4

I'm wondering why the indefinite article "a" is not in the standard version of the proverb:

A jack of all trades is [a] master of none.

I'd appreciate your help.

Adam
  • 8,220
  • 1
  • 24
  • 47
Apollyon
  • 5,986
  • 8
  • 42
  • 90
  • 1
    By the way, I'm mostly hearing this as having no "a" at the beginning either: "Jack of all trades, master of none". – Mr Lister Sep 06 '17 at 19:05

2 Answers2

5

We can understand master as a role-noun there, which can be used "bare" without a determiner.

He took him on as apprentice.

Consider the various role-nouns in this character summary:

Zippo Bambino

Murder Under the Big Top: A Murder a la Carte Mystery Play By Tom Chiodo

TimR
  • 123,877
  • 7
  • 100
  • 202
  • Agreed. To put it in slightly different terms, we often don't use articles or determiners with things like titles or roles: He is king of Denmark, not the king; Tom was captain, not the captain, etc. – stangdon Sep 06 '17 at 15:00
  • 3
    I think it would be worth explicitly making the point within this answer that although it's possible to omit the indefinite article in such constructions, this isn't actually required. Stylistically / idiomatically, I'd definitely prefer to omit it in OP's example, but I'm inclined to reverse that position with your own example. And I don't like it at all in, say, I worked as waiter* at Harrods,* though I can't say exactly why (but obviously others feel much the same, since Google Books claims 3150 instances of worked as a* waiter at*, but only 99 instances without the article). – FumbleFingers Sep 06 '17 at 15:16
  • 1
    @fumblefingers I think it has to do with perceived number. Something like Master works either way because there could be one master (sailing master if a ship for example) or several (a chess master) for a waiter you would almost always expect there to be more than one, so a waiter sounds more correct. Just my interpretation. – Joseph Rogers Sep 06 '17 at 17:28
  • @FumbleFingers: I do make that point explicitly. See modal can. – TimR Sep 06 '17 at 17:30
  • Wouldn't the reason for which you justified "is master of none" be (wrongly) used to justify "John is teacher"? – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 12:15
  • "Master of none" is hardly a title, is it? – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 12:20
  • @Apollyon: "master" can be a title. of none is a prepositional phrase, not part of the noun per se. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 12:50
  • @FumbleFingers: She works up at the manor as scullery maid. His job here at Harrods was waiter until he sneezed on a patron's lunch. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 12:55
  • If it were a title, it would include that prepositional phrase, just like "John is Professor of Economics," But in terms of meaning, "master of none" makes no sense as a title; it is an attribute. – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 13:04
  • @Apollyon: It is not an attribute. It could be considered a mock title. But there's no requirement to treat the phrase as structurally equivalent to Professor of Economics. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 13:06
  • It is an attribute; it means "someone who is not good at anything." – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 13:08
  • If the "title theory" could work, how would you rule out "John is teacher"? – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 13:08
  • @Apollyon: that's a paraphrase, not an analysis of the noun. Following your lead, we would have to say that "patriarch" was an attribute and therefore not a role (see the link I added to the answer). – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 13:15
  • If something is title, it can be capitalized in a sentence after the copula, can't it? Can "master of none" normally be capitalized as "...is Master of None"? – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 13:19
  • The "master of disguise" example can be considered to share the indefinite article with "great clown of the circus." – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 13:23
  • @Apollyon: We can easily cast "teacher" as a role. "He worked here as teacher for ten years but then got a masters degree in School Administration and is now Assistant Principal at the middle school." https://www.google.com/search?q=%22as%20teacher%22&tbm=bks&lr=lang_en – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 13:29
  • What really matters is the situation after the copula. The example in the OP has the noun "master" after the copula, so any comparable example should also have a copula before the noun. – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 13:31
  • @Apollyon: And I don't accept your argument that the article a before "clown" in the Zippo Bambino character summary must be understood as implicit before "master". – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 13:36
  • Nor must "master" be understood as detached from the indefinite article. In fact, to regard "master" as sharing that indefinite article is the natural interpretation. – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 13:44
  • And it were a title, why wouldn't it be capitalized on a par with "Patriarch of the Flying Bambinos"? – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 13:45
  • To interpret every Y as a title as in "John Doe is an X and Y" raises the question of what kind of independent evidence there is to justify a view. – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 13:58
  • @Apollyon: You keep equating "title" with "role-noun". They are not identical. "Bitter rival" is a role noun in the character summary above, but not a title. "Catholic nun" is a role-noun there but not a title. These are "stock characters" or well-recognized well-established positions, occupations, callings, etc (e.g. "scullery maid" is a role in "she works as scullery maid" but it is not necessarily a personal title.) It could be a job title, but it wouldn't have to be capitalized. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 13:58
  • I cite: "Man is teacher to himself as pupil." Both nouns are cast as roles. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 14:02
  • Ok. Just replace the "title" in my posts with "role." And answer whether there is independent evidence for treating one noun as a role but not another. For example, why isn't "a great clown of the circus" a role? – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 14:13
  • At this point, I suspect you're citing examples from an older stage of Modern English. Maybe "jack of all trades, master of none" is from a time when such an antiquated form of English was spoken. In current English, an indefinite article is required in "John is a teacher," isn't it? Being a teacher is a job role, isn't it? – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 14:23
  • @Apollyon: And I suspect you do not understand what is meant when I say that we can cast the noun as a role. Man is teacher to himself as pupil is perfectly valid in PDE. It's not an archaism or antiquated. The roles of Jack and Master on a ship may be antiquated, but the underlying grammatical notion of role is alive and well. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 14:31
  • Remember, what we want to explain is why an indefinite article is lacking in some nouns following the copula. To say such nouns are "roles" would require independent evidence for rolehood. What makes a noun stand for a role anyway? – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 14:34
  • If you reread my comments, the answer to your question is staring you in the face. "... stock characters or well-recognized well-established positions, occupations, callings..." – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 14:35
  • But a clown is a stock character, isn't it? Why is the indefinite article used there? – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 14:36
  • Such nouns are being cast as roles. Re "a clown". There is no obligation to cast a noun as a role. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 14:36
  • So you're saying a clown is not a role there. But why? What makes a noun a role anyway? Any independent evidence or criteria? – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 14:38
  • Would you deny "a clown" is a stock character? That's your own criterion for rolehood. Do you want to reject it? – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 14:42
  • Occupation: Troll. Why not "a troll" there? He is jester to the king. She is personal assistant to Mr. Jones. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 14:47
  • Then you're saying a noun denoting an occupation does not need to be a role. Then it follows that such nouns may have an indefinite article. Then it follows that in "master of none," it is okay to say "Someone is a master of none." – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 14:55
  • But still, I am wondering how many people would seriously consider "master of none" to be a (job) role. That's stretching it, isn't it? – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 14:56
  • You're saying occupation is the criterion for rolehood. But "a clown" denotes an occupation, yet it has an indefinite article preceding it. At the same time, however, you're also saying "there is no obligation to cast a noun as a role.' It seems that you watnt to deny "a clown" is a role. But it fits your criterion to a T, doesn't it? Maybe what you truly want to say is a noun denoting a role may or may not have an indefinite article before it. – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 15:08
  • Did I ever say that you could not say "a master of none". No, I did not. The grammatical concept of "role" extends well beyond "job roles" or "occupation". As I said, it extends to stock characters in well-established genres, to interpersonal dynamics. Who's [the] disciplinarian in your family? Over decades and centuries some of these phrases involving role nouns can become "fixed expressions", meaning "that's how people talk". Native speakers do not cogitate over their words, they just speak. It doesn't matter how many or how few understand why they say what they say. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 15:09
  • Please read my words more carefully if you're going to throw them back at me. I never said "Occupation was the criterion for rolehood". You're failing to grasp an important fact about language: it reveals the speaker's thought. There is no obligation for that speaker to cast clown as role. It is his prerogative to do so. And there's more than one way to specify a role: Who's the* disciplinarian in your house?* – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 15:10
  • If occupation is not your (one) criterion, then what is it? Being a stock character? Interpersonal dynamics? "A clown" fits all of these, yet it has an indefinite article. But you said "There is no obligation to cast a noun as a role," suggesting "a clown" is not a role there. Isn't that what you are suggesting? – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 15:18
  • You could well have said, "a role may or may not have an indefinite article to it after the copula." That'd be much simpler. Still, the question remains why "John is a teacher" requires an indefinite article. (I am not talking about your "Man is teacher to himself as a pupil; please remove the part "as a pupil" and see if it's acceptable English.) – Apollyon Sep 07 '17 at 15:21
  • No one man is leader of this commune. We all share in decisions and reach consensus. Or She was teacher and he her humble student. Those are two examples where the noun is being cast as role without determiner. Do they not satisfy your demand that the example use BE? There is no one criterion except that it be a role, broadly understood. I've given examples of ways a noun can be a role. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 17:37
  • Clown redux (Your "A clown has all of these"): There is no obligation to cast a noun as role. The noun can be presented as an instance-noun, i.e. one of such, using the indefinite article. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 17:38
  • You wrote: "You could well have said, "a role may or may not have an indefinite article to it after the copula. That'd be much simpler." You just don't get it. You're not understanding what I mean when I use the verb cast. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 17:45
  • Who is goalie here? Who is the goalie here? Who is a goalie here? The first two would probably get a response from the starting goalie, if the second string and third string goalies were showing normal deference to the starter. But the third question might get replies from several players. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 18:27
  • Is "a clown" a role anyway? You seem to deny it as a role, but it satisfies all of your criteria presented. But if it is not a role, how do you know? Your chain of reasoning seems circular: "a clown" is not a role because it has an indefinite article. "A clown" has an indefinite article because it is not a role. The question is what your independence evidence is for rolehood. – Apollyon Sep 08 '17 at 11:21
  • What do you mean by "cast" anyway? I am not a native speaker, so you may have to rephrase your statements if your intended meaning does not get across. – Apollyon Sep 08 '17 at 11:21
  • Perhaps if you had devoted some effort to looking up the word cast in a dictionary I'd be willing to continue this discussion. – TimR Sep 08 '17 at 12:30
  • By "cast," you probably meant "to describe, or to regard something as." So you were saying it is optional to describe a noun as a role, even if that noun fulfills all the criteria of rolehood. One question, then, presents itself: How do you know that "a clown," which satisfies all the criteria of rolehood, is not a "role" there? Saying rolehood is optional does not explain why you don't rergard "a clown" as a role. – Apollyon Sep 09 '17 at 10:02
1

To add to this both Jack and Master are maritime references around the 1800. And able seaman was called Jack as a general term and a master was a specific sailing role within the ship

Warwick Foster
  • 11
  • 2
  • Welcome to ELL.stackexchange.com. This is a Question and Answer site, not a discussion forum. Though what you've written may be interesting to some here, it doesn't actually answer the Question asked (about articles) and hence should not be posted as an Answer. – AndyT Sep 07 '17 at 13:33
  • I think Warwick's contribution is directly relevant. Welcome to ELL, WF. – TimR Sep 07 '17 at 13:37