what is the difference

[balakrishnanijk]

Given below are two sentences:
His many wanderings brought him to the(?) Hemis Monastery, where he was he was acquainted with irrefutable evidence in support of the claim that Jesus had travelled to India when he was a young man, met many Oriental seers and studied Vedic philosophy.
His many wanderings brought him to the(?) Hemis monastery,where he was acquainted with irrefutable evidence in support of the claim that Jesus had travelled to India when he was a young man, met many Oriental seers and studied Vedic philosophy.

Am I correct in thinking that "Hemis Monastery"in the first sentence is a compound proper noun, and that in the second sentence the word "hemis" functions as an adjectve to qualify the noun monastery?
What is the rule governing this?

[Anglika]

Yes to both.

Which rule are you looking for? Hemis Monastery is the name of the monastery, and is how it is generally termed.

[balakrishnanijk]

Dear Anglika
It is my perception of the language that some people write it as Hemis Monastery and omit the definite article before it while some others write it as Hemis monastery and use the definite article before it. That is to say when you capitalise the initial "M", you tend to omit the definite article:it is used when you use a small letter 'm'. This often happens when the first word is the name of either a person or a place. I do not know for certain whether there is any substance in my perception but this is what I have observed in the speech and writing of English people.

[albertino]

Dear Anglika
It is my perception of the language that some people write it as Hemis Monastery and omit the definite article before it while some others write it as Hemis monastery and use the definite article before it. That is to say when you capitalise the initial "M", you tend to omit the definite article:it is used when you use a small letter 'm'. This often happens when the first word is the name of either a person or a place. I do not know for certain whether there is any substance in my perception but this is what I have observed in the speech and writing of English people.

balakrishnanijk, before "proper nouns +synagogues, +abbeys, +churches, +mosques, +temples, +monasteries", we do not use the definite article.

[balakrishnanijk]

It is correct to say 'I usually go to church on Friday'.
What about the grammaticality of the following sentences?
I usually go to temple on Friday.
I usually go to synagogue on Friday.
I usually go to mosque on Friday.
I usually go to monastery on Friday.
I usually go to abbey on Friday.
I usually go to ashram on Friday.
I usually go to fire temple on Friday.
Are they all right?
The purpose of my question is to invite your attention to the fact that the same principle underlies all these places: spirituality.

[Soup]

His many wanderings brought him to the Hemis Monastery, ...
[a place, a location]

His many wanderings brought him to Hemis Monastery, ...
[the name of the place]

[Soup]

I usually go to Temple on Friday.
I usually go to the synagogue on Friday.
I usually go to the mosque on Friday.
I usually go to the monastery on Friday.
I usually go to the abbey on Friday.
I usually go to the ashram on Friday.


(I don't know what 'fire temple' means, sorry.)

[balakrishnanijk]

Soup,
That is the palce where Zoroastrians worship.

Well , coming back to the point I agree with your first sentence but what about the word mosque? Is going to temple different from going to the mosque?

[albertino]

I usually go to Temple on Friday.
I usually go to the synagogue on Friday.
I usually go to the mosque on Friday.
I usually go to the monastery on Friday.
I usually go to the abbey on Friday.
I usually go to the ashram on Friday.


(I don't know what 'fire temple' means, sorry.)

With the definite article before the religious buildings to make them specific, it is assumed that the speaker and listener are within the same distirct/context, both of whom understand which temple/synagogue/mosque/monastery/abbey/ashram are referring to.

(Not a teacher)

[balakrishnanijk]

When you go to a church for its primary purpose, you do not use definite article:
I usually go to church on Firday.
But when you go there with the intention of doing something else you use it:
The little girl went to the church to see the broken glass.
This is what I was taught as a school student.
And I still cling fast to the same rule.
Nevertheless I cannot help wondering why we should use the definite article before words like mosque and synagogue when we go there to pray. Isn't a mosque or a synagogue the same as a church or a temple when it comes to prayer? While admitting that there is considerable point in what Albertino has said, I cannot help feeling that there is some point in my own views too.