*the* NHK fee collector

[suprunp]

According to the lawyer’s investigation, Tengo was the only child of his mother and his father, the NHK fee collector, a fact recorded in his family register.
(H. Murakami; 1Q84)

Is it possible to say 'an NHK fee collector' here?
How would it change the meaning?

Thanks.

[susiedq]

Was he the one and only fee collector? Then he is the collector.

If he is one of many, then he is an NHK collector.

[suprunp]

Was he the one and only fee collector? Then he is the collector.

If he is one of many, then he is an NHK collector.

I don't think he was the only one. The company can't be relied upon a sole NHK collector if the fee is supposed to be collected literally from all over Japan.

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


(1) May I just add a note to susiedq's great answer.

(2) I think that IF his father had been mentioned as an NHK fee collector earlier in the

novel, then "the" would be the only "correct" word in your sentence. The "the" would

then refer to the previously mentioned person.

(3) It always helps me to remember that "the" is something like "that." So maybe

your sentence means something like:

Tengo was the only child of his mother and his father, that NHK collector who was

mentioned earlier in the novel, ...

[suprunp]

Yes, TheParser, he was actually mentioned earlier in the novel.

Do you mean by 'then "the" would be the only "correct" word in your sentence.' that you would view 'an' as an "incorrect" word (taking into account the fact that he was mentioned earlier)?

Thanks.

[TheParser]

you would view 'an' as an "incorrect" word (taking into account the fact that he was mentioned earlier

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


(1) YES (if he was identified earlier as a fee collector).

(2) Consider this horrible example of mine:

Page 15: Tom is a teacher.

Page 126: Mona finally met someone who respected her. Who was it? Was it

Joe? Was it Ralph? No. Believe it or not, it was Tom, the teacher.

[5jj]

So, if we are speaking to somebody who knows the forum, we might say, "bhaisahab, the moderator, wrote ...", which might be crudely paraphrased as, "bahaisahab, (I mean the bhai who [as you know] is a moderator, not the one who is a troll) is a moderator, wrote ....".

If we said this to somebody who in fact does not know the person, they would almost certainly assume that there is only one moderator; misunderstanding is possible.

If we are speaking to someone who does not know the forum, we might say, "bhaisahab, a moderator, wrote ...", in which his role is given as fresh information.