1

Let's say I am talking to a friend of mine:

I had a walk in the forest yesterday. (the?) Trees had scratch marks on them. They must have been left by bears.

Note that both the speaker and listener had NOT discussed or mentioned any trees or scratch marks prior to this conversation.

Despite "trees" being quite definite, (i.e. it is rather obvious to the listener that I'm talking about the trees growing in the forest that I went to yesterday) I believe that the zero article is, however, a better choice here with the definite article still being acceptable, though.

Zero article would be mean something like: "some trees I was passing by had marks on them"

while "the" would be closer in meaning to "the whole group of trees I saw in the forest mostly had marks on them"

Are my assumptions correct? If not, please kindly provide your opinions and the reasoning behind it. NB: I would really appreciate some in-depth answers.

Mr. Past Progressive
  • 456
  • 2
  • 12

2 Answers2

1

Sample: I had a walk in the forest yesterday. (the?) Trees had scratch marks on them. They must have been left by bears.

In English, plural nouns are for general cases.

  • Trees are often green.
  • Teenagers often act crazy.

But here, it is not a general case, it is specific. So, the determiner "the" would be used.

Lambie
  • 44,522
  • 4
  • 33
  • 88
  • 1
    This has the right answer, but it took me a few re-reads to understand. Maybe mention the legendary "zero article"? One thing that occurs to me: Shift the story into the present or future tense and the zero article would be even worse: "I'm taking a walk in the forest today. Trees have scratch marks on them." It becomes increasingly less clear that "trees" are limited to "in the forest"; only context helps wrench us back into understanding. (And, once confused, if we follow it up with "They must have been left there by bears," we must take a moment to dispel the image of tree-toting bears.) – Andy Bonner Dec 08 '23 at 19:07
  • @AndyBonner I often come across similar contexts where the "zero article" is the only option. Like "I was at the NY library. I was reading _books there" (books of that library but they still used zero) or "When sent to the forest Tip often climbed _trees for birds' eggs..." (trees of that forest, but still they preferred zero)

    here's the link for those 2 examples: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/91098/tip-often-climbed-trees-for-birds-eggs-or-amused-himself-chasing-the-fleet-whi

     – Mr. Past Progressive Dec 08 '23 at 19:16
  • 2
    @Mr.PastProgressive Note, the books and trees there are the objects of verbs; that's the difference. And I think you could use "the" with them if you wanted to, since those are also "the books of the library" and "the trees of the forest." Where you couldn't is "We went to the park. We were riding bikes there." This is just describing your activity and makes no claim that the bikes have a relationship to the park. – Andy Bonner Dec 08 '23 at 19:21
  • I was reading books there=is a general statement. I always read books in libraries. – Lambie Dec 08 '23 at 19:22
  • @AndyBonner Thanks. It's very interesting you mentioned the noun being object or subject might affect the choice or article. I had similar ideas, but couldn't find any proof. Could you elaborate on that, what difference does it make if the noun in question is the object or the subject? – Mr. Past Progressive Dec 08 '23 at 19:33
  • I love trees. I love the trees here. I don't see Andy's idea at work here. – Lambie Dec 08 '23 at 19:35
  • 1
    "I was at the NY library. I was reading books." These are two unconnected statements.

    "I had a walk in the forest yesterday. Trees had scratch marks on them." These are two unconnected statements.

    "I was at the NY library. I was reading books there." The books are still general, but you've reconnected the sentences using a location.

    "I had a walk in the forest yesterday. Trees there had scratch marks on them." Again, general trees but reconnected using a location.

     – YonKuma Dec 08 '23 at 19:42
  • @YonKuma Does it imply that if I add "there" it makes the"zero article" a valid choice in these examples? – Mr. Past Progressive Dec 08 '23 at 19:49
  • 1
    The best rule of thumb is the general statement versus specific thing. Nothing else. – Lambie Dec 08 '23 at 19:52
  • @Mr.PastProgressive By putting "there" into the sentence, it serves to narrow the trees from the group of all trees in existence to the trees in the forest. You start with general trees and then narrow the general group of trees to something appropriate. Using an article to determine immediately specifies a relevant group without having to narrow later. – YonKuma Dec 08 '23 at 19:57
  • @YonKuma Great answer, I think I fully understood your idea, however, I believe that in practice we can't really substitute an article with just adding more words and context. e.g. "I like Jim's cafe, _waiters there are so professional" - the "zero article" is not the best choice in my opinion. What do you think? – Mr. Past Progressive Dec 08 '23 at 20:22
  • 2
    @Mr.PastProgressive This sentence is a run on sentence, but otherwise is perfectly acceptable. Both "I like Jim's cafe; the waiters are so professional" and "I like Jim's cafe; waiters there are so professional" have similar meanings and are idiomatic. – YonKuma Dec 08 '23 at 20:27
  • @Mr.PastProgressive Note, comments on answers are not meant for extended discussion. I guess I started this one! But I think we're hinting at material for a new question here (if it isn't already covered by a duplicate). – Andy Bonner Dec 08 '23 at 21:46
  • A general case may also be indicated by an indefinite singular, as this sentence demonstrates. Furthermore, plurality is not sufficient to indicate generality, as the trees are green demonstrates (because the trees is a definite plural, it refers to a specific set of trees with more than one member). In fact, the sentence should read "In English, indefinite nouns are for general cases." – phoog Dec 09 '23 at 15:18
  • @phoog A general case like: The lion is a noble beast. is formal. Trees are usually green. is a generality. – Lambie Dec 09 '23 at 15:22
  • Generality (uncountable): the quality of being general. [A] generality (countable): a generalization. I was using the first, as in "a general case possesses generality, and we express its generality to our audience so they understand that we are speaking of a general case." Would you use a different noun to denote the state of being general? – phoog Dec 09 '23 at 15:30
  • @phoog You are twisting my words. A general case=a generality, same thing. Plural: Generalities can be expressed using plural nouns. A generality can be expressed by using a plural noun. A general case can be expressed by using a plural noun. Of course, you can say The trees are green. But that sentence is not a generality AKA general case. – Lambie Dec 09 '23 at 15:32
1

One of your two assumptions is correct. The trees does mean all the trees you encountered. But the version without the sounds like a non sequitur because, as @Lambie explains, zero-article bare plural nominals express general (if not universal) statements. It would be clearer if your passage used some trees, and better still if it said some of the trees.

Paul Tanenbaum
  • 6,959
  • 1
  • 15
  • 33