand, if they capitalised "Sly Harry" then I would understand it as some kind of nickname.
However, the third idea proposed by the OP:
"But the sly Harry used his influence.."
is yeshyo interesnee. I'm fairly confident that, somehow, this is correct (again I mean in literary or bookish style), although I understand the logical objection to it.

Consider this example (from http://35.1911encyclopedia.org/H/HU/HUGH_ST.htm ):

"But with all his bluff firmness Hugh had a calm judgment and a ready tact, which almost invariably left him a better friend than before of those whom he opposed; and the astute Henry, the impetuous Richard, and the cunning John, so different in other points, agreed in respecting the bishop of Lincoln."

Looks fine, right?

The examples of 'participles' -> here they are just acting as adjectives right? They modify the proper noun. I don't think there's any issue there. What applies to 'sly' in that kind of construction will also apply to 'sleeping' or 'disgruntled'.

So "the sleeping Harry" is fine but "a sleeping Harry" is less common because Harry is a proper noun. Still, I don't think you could say it's wrong; perhaps it's best seen as a kind of poetic device.

By Golly Waxwing, you are absolutely right! I stand corrected.

(I wasn't being glib at all, I was just being wrong).

I just thought of an exception containing the indefinite article:

"Harry discovered he'd won

Yeah, that's it, good one. Calling it a 'poetic device' was too strong.

This is the experience you have with articles - you get burnt so many times trying to explain rules that eventually you give up trying. But then again it depends whether you're trying to teach a student to understand them or to use them. For the former, you can nearly ignore them; they carry very little information content. For the latter, you teach those stupid rules which you know have millions of exceptions.

I agree waxwing, you are right. Interesting. I was limiting my thinking to the case of a nickname, like ‘Mad Mike’.

Originally Posted by waxwing

Maybe you two dismissed this question a little too glibly?

@Lucius: Just for the record I wasn't trying to dismiss your post and I wasn’t being glib.

May I write something like that

"But then Harry smiled and she thought it was the same Harry she used to know — the irresistible Hary, the Harry with shining teeth" etc.?

I think if an article is used with a proper name this name means something general or a particular feature of this object.