3

When are adjective-modified proper nouns compatible with the definite article?

"The former Yugoslavia" seems fine, but "the Victorian England" does not.

EDIT: Note that "the former Yugoslavia" does not require a postmodifier like a relative clause (e.g. "that we know") or a prepositional phrase (e.g. "of 1920") to be valid. On the other hand, "the Victorian England" requires something like "that we know" to be valid.

As an example, the US House of Representatives has a publication, in which it says, "As of the late 1980s, the former Yugoslavia was a diverse federation of six republics, comprised of many different ethnic groups that were often based on religious affiliation."

Why does such difference exist?

Previous threads claim that "the" indicates that the thing or person in quesion comes in many versions, and that "the" picks out a particular one. However, this account does not address why post-modifierless"Victorian England" never naturally takes "the," even though it can be contrasted with other versions of England such as "Elizabethan England" or "21st-century England."

Apollyon
  • 5,986
  • 8
  • 42
  • 90
  • Does this answer your question? "The Jesus who said" - why is there a definite article before the proper name "Jesus"? – stangdon Jul 15 '22 at 15:26
  • 2
    @stangdon Not really. There is no account for the fact that "Victorian England" doesn't take the article, whereas "former Yugoslavia" can. – Apollyon Jul 15 '22 at 15:57
  • Interesting question. Strangely, "the former" works for states that used to belong to a larger confederation - e.g., a state might be referred to as having been part of "the former Yugoslavia" or "the former Soviet Union" or "the former British Empire" - but I don't think that it works for one-to-one transitions. So I don't think it would be natural to say: "The events took place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is the former Zaire." Although, now that I say it to myself, I actually don't know. – cruthers Jul 16 '22 at 04:36
  • 1
    "the former Soviet Union" and "the former British Empire" would be okay with the definite article even if "former" were removed, But "the Yugoslavia" is never natural without "former." – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 05:27
  • I can't decide in my head if it's natural to use "the former" with other countries that don't normally take "the", such as "the former Tanganyika". It's certainly not as natural as "the former Yugoslavia". I'm leaning towards cruthers' suggestion above that it could be because Yugoslavia was really a group of countries that have since broken up. – gotube Jul 16 '22 at 05:48
  • Apollyon you're going to have to learn to add details and context before users cast their votes to close a question of yours. I agree with you that this is not a duplicate of the older question linked in the comments, but before the edit the question consisted of just two sentences. – Mari-Lou A Jul 16 '22 at 06:10
  • @gotube If my knowledge of history is valid, Persia also encompassed many areas, just like Yugoslavia. But do we say "the former Persia"? – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 07:08
  • It is unethical to edit a question when an answer shows that there are exceptions. – Mari-Lou A Jul 16 '22 at 08:16
  • I'm sorry, but gotube knows my question is NOT about "the + country name" with a postmodifier. He did even before the edit. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 08:18
  • Like I said in an earlier comment, put all the details, context, and research BEFORE you post a question. – Mari-Lou A Jul 16 '22 at 08:18
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA In fact, he even clarified this to you before you posted your answer. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 08:20
  • Then that was the key moment when you should have edited your post . But you didn't. In any case "former" modifies "Yugoslavia" we don't normally use definite articles with proper nouns unless it is part of its name e.g The Thames, the Taj Mahal etc. – Mari-Lou A Jul 16 '22 at 08:22
  • That was the key moment you should have understood the question is about the oddball "the former Yugoslaiva" without a posmodifier, but you didn't. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 08:23
  • Why did you post your answer even after your read gotube's comments, might I ask? – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 08:25
  • See my comment above. As for why I posted I was intrigued by your question and I answered the question for the benefit of future visitors. I had no intention to reply to a comment that started with "I meant". – Mari-Lou A Jul 16 '22 at 08:31
  • You don't need to reply to any comment, whether it begins with "I meant" or not. But why didn't you understand, after reading it, that the question is about "the former Yugoslavia" without a postmodifier? That's the very aspect of the question that makes it puzzling. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 08:41
  • Don't you think questions here are works in progress? They can be edited when the need arises. Even academic journal articles have a chance to be edited during the peer review process. I don't think any peer reviwer would accuse the article author of being "unethical" when he claifies, following someone else who has already clarified, a certain aspect of his inquiry. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 08:49
  • 1
    Typically the research and your understanding of the topic being discussed you decide to share only after a question of yours is either downvoted, risks being closed or is in fact closed. You have a track history of asking some intelligent and thought-provoking question but you rarely cite your sources or the inspiration behind them. Editing after someone has spent time in writing a thoughtful answer is never "cool". This is not an academic paper, it's a Q&A site, the two are not the same. – Mari-Lou A Jul 16 '22 at 09:19
  • I wouldn't say an answer that doesn't consider what someone else has already clarified is thoughtful. But anyway, it is far from understandable why a Q&A site should be more demanding than a journal publisher. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 09:32
  • The fundamental problem, if I can call it so, is that people come here with different background knowledge. I don't know what you don't know, and you don't know what I know. Clarification (even after an answer has been posted) is thus inevitable. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 09:43
  • I have deleted my previous comment and reversed my vote to close. I do suggest that material edits, including added citations, be marked as such. Otherwise, answers or comments made without benefit of those edits may seem idiotic or irrelevant. – Jeff Morrow Jul 16 '22 at 16:01
  • @cruthers Do you find "the former Siam" okay? – Apollyon Jul 17 '22 at 11:48
  • “The former Siam” sounds weird to me, just like “the former Persia,” but I don’t know. I’d say “Thailand was formerly Siam” or “is in the region that was formerly Siam.” I don’t think “the former” sounds right in either of those. – cruthers Jul 17 '22 at 13:39

2 Answers2

1

Although rare, it is possible to use the definite article with adjectives derived from proper nouns (proper adjectives) when we want to specify which version, e.g.

The Victorian England depicted by artists of that era is often a romanticised idealistic vision of England that contrasts sharply with its counterpart the Dickensian England.

From the web

  • The Dickensian England they inhabit is all soot and suppression. (source)

  • She has created a Victorian England which is, in all noticeable ways, exactly the Victorian England we know — the mother of our modern world… (source)

On the other hand, the adjective former is often accompanied by the definite article when we wish to specify the title, role or thing that has since been replaced, relocated or renamed. For example, Theresa May, the former British Prime Minister; the former ambassador to China; the former headquarters of NATO; the former summer palace; the former Soviet Union…

From the comments, the OP points out

… but my question specifically targets oddballs like "the former Yugoslavia."

I believe my answer shows that English can modify common and proper nouns with "the former". There is nothing oddball about that usage.

We do not normally say "The former Italy" because there is no older Italy to refer back to. Although Italy was officially unified in 1870, it was not renamed "The [United] Republics and Kingdoms of Italy“. Italy has been a republic since 1947 and it continues to be called Italy. The country Yugoslavia, geopolitically speaking, no longer exists since its break-up in 1992. Hence we can refer to its former existence.

Mari-Lou A
  • 27,037
  • 13
  • 72
  • 125
  • One crucial difference between your "the Victorian England" examples and "the former Yugoslavia" is that the latter does not require a postmodifier such as a relative clause or a prepositional phrase. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 08:08
  • @Apollyon EDITED I agree BUT The former Yugoslavia is only a noun phrase if it is not followed by a verb. In fact, your question asks: *When* are adjective-modified proper nouns compatible with the definite article – Mari-Lou A Jul 16 '22 at 08:11
  • Yes, but my question specifically targets oddballs like "the former Yugoslavia." – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 08:12
  • How about "the former Persia"? – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 08:56
  • I know very little about the history of Persia, I believe that many tribes inhabited the territory but it is not the same as saying that Persia incorporated what were once independent countries or monarchies (at least I don't know without looking it up on Wikipedia). In certain circumstances and in specific context, I would consider "the former Persia" to be acceptable. – Mari-Lou A Jul 16 '22 at 09:13
  • I don't know why you said, " The former Yugoslavia is only a noun phrase if it is not followed by a verb." The US House of Representatives has a publication in which it says, ""As of the late 1980s, the former Yugoslavia was a diverse federation of six republics, comprised of many different ethnic groups that were often based on religious affiliation." – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 11:03
  • There is still some oddness about the phrase "the former + country name" in the sense that other adjectives do not lend themselves easily to the said patern "the Adj + country name" when they are NOT followed by a postmodifier. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 11:21
  • @Apollyon This will be my last comment on this topic: We can say "The former President" (which is capitalised) and "The tall President", former is just like any other adjective. Former is used for people or things that have been replaced, relocated or renamed. – Mari-Lou A Jul 16 '22 at 11:30
  • Yes, we can. But there' s nothing remarkable in the president examples, for the simple reason that "president" is not a proper noun. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 11:31
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA I think your answer is quite reasonable given that we have no clue whatsoever on the context of how the locution was used. I am upvoting it. – Jeff Morrow Jul 16 '22 at 14:16
  • @JeffMorrow What kind of context do you want? I quoted a US House of Representatives publication, which says, "As of the late 1980s, the former Yugoslavia was a diverse federation of six republics, comprised of many different ethnic groups that were often based on religious affiliation." – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 14:26
0

It is very hard to answer this question because absolutely no context is provided.

If I were writing a history of the Balkans between 1919 and 1938, I would write “Yugoslavia” rather than “the Yugoslavia” or “the former Yugoslavia.” In the context of the 1920’s and 1930’s, Yugoslavia was the proper name of specific country.

If I were writing something about the Western Balkans today, the name “Yugoslavia” could describe different areas. I do not think that “the former Yugoslavia” is a particularly elegant locution, but it pretty clearly means

the [states that were formerly part of] Yugoslavia

Now the definite article makes grammatical sense. And to be grammatical the adverb “formerly” must become the adjective “former” in the ellipsis.

EDIT:

The original question seemed very vague to me. There is no question that “the former Yugoslavia” is an acceptable locution. I used it above.

There is also no question that proper names generally are not preceded by “the.” That general rule has exceptions. One such exception is that “the” does precede a proper name that is followed by a modifying phrase or relative clause. The question seems to be why does that exception have an exception if the proper name is preceded by an adjective.

Assuming I now understand what question was intended, there are two answers.

First, grammar is what it is. It is not a set of logically derived theorems from a known set of axioms. We can perhaps give a supportable historical explanation for why “You is” is not grammatical, but no logical explanation for the vagaries of the conjugation of the English “be” or for the disappearance of the singular second pronoun “thou” and its conjugation is possible.

Second, in this case, a sort of logic can be retrofitted to the exceptions.

The general grammatical rule is that a definite article shall precede a noun that has, either previously or implicitly, been distinguished from others in the class to which it refers. “The man” refers to a specific, identifiable exemplar of a class.

Proper nouns are a general exception to the preceding rule, possibly on the premise that a class with only one member does not require further identification.

Joe Biden is currently president of the U.S.

There is no need to specify which of the people named “Joe Biden” who are currently president of the U.S. is meant because there is only one.

Now the moment that our thought classifies the single entity that a proper name denotes into a set of multiple entities, we revert to the more general rule.

The thoughtful Joe Biden

The gregarious Joe Biden

The angry Joe Biden

We are now thinking of different behaviors of one man. It is a set with multiple exemplars and we are identifying one of them by an adjective.

Whether this identification occurs through a preceding adjective or following phrase or clause makes no difference.

The former Yugoslavia

is identifying one of a set of names for a particular geographical, linguistic area.

Jeff Morrow
  • 32,084
  • 25
  • 58
  • 1
    What context would help? "The former Yugoslavia" is a common expression in a variety of contexts, but "the Yugoslavia" is always incorrect in any context. – gotube Jul 16 '22 at 05:25
  • @gotube I made a similar point in the comments below my question. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 05:28
  • @gotube I've learned to say never say "never" when speaking of English "How did Yugoslavia emerge from the war, and how did it differ from the Yugoslavia of 1920?" – Mari-Lou A Jul 16 '22 at 05:38
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA I meant exactly the noun phrase, "the Yugoslavia". – gotube Jul 16 '22 at 05:43
  • Does "The former Czechoslovakia" sound okay? – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 14:09
  • @gotube It seems context does matter. Mari-Lou provided an example where exactly the words “the Yugoslavia” are perfectly proper. You imply that her “the Yugoslavia” is not a noun phrase. What exactly is a “noun phrase, why is her example not a noun phrase, and how do we know that the original poster limited his question to whatever excludes Mari-Lou’s example? It would have helped a lot had the OP given an example or some context. – Jeff Morrow Jul 16 '22 at 14:10
  • 1
    @JeffMorrow See the re-edited question. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 14:31
  • 1
    @JeffMorrow You might not have grapsed gotube's meaning. He meant to say the bone of contention is the phrase "the Yugoslaiva" without a postmodifier like "of 1920." With a postmodifier, the use of the definite article is unremarkable. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 14:42
  • @Apollyon But your question does not ask why the “the Yugoslavia” differs from “the Yugoslavia of 1920,” not even now after editing, and how both differ from “the former Yugoslavia.” The question itself remains unclear at this instant. Adding an example of use of “the former Yugoslavia” when the question is not about the propriety of that locution does not help matters. I shall edit my answer to respond to the clarification that gotube implied was unnecessary. – Jeff Morrow Jul 16 '22 at 14:59
  • @JeffMorrow Maybe it's due to the order of information I presented. I tweaked the order. Maybe now the question is more readable? – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 15:36
  • @Apollyon I edited my answer without benefit of your latest editing. See whether that addresses what you are after. – Jeff Morrow Jul 16 '22 at 15:51
  • Yes, "the former Czechoslovakia" just occurred to me too as another example that works just like the former Yugoslavia. "Persia" is kind of a strange example and I don't know how to handle it here. I think it occupies a wishy-washy place in the collective conscious of most English-speakers. I think of it as possibly a geographic region; it apparently can also serve as a reference to present-day Iran. There is a former principality that some would refer to as the Persian empire. – cruthers Jul 16 '22 at 15:57
  • @cruthers I think “Persia” describes a geographic area that, for millennia, has had as its dominant language a series of closely related Indo-European languages, (currently Farsi , which shares etymologically the same root from which “Persia” and “Parsee” derive). I would find nothing strange in the phrase “the Persia of Omar Khayyam.” – Jeff Morrow Jul 16 '22 at 16:11
  • It was clear to me that "the [X] [postmodifier]", which is available for not just Yugoslavia but all X (I think), could not have been the source of @Apollyon's vexation. – cruthers Jul 16 '22 at 16:25
  • 1
    Re your first explanation, formal linguists do view grammar as a set of logically derived theorems from a known set of axioms. A Holy Grail, maybe. Re your second explanation, it is unclear why the same justification is unavailable to "the Victorian England." – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 16:27
  • @apollyon The logicians have specified the rules of inference for logic in the predicate calculus. Until the linguists have specified grammatical rules of inference that entail that "he is" is grammatical and that "you is" is not, I shall continue of the opinion that the "logic of grammar" is a myth. But it is just an opinion that leaves you free to apply the logic of grammar to your question. As for your second point, it is again vague. What about Victorian England. "The Victorian England of our imagination is not the Victorian England of historical evidence." – Jeff Morrow Jul 16 '22 at 16:49
  • 1
    Your second explanation says "Whether this identification occurs through a preceding adjective or following phrase or clause makes no difference." But now your "The Victorian England" example contains the modifiers "of our imagination" and "of historical evidence," and thus is rather different from the bone of contention here, i.e., "the former Yugoslavia" without a postmodifier. – Apollyon Jul 16 '22 at 16:58
  • That is because in historical reality there was only one Victorian England, and when thought about that way, the basic rule of no definite article applies. As for the geographical area being discussed in South East Europe, multiple names can be used: "the western Balkans," the area where southern Slavic languages are spoken, the "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes" with reference to 1919. or "the former Yugoslavia." You seem to want to quarrel. So downvote my answer. I shall not respond to further posts of yours. – Jeff Morrow Jul 16 '22 at 17:23
  • If the reason for the absence of a definite article in "Victorian England" (when used without a postmodifier, of course) is that there was only one Victorian England, then we might be wondering why "the former Yugoslavia" does not behave the same, given that there was only one Yugoslavia in historical reality, too (if my knowledge of history is correct). – Apollyon Jul 17 '22 at 03:12
  • Granted, the terrority in former Yugoslavia has various ways to refer to, but does that really justify the use of the definite article? Many political entities can have multiple ways to refer to too, but are they all compatible with the definite article? Consider "Persia" and "Hindustan", fo example. – Apollyon Jul 17 '22 at 04:55
  • One might wonder why the proper noun "England" does not behave like your "Joe Biden." If our thought classifies "England" into a set of multiple entities, as you do with "Joe Bide," we revert to the more general rule and derive "the Victorian England," "the Elizabethan England," etc. exactly like your "the gregarous Joe Biden." "the angry Joe Biden," and "the thoughtful Joe Biden." But the outputs of "the Victorain England," etc. (used without a postmodifier, of course) are not that natural. – Apollyon Jul 17 '22 at 06:13
  • @JeffMorrow Please understand that I am genuinely interested in unlocking an interesting puzzle in the English language. There are likely to be no simple answers, and it possibly deserves a book-length treatment. – Apollyon Jul 17 '22 at 06:14
  • @Apollyon I apologize. It seemed to me that you were looking to disagree rather than to reach a conclusion by narrowing differences. You say I was wrong. So I retract my promise not to engage (just as I retracted my vote to close). This type of discussion might better be conducted in chat rather than character-limited comments. With that said, you have not persuaded me that the approach of starting with why proper nouns are an exception to the general use of articles with nouns and that the exception to the exception of interest here stems from a change in frame of reference is invalid. – Jeff Morrow Jul 17 '22 at 15:35
  • The systerm is asking us to move to chat. I add here one comment on your Victorian England example. "The rural Victorian England was quite different from the Victorian England of Birmingham and Manchester" strikes me as a bit precious, but not wrong. And it seems consistent with my frame of reference analysis. – Jeff Morrow Jul 17 '22 at 18:31
  • Yes. However, "the rural Victorian England," albeit without a postmodifier, is contrasted with an instance with one, i.e., "the Victorian England of Birmingham and Manchester." It's marked, so to speak. – Apollyon Jul 18 '22 at 01:55
  • I need to refine my statement by saying that "the Victorian England" is unnatural in unmarked contexts. Now may I draw attention to the House of Representatives example again. There, "the former Yugoslavia" is the beginning sentence of a section entitled "The Background" and is not brought up in contrast to a Yugoslavia with a postmodifier. That is, it is an unmarked usage, and different from the "the rural Victorian England" example, which is marked. – Apollyon Jul 18 '22 at 03:09