Thread: Articles

Originally Posted by Timon

I see i have been the most active asker on the forum now. But my English is far from fluent now (but it will be) so for now lots of questions arise.

I read a book about the legal system of the USA. And I noticed that sometimes the author uses the terms “suit”, “plaintiff” and “defendant” with articles and sometimes without articles. Here are some examples:


I have tried to analyse the differences but failed. So I am wondering if some of you could clarify this.

You could say, "So, I wonder if..." taking out the "am"

Also, most Americans that I know, would just say U.S. and not USA. So that is just a style thing, it is not incorrect to say USA.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

You could say, "So, I wonder if..." taking out the "am"

Also, most Americans that I know, would just say U.S. and not USA. So that is just a style thing, it is not incorrect to say USA.

Should I have used "the" before "terms" in my post because i pointed them out later? I am asking this because i thought i should omit the determinder as the words "suit”, “plaintiff” and “defendant” are mentioned at the first time so we do not know yet what "suit”, “plaintiff” and “defendant” we are talking about now.

Originally Posted by Timon

Should I have used "the" before "terms" in my post because i pointed them out later? I am asking this because i thought i should omit the determinder as the words "suit”, “plaintiff” and “defendant” are mentioned at the first time so we do not know yet what "suit”, “plaintiff” and “defendant” we are talking about now.

You should look at it like this: by using the article you signal that there will follow a complete list or a description of what you mean. Example:

a) Sometimes the author uses terms...
b) Sometimes the author uses the terms...

Given that the terms in question have not been defined previously to saying this, at this point in the utterance a person speaking English knows that:

a) in this sentence there will be a broad definition at best, the topic are not specific terms. I would expect the sentence to continue like "... nobody can easily understand". While that would be a description of a property of the terms, it is not a property which defines them in such a way that you could tell which terms exactly are being referred to.

b) in this sentence there will be either a list of terms (as in your example, where you list the exact three terms you mean) or some kind of definition which will at least make it possible to find out the exact terms, like if the sentence went on "... which Dr. Shmolinski defined as especially insulting in his seminal work How to Irritate People".

So the answer to your question "Should I have used "the" before "terms" in my post because i pointed them out later?" is "Yes, definitely". And note that you are talking about the words, not the actual suit, plaintiff and defendant they might refer to in that specific case. Their meanings or references are entirely irrelevant here.

By the way, the pronoun "I" is always capitalized.

Originally Posted by bitpicker

You should look at it like this: by using the article you signal that there will follow a complete list or a description of what you mean. Example:

a) Sometimes the author uses terms...
b) Sometimes the author uses the terms...

By the way, the pronoun "I" is always capitalized.

Thank you bitpicker very much! It was a great explanation!