Which one is correct?

[羡鱼-Xianyu]

There is only enough spring water to supply the needs of the house, so we have to pump from the river for farm use.

_____is only enough to supply the needs of the house.

a. Water of the spring
b. The water in spring
c. The water from the spring
d. Spring water
e. Water from the spring

Dear all,

The right key to this question is C, but I am wondering why D and E are incorrect? To me, both D and E are also correct. Could you tell me which one works for you and explain why, please?

Thanks in advance!

Xianyu

[Raymott]

There is only enough spring water to supply the needs of the house, so we have to pump from the river for farm use.

_____is only enough to supply the needs of the house.

a. Water of the spring
b. The water in spring
c. The water from the spring
d. Spring water
e. Water from the spring

Dear all,

The right key to this question is C, but I am wondering why D and E are incorrect? To me, both D and E are also correct. Could you tell me which one works for you and explain why, please?

Thanks in advance!

Xianyu

D and E aren't correct. They are about equal, and have the same problem.
The sentence implicitly has 'water' in the position below:
_____is only enough [water] to supply the needs of the house.
You're talking about a quantity of water, and hence you must specify which water you are quantifying - the spring water, or the water from the spring.
The sentence really means:
The [amount of] spring water is only enough [water] to supply the needs of the house.

You could say "Spring water is good for drinking", but not "Spring water is enough for drinking". In the first, you are referring to any spring water, or all spring water.
In the second, you must be talking about some specific spring water, because you are able to quantify it.

[羡鱼-Xianyu]

D and E aren't correct. They are about equal, and have the same problem.
The sentence implicitly has 'water' in the position below:
_____is only enough [water] to supply the needs of the house.
You're talking about a quantity of water, and hence you must specify which water you are quantifying - the spring water, or the water from the spring.
The sentence really means:
The [amount of] spring water is only enough [water] to supply the needs of the house.

You could say "Spring water is good for drinking", but not "Spring water is enough for drinking". In the first, you are referring to any spring water, or all spring water.
In the second, you must be talking about some specific spring water, because you are able to quantify it.

Hello, Raymott. Thank you for your useful help. Now I've got it, but I still have some troubles with definite and indefinite article. Would you mind giving me further help, please?

Could tell me what are the differences between these following sentences?
1) The refrigerators are useful during hot summer.
2) The refrigerator is useful during hot summer.
3) Refrigerators are useful during hot summer.
4) A refrigerator is useful during hot summer.

[Raymott]

Hello, Raymott. Thank you for your useful help. Now I've got it, but I still have some troubles with definite and indefinite article. Would you mind giving me further help, please?

Could tell me what are the differences between these following sentences?
1) The refrigerators are useful during hot summer.
You already know which refrigerators you're talking about. For example, you are inspecting somebody's butcher shop, and they say this to you.
2) The refrigerator is useful during hot summer.
There's only one of them. Or, you're talking about refrigerators in general.
3) Refrigerators are useful during hot summer.
You're talking about refrigerators in general. This is the most common way to say this.
4) A refrigerator is useful during hot summer.
You're talking about refrigerators in general, but the emphasis here is on the user. "For a grocery store, a refrigerator is useful during hot summer."

There's some overlap in meaning and usage.
R.

[羡鱼-Xianyu]

There's some overlap in meaning and usage.
R.

Now I've got it. Thanks, I really appreciate for your further help!

Have a nice day, Raymott.

[羡鱼-Xianyu]

There's some overlap in meaning and usage.
R.

Hello, Raymott. I come back again with another question. LOL...

After reading your notes, it seemed that I've already understood the use of 'the', but when I read another similar sentence, my mind became confused again.

I know someone who always cuts sketches out from newspapers of model clothes that she would like to buy if she had the money.

Is its use equal to 'The water from the spring'?
......if she had the amount of money?

And does 'had money' mean 'had any money'? Am I right, Raymott?

Excuse my troubling you again.

[Raymott]

Hello, Raymott. I come back again with another question. LOL...

After reading your notes, it seemed that I've already understood the use of 'the', but when I read another similar sentence, my mind became confused again.

I know someone who always cuts sketches out from newspapers of model clothes that she would like to buy if she had the money.

Is its use equal to 'The water from the spring'?
......if she had the amount of money?
Yes, but it might be better if I explain it differently:
She has some money. She has enough to buy food, for example. But she doesn't have the money that buying model clothes would require. It's a specific amount of money that she doesn't have.

Sometimes we even say, "She doesn't have that kind of money."
The implication is that there is a difference between food-buying money and dress-buying money. But the difference is in the amount, or perhaps it's the difference between money-for-essentials and money-for-luxuries. She doesn't have the latter.

And does 'had money' mean 'had any money'? Am I right, Raymott?
In this case, no. She does have some money. So, it's wrong to say, "She doesn't have any money".
It's correct to say, "She doesn't have money for luxuries. She doesn't have the money to buy those dresses."

A: I'll sell you a dress for $400.
B: Sorry, I don't have the money.

This doesn't mean that B has no money. She doesn't have the [amount of] money asked for.

Excuse my troubling you again.
No problem.

R.

[羡鱼-Xianyu]

R.

Raymott, thank you for having your time and patience. I will learn your notes by heart. Thanks again!

Xianyu

[~Mav~]

Dear Raymott (and other teachers ),

Is it the same reason why we often say "I don't have the time to do something" I.e. I have time (without "the") for many things, but I don't have the time for this particular thing. Am I right with this interpretation?

Just to give a wonderful example:
Col. Jessup, portrayed by Jack Nicholson in one of my favourite movies, "A Few Good Men", said the following sentence:

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it!"

But (and it seems a little contradiction ) we would say "I have no time for fools"/"I don't have time (without "the") for fools", though it conveys the meaning that I might have plenty of time otherwise, but not for fools. So would it make any difference if I said "I don't have the time for fools"?

Thank you very much for your answer.


PS: I apologize for hijacking the thread, but I'm almost sure that Xianyu will also be interested in your answer.

[Raymott]

Dear Raymott (and other teachers ),

Is it the same reason why we often say "I don't have the time to do something" I.e. I have time (without "the") for many things, but I don't have the time for this particular thing. Am I right with this interpretation?
I'd say so.

Just to give a wonderful example:
Col. Jessup, portrayed by Jack Nicholson in one of my favourite movies, "A Few Good Men", said the following sentence:

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it!"
That's a good example.

But (and it seems a little contradiction ) we would say "I have no time for fools"/"I don't have time (without "the") for fools", though it conveys the meaning that I might have plenty of time otherwise, but not for fools. So would it make any difference if I said "I don't have the time for fools"?
Hmm. Good point. I would tell you the truth about this, but "you can't handle the truth!"

Thank you very much for your answer.


PS: I apologize for hijacking the thread, but I'm almost sure that Xianyu will also be interested in your answer.

R.