# Forum Other Languages English for Russians - Изучаем английский язык Practice your English  Articles

## 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) so lots of questions arise. 
I read a book about the legal system of the USA. And I noticed that sometimes the author uses terms “suit”, “plaintiff” and “defendant” with articles and sometimes without articles. Here are some examples: 
With articles: 1) A plaintiff is a party, and so is a defendant. 2) In general, this is done by filing a suit for foreclosure in court and obtaining a court order to have the sheriff sell the property at auction.
Without articles: 1) It sometimes happens that defendant already knows that plaintiff is filing suit and is willing to waive formal service of process. 2) Plaintiffs filing suit against administrative agencies must first exhaust their administrative remedies. 
I have tried to analyse the difference but failed. So I am wonder if some of you could clarify this.

----------


## chaika

1) In legal writing the two parties' names are replaced by the words "defendant" and "plaintiff." So instead of writing "Mr. Chavez-Kostanopolis" everywhere in a document, they just use the appropriate word. You would not write "the Mr. Chavez-Kostanopolis". OTOH if you want to use the two words as ordinary nouns, then you would write "the defendant" etc. "It sometimes happens that the defendant already knows that the plaintiff is filing suit." 
2 "to file suit" view this as a phrasal verb
"to file a suit" view this as an ordinary transitive verb.

----------


## rockzmom

> 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.

----------


## Timon

> 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.

----------


## bitpicker

> 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.

----------


## Timon

> 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!

----------


## Timon

> 1) In legal writing the two parties' names are replaced by the words "defendant" and "plaintiff." So instead of writing "Mr. Chavez-Kostanopolis" everywhere in a document, they just use the appropriate word. You would not write "the Mr. Chavez-Kostanopolis". OTOH if you want to use the two words as ordinary nouns, then you would write "the defendant" etc. "It sometimes happens that the defendant already knows that the plaintiff is filing suit." 
> 2 "to file suit" view this as a phrasal verb
> "to file a suit" view this as an ordinary transitive verb.

 Thank you. But could we dwell on it?
1. As to "file suit". My first assumption was also that "to file suit" be a phrasal verb. I guess it is one. But i do not see the difference. Could you or anyone else explain? 
2. As to "defendant" "plaintiff" etc without a determiner. You explaination sounds reasonable and i have found the same on another one forum. The only thing makes me doubt is the contex of all other sentences with these words having no article. For examle:
- As you can readily imagine, it is very important that each defendant be notified that he has been sued, and it is equally important that plaintiff be able to prove that each defendant was notified.
- A motion to dismiss asks the judge to find that there is
something wrong with a claim as it appears in plaintiff’s complaint.
- If defendant’s evidence is so weak that a reasonable jury must find for plaintiff, then plaintiff
should be granted summary judgment.
- If the evidence is so strongly in favor of the defendant that a
reasonable jury could never find in favor of the plaintiff, then defendant is entitled
to summary judgment, and plaintiff loses, then and there. 
Please notice that in the last exampl "defendant" and "plaintiff" first mentioned with the determiner and then without any. All these sentences do not tell us a story of someone's lawsuit but explain us in general legal procedures. So "plaintiff" (without the determiner) does not substitute here for a name of a man who is the plaintiff in the case we are discussing now and we know this man. Do you understand what i am trying to say?

----------


## bitpicker

> Thank you. But could we dwell on it?
> 1. As to "file suit". My first assumption was also that "to file suit" *is* a phrasal verb. I guess it is one. But i do not see the difference. Could you or anyone else explain?

 "To file suit" is a phrasal verb because without the article "suit" is a necessary part of the verb phrase. You can't file photo or complaint, you can only file a photo or a complaint. There are many things you can file, but they need their articles. Among them is "a suit", so it is possible to use the transitive verb "file" with "a suit" just as you can use it with "a complaint". 
You can't say "that to file suit *be* a phrasal verb". It sounds as if you were telling the verb to go and be phrasal.    

> 2. As to "defendant" "plaintiff" etc without a determiner. 
> (...)
> - If the evidence is so strongly in favor of the defendant that a
> reasonable jury could never find in favor of the plaintiff, then defendant is entitled
> to summary judgment, and plaintiff loses, then and there. 
> Please notice that in the last exampl*e* "defendant" and "plaintiff" *are* first mentioned with the determiner and then without any. All these sentences do not tell us a story of someone's lawsuit but explain *to* us *in* general legal procedures. So "plaintiff" (without the determiner) does not substitute here for a name of a man who is the plaintiff in the case we are discussing now and we know this man. Do you understand what i am trying to say?

 I suppose that in these examples the problem is the prepositional phrase. "Of plaintiff" simply sounds clumsy. But then again, legalese always sounds clumsy... So, don't worry too much about the fact that in legal terminology the words defendant and plaintiff may be used like names rather than descriptive terms, which then need articles, because in all other contexts you will have to use articles anyway. Only lawyers need to care about plaintiffs and defendants without articles.  ::

----------


## Timon

> Only lawyers need to care about plaintiffs and defendants without articles.

 Thanks. It made me smile because I am a lawyer ::  so I need to care. And I just want to understand the reason. I like the option saying that "plaintiff" without the determinder is just a replaced name of a man who is suing someone. But I do not believe that this is correct because in all such sentences the author speaks generally. And even in one sentence he uses both variants (with and without the determinder). I am completely confused ::

----------


## Seraph

> Thank you. But could we dwell on it?
> 1. As to "file suit". My first assumption was also that "to file suit" be a phrasal verb. I guess it is one. But i do not see the difference. Could you or anyone else explain? 
> 2. As to "defendant" "plaintiff" etc without a determiner. You explaination sounds reasonable and i have found the same on another one forum. The only thing makes me doubt is the contex of all other sentences with these words having no article. For examle:
> - As you can readily imagine, it is very important that each defendant be notified that he has been sued, and it is equally important that plaintiff be able to prove that each defendant was notified.
> - A motion to dismiss asks the judge to find that there is
> something wrong with a claim as it appears in plaintiff’s complaint.
> - If defendant’s evidence is so weak that a reasonable jury must find for plaintiff, then plaintiff
> should be granted summary judgment.
> - If the evidence is so strongly in favor of the defendant that a
> ...

   Hello, Timon;  There is actually something else going in these sentences/phrases.  The author is using a clipped style somewhat as in abbreviated personal notes, that an individual might take.   
  “and it is equally important that () plaintiff be able to prove” could also have an article at (). 
  “as it appears in () plaintiff’s complaint” also may have an article if one wishes. 
  “- If (a/the) defendant’s evidence is so weak that a reasonable jury must find for (the) plaintiff, then (the) plaintiff should be granted summary judgment.” 
  This last phrase “- If the evidence is so strongly in favor of the defendant that a
reasonable jury could never find in favor of the plaintiff, then () defendant is entitled
to summary judgment, and () plaintiff loses, then and there” is showing that you can in fact use an article as you expect, before ‘defendant’ and 'plaintiff'.  The lack of articles at () is more the personal style of the particular writer, not a particular rule of English.

----------


## bitpicker

> Thanks. It made me smile because I am a lawyer so I need to care. And I just want to understand the reason. I like the option saying that "plaintiff" without the determinder is just a replaced name of a man who is suing someone. But I do not believe that this is correct because in all such sentences the author speaks generally. And even in one sentence he uses both variants (with and without the determinder). I am completely confused

 OK, in that case maybe it helps to see the words as variables or placeholders. You could supply A and B for plaintiff and defendant, and A and B would not take articles either.  
Furthermore it is not necessary for the article to be used only if it's a reference to a specific plaintiff Bob or a specific defendant Mary. Even when speaking generally you could write something like this (example for grammatical purposes, not for meaning!): Every suit includes a plaintiff and a defendant ("a" because we are introducing the concepts). It is the responsibility (definite article because while there may be more responsibilities than this one, it is the only one which interest us here) of the plaintiff (definite article because in a given suit there is exactly one) to prove the guilt (definite article because a further definition follows) of the defendant (definite article for the same reason as with "plaintiff").  
And in legalese the definite articles can be dropped from "plaintiff" and "defendant" because they are placeholders.

----------


## Timon

> This last phrase “- If the evidence is so strongly in favor of the defendant that a reasonable jury could never find in favor of the plaintiff, then () defendant is entitled to summary judgment, and () plaintiff loses, then and there” is showing that you can in fact use an article as you expect, before ‘defendant’ and 'plaintiff'.  The lack of articles at () is more the personal style of the particular writer, not a particular rule of English.

 Thank you. Having read your explanation I think about the following: lets say I am passing some English test and have written this sentence in the quote above. What will an exeminer do? Will he consider "() plaintiff" as a mistake?

----------


## Timon

> You can't say "that to file suit *be* a phrasal verb". It sounds as if you were telling the verb to go and be phrasal.

 Is it not the subkunctive? Here is what Grammar In Use (Cambridge) says: "We can sometimes report advice, orders, requests, suggestions, etc. about things that need to be done or are desirable using a that-dause with should + bare infinitive. In formal contexts, particularly in written English, we can often leave out should but keep the infinitive. An infinitive used in this way is sometimes called the subjunctive.". 
My sentence was: "My first assumption was also that "to file suit" be a phrasal verb.". Does this sentence not comply with the rule above? 
I believe it does not and you were right. But I do not see why I was wrong. It is kind of a gap in my understanding.

----------


## bitpicker

> Thank you. Having read your explanation I think about the following: lets say I am passing some English test and have written this sentence in the quote above. What will an exeminer do? Will he consider "() plaintiff" as a mistake?

 If the test is not explicitly concerned with legalese I would count that as a mistake. I would use the article if in doubt.

----------


## bitpicker

> Is it not the subkunctive? Here is what Grammar In Use (Cambridge) says: "We can sometimes report advice, orders, requests, suggestions, etc. about things that need to be done or are desirable using a that-dause with should + bare infinitive. In formal contexts, particularly in written English, we can often leave out should but keep the infinitive. An infinitive used in this way is sometimes called the subjunctive.". 
> My sentence was: "My first assumption was also that "to file suit" be a phrasal verb.". Does this sentence not comply with the rule above? 
> I believe it does not and you were right. But I do not see why I was wrong. It is kind of a gap in my understanding.

 The crucial bit is  "things that need to be done or are desirable". Neither does the phrase "to file suit" need to be made a phrasal verb, nor is it desirable for it to become one. It either is one or it is not. The subjunctive has a function similar to the Russian particle бы. Imagine you would say (translation is hopeless here, but I guess you get the idea): "to file suit" было бы "phrasal verb". I think that doesn't make much sense, does it?  ::  
If you use subjunctive, then you say something to the effect "I wish that from now on "to file suit" (should) be considered as a phrasal verb". That's quite different from a simple "it is a phrasal verb".

----------


## Timon

> The crucial bit is  "things that need to be done or are desirable". Neither does the phrase "to file suit" need to be made a phrasal verb, nor is it desirable for it to become one. It either is one or it is not. The subjunctive has a function similar to the Russian particle бы. Imagine you would say (translation is hopeless here, but I guess you get the idea): "to file suit" было бы "phrasal verb". I think that doesn't make much sense, does it?  
> If you use subjunctive, then you say something to the effect "I wish that from now on "to file suit" (should) be considered as a phrasal verb". That's quite different from a simple "it is a phrasal verb".

 Now I clearly see that my usage of the subjunctive in that sentence was a mistake. Though I am not sure I will not make the same mistake in the future. But I just need to practive and that's all. So another great explanation from you was digested. Thanks! 
The only thing I would like to add is about the Russian analogue of "бы". Being a native Russian speaker I do not see the analogue with the subjunctive but it is a very good example for the conditional sentences. Maybe I just did not undesrtand you or I need to think about this once more later. As I understand you are a native German speaker and are fluent in Russian too. So if you are interested we could discuss "бы" futher.

----------


## bitpicker

I agree it's not the same thing, but I wanted to show how бы deviates from the indicative mood in a similar (though not identical) fashion to the English subjunctive. 
I'm far from fluent in Russian, though.  ::

----------


## lexxalex

Help my to correctly understand the phrase:
"Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much."
Why at the end - "thank you very much."

----------


## gRomoZeka

Это добавляется просто для усиления эффекта, а в данном случае, как мне кажется, придает еще и оттенок самодовольства. Что-то вроде: "Уж мы-то, слава богу, совершенно нормальные (в отличие от некоторых)".

----------


## Lampada

> Это добавляется просто для усиления эффекта, а в данном случае, как мне кажется, придает еще и оттенок самодовольства. Что-то вроде: "Уж мы-то, слава богу, совершенно нормальные (в отличие от некоторых)".

 Ага, точно. Ещё, наверное, подтекст: "нам не требуется ваше вмешательство и нам всё равно, что вы по этому поводу думаете".  
Снобизм, в общем.

----------


## lexxalex

I'm curious. The phrase is "of number four, Privet Drive".
No word - house, building, cottage. No word - street, road, highway, alley, a dead end.
"Privet Driave" proper name. What does this mean.
Translation is impossible. How to write in Russian. "улица Привет Драйв", "Дурсли or Дёрзли".

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Translation is impossible. How to write in Russian. "улица Привет Драйв", "Дурсли or Дёрзли".

 It depends on the translator's preferences, and there are different oppinions on this matter.  
In fiction it's not uncommon to "translate" surnames and proper names, if they actually _mean_ something or hint on something. There are translations of the Lord of the Rings, in which Baggins is called Торбинс, Сумкинс, and even Котомкинс. Famous Пятачок was "translated" and his character would have made less impact on children minds as "Пиглет".  
In non-fiction proper names are usually transliterated as they are, without any changes, and a traditional transliteration is used if it exists, for example Thames = Темза. It's also considered a good form to add an original spelling in brackets, when possible: "Темза (Thames) - река на юге Великобритании."

----------


## Crocodile

> I'm curious. The phrase is "of number four, Privet Drive".
> No word - house, building, cottage. No word - street, road, highway, alley, a dead end.
> "Privet Driave" proper name. What does this mean.
> Translation is impossible. How to write in Russian. "улица Привет Драйв", "Дурсли or Дёрзли".

  of number four, Privet Drive => проживающиe в доме номер четыре по Бирючинскому проезду  ::  
Дурсли or Дёрзли => I'm inclined to say Дурсли since they serve an exaggerated example of the so-called "normal" or "simple" in a sense of stupid and narrow people, and hence Russian "дур" serves pretty well here.

----------


## bitpicker

> I'm curious. The phrase is "of number four, Privet Drive".
> No word - house, building, cottage. No word - street, road, highway, alley, a dead end.
> "Privet Driave" proper name. What does this mean.
> Translation is impossible. How to write in Russian. "улица Привет Драйв", "Дурсли or Дёрзли".

 "Number X" in addresses in English means "house number". Houses are almost invariably numbered consecutively along a street, so people will know it is house number 4, but they won't know what kind of house it is, single family home, block of flats, whatever. "Drive" is a word like "street", as in "Mulholland Drive", kind of like проспект. I am not entirely sure whether "Drive" implies any size in relation to "street", though. It is clearly a street intended to drive along with a car, that's all I can say for sure.

----------


## rockzmom

> "Number X" in addresses in English means "house number". Houses are almost invariably numbered consecutively along a street, so people will know it is house number 4, but they won't know what kind of house it is, single family home, block of flats, whatever. "Drive" is a word like "street", as in "Mulholland Drive", kind of like проспект. I am not entirely sure whether "Drive" implies any size in relation to "street", though. It is clearly a street intended to drive along with a car, that's all I can say for sure.

 Drive, street, lane, way, square, avenue, boulevard, terrace, and road are all pretty much used interchangeably. *Court* and *circle* are the some of the few that seem to make sense (they are Cul-de-sac or Dead End Streets). They let you know that once you enter it, there is only one way out, the way you came in. 
As for the house numbering system, usually one side of the street is even and the other side odd and they usually are consecutive. Now they don't always start with ONE. They can start in the 11000 block or whatever number and then go 11002 on the even side and 11001 on the odd. 
Depending upon the area the streets might all be named for that certain area. Like all the streets might start with the letter S or B. There are also themed residential areas inside a city or town like Sherwood Forest and all the streets are named something like Nottingham Road and Robin Hood Way. So you could tell someone, "Oh, I live in Poolesville, in Sherwood, on Nottingham Road." and they would know exactly where you live. Or if they are familiar with the area you might only have to say "Oh, I live in Sherwood, off Nottingham." 
In Washington, D.C., each of the 50 U.S. states has a avenue named after it (such as Pennsylvania Avenue, which runs from the Capitol to the White House). The state avenues cross diagonally through the alphabetic streets (East-West) and numbered streets (North-South) in a grid. 
But Bitpicker is correct, unless you are REALLY familiar with the area... you will NOT know what type of structure is there UNLESS it has Apt, apartment, suite, office, unit, # or something else in the address to give you a clue.

----------


## Crocodile

I read the book a while ago, but I think it was a private two-storey detached house (with a cupboard under the stairs to the upper level).

----------


## rockzmom

> I read the book a while ago, but I think it was a private two-storey detached house (with a cupboard under the stairs to the upper level).

 Oh, you mean the one on Privet Drive? I think Harry lives there. Rather odd little chap.

----------


## lexxalex

It seems to me the phrase "thank you very much" gives of irony.
I understand that Privet Drive - road crosses village and at night is well lit.
I translated the phrase correctly.
"Мистер и миссис Дурсли из дома номер 4 по Привет драйв всегда с гордостью заявляли, большое спасибо им за это, что они совершенно нормальные, не то, что некоторые."
Thanks, you helped me a lot.

----------


## Crocodile

> "Мистер и миссис Дурсли из дома номер 4 по Привет драйв всегда с гордостью заявляли, большое спасибо им за это, что они совершенно нормальные, не то, что некоторые."

 I'm inclined to translate the "thank you very much" part somewhat closer to the original: 
Mr and Mrs Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. 
=> Мистер и миссис Дурсли из дома номер четыре по Бирючинскому проезду всегда гордились своей замечательно нормальной жизнью, на том и спасибо.

----------


## lexxalex

I do not agree with "Бирючный проезд". Бирюк that's ascetic, he leads a lonely life, boring. There's not a wilderness.

----------


## gRomoZeka

I think "и на том спасибо" does not fit here at all. It's a "false" gratitude for something that it less than adequate, while Dursleys are sincerely proud of their way of life and are sure that this is the only way.
"Большое спасибо им за это" is not good either. Do you thank Dursleys for being normal? 
Не нужно это дословно переводить, ерунда получается.   

> I do not agree with "Бирючный проезд". Бирюк that's ascetic, he leads a lonely life, boring. There's not a wilderness.

 It's from "бирючина" ("privet", a plant), but I agree that 99% don't know of this plant. I also wondered why they translated "Privet" as "бирюк" until I checked 'privet' in the dictionary. 
Бирючина колючая, может перевести это как "Колючий проезд" или каким-нибудь другим производным от слова "колючки"?

----------


## Crocodile

> I think "и на том спасибо" does not fit here at all. It's a "false" gratitude for something that it less than adequate, while Dursleys are sincerely proud of their way of life and are sure that this is the only way.

 You're right, it's probably not that good. I think, however, there _is_ an adequate equivalent in Russian, but it eludes me. My first guess was: "уж спасибо" which I think was the closest in the emotion of the original, but it didn't fit well into the whole structure. What can I say, the humanities is not my forte, really.  ::  What's your take on that?

----------


## gRomoZeka

> I think, however, there is an adequate equivalent in Russian, but it eludes me. My first guess was: "уж спасибо" which I think was the closest in the emotion of the original, but it didn't fit well into the whole structure.

 Согласна. Наверняка есть хорошее выражение, нужно его просто найти. "Уж спасибо" выражает подходящие эмоции, как бы его еще понатуральнее вписать сюда?
Свой вариант я на предыдущей странице предложила. Something along the lines "Дурсли с гордостью заявляли, что уж они-то, слава богу, совершенно нормальные"...

----------


## Crocodile

> Something along the lines "Дурсли с гордостью заявляли, что уж они-то, слава богу, совершенно нормальные"...

 Yes, that is not bad at all. It's just that "thank you very much" sounds to me something like "if you say that being 'normal' is not just enough, that would definitely be wrong, but we would formally nod along."

----------


## lexxalex

Help my! what does it matter?
1. little - не много, маленький
2. a little - (?)
3. firm - фирма
4. a firm -(?)

----------


## bitpicker

As for little, the difference is this: if you say that I helped you a little, then what I said was useful, but did not completely solve the problem. If you say that I helped you little, then I did not help you enough, you would like me to help you more. In so far I would say that "a little" = немного, "little" = недостаточно.  
"Little" as an adjective means малый, маленький and various others. Whether it then has an article or not depends on the grammatical role the noun it belongs to fulfils. 
"Little" in the dictionary: little : Englisch » Russisch : PONS.eu 
"Firm" as an adjective means a lot of different things: firm : Englisch » Russisch : PONS.eu 
Фирма is "firm" only as a noun. And the noun again can take articles depending on the grammatical context.

----------


## Timon

If you would not mind i would like to return to the subject of this thread - articles.
The paragraph below compasses three original sentences. As you can see from the bold words the first phrase has a determiner while the second one does not have. If it was vise versa I could think of 2 reasons to explaine this. But it is not. So I would be glad to hear your thoughts.  _If within thirty days after the receipt of a party's notification of the appointment of an arbitrator the other party has not notified the first party of the arbitrator he has appointed:
(a)	The first party may request the appointing authority previously designated by the parties to appoint the second arbitrator; or
(b)	If no such authority has been previously designated by the parties, or if the appointing authority previously designated refuses to act or fails to appoint the arbitrator within thirty days after receipt of a party's request therefor, the first party may request the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague to designate the appointing authority._

----------


## chaika

In legalese the two uses are the same, often legalese drops the articles. We had a thread about articles used or not used with the words *defendant* and *plaintiff* recently. You will not be generating this kind of text, so just be aware of this usage. 
Use Google to find these phrases in other documents for more examples.

----------


## rockzmom

Timon, 
Each lawyer has their own style of writing. You will also see this reflected in corporate publications too. At one company I worked for the marketing department spelled the company name in all capital letters but the legal side spelled it upper and lower case. And Legal always used "The" in the company name and yet marketing did not. It was a battle of wills every time a document was created.  
Looking at your example, "the" is used in the 1st sentence, so it is not needed in part "b" as it is implied. It could be there. It is simply a style choice by the lawyer.

----------


## Timon

> Timon,
> Looking at your example, "the" is used in the 1st sentence, so it is not needed in part "b" as it is implied. It could be there. It is simply a style choice by the lawyer.

 I did not take the sentence with "the" from another text but from the same one with no article. And you can see that it is the solid paragraph. So the author's style is quite changeable ::  
Does someone have a tip that could help distinguish a mistake from an author’s style. 
P.S. Thank you rockzmom
P.S.2. Thank you chaika, that thread is mine ::

----------


## rockzmom

> I did not take the sentence with "the" from another text but from the same one with no article. And you can see that it is the solid paragraph. So the author's style is quite changeable

 I think you misunderstood me. I know that it was all one text. He used "the" in the first sentence of his text and therefore did not need to use it yet again in part B of the rest of his text. It is implied. He did not have to repeat the "the" as he already used it in his opening remarks. 
So, the author is not changing his style at all. He is taking out the redundancy.

----------


## Timon

I will keep in mind this "rule". I always feel happy when another issue is figured out. So thanks again.

----------

