concerning the relevance between determiners and proper nouns

[magic dragon]

Would you answer my question? Thanks in advance.

I'd like to know the relevance between determiners and proper nouns.
A proper noun is a real and concrete thing, not a concept, so doesn't need any determiner. However, I sometimes see phrases like a beautiful Paris and an angry Jane.
Should "Paris" in a beautiful Paris and "Jane" in an angry Jane both be seen as concepts?

Also I'd like to ask the same question concerning the London Bridge and the United States of America.
I surmise that in the course of the creating of these phrases, "bridge" and "state" originally being concepts might have led to the use of an article. Am I right?

 

[jutfrank]

There are several misapprehensions here, which I'll try to identify.

A proper noun is a real and concrete thing, not a concept

That's not correct. I'm not sure what you mean by 'real' but proper nouns by no means have to refer to concrete things. Any name of any kind of organisation or company or institution, for example, is non-concrete. These things are very much conceptual. (We have to be careful how we define 'concept'.)

... so doesn't need any determiner.

That doesn't follow. Some proper nouns need determiners (such as definite articles) and some do not.

However, I sometimes see phrases like a beautiful Paris

I doubt it. That would be extremely odd and unusual usage.

and an angry Jane.

That's more likely, but still rather odd and unusual. In unusual cases such as this, the speaker is treating what is normally considered a proper noun (here the word Jane) as if it were a common noun. It sounds odd precisely because of this.

Should "Paris" in a beautiful Paris and "Jane" in an angry Jane both be seen as concepts?

If I understand you correctly, you're really asking whether Paris and Jane are seen as more abstract when treated as common nouns than when not. If so, the answer is yes.

Also I'd like to ask the same question concerning the London Bridge and the United States of America.
I surmise that in the course of the creating of these phrases, "bridge" and "state" originally being concepts might have led to the use of an article. Am I right?

I can't work out your question here. I don't see how you consider both 'bridge' (which typically refers to a physical object) and 'state' (which refers to an abstract idea) as similar.

(Also, we call it London Bridge with no article.)

 

[magic dragon]

Thank you jutfrank.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'real' but proper nouns by no means have to refer to concrete things. Any name of any kind of organisation or company or institution, for example, is non-concrete. These things are very much conceptual. (We have to be careful how we define 'concept'.)

---I should have made a precise definition of "concept" and "proper noun".
Merriam-Webster's definition of a proper noun is: a noun that designates a particular being or thing, does not take a limiting modifier, and is usually capitalized in English.
And its definition of a concept is: an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.

You said: any name of any kind of organisation or company or institution, for example, is non-concrete. That's right, but I had in mind the words like "John Smith" and "Paris".
The word "John Smith" is created to refer to the only person in the world socially recognised by the name. Here it is assumed there is no other "John Smith", so "John Smith" isn't a concept.

As for "a real and concrete thing", I didn't use it well. My expression was far from being satisfactory. I meant it as being contrary to a concept, that is; being substantial.
Concepts can be used in sentences and discourses when suitable determiners are added to them. Say, in the case of "book", a book or books or book with a certain determiner is used as a substantial thing. A book or books or book with a certain determiner I meant by "a real and concrete book".

"John Smith" isn't a concept, and can be used in sentences and discourses without any determiner. So with "Paris".

On the other hand, as you say, any name of any kind of organisation or company or institution, for example, is non-concrete, which I agree with you.
But the meaning of "concrete" is different from mine.

Some proper nouns need determiners (such as definite articles) and some do not.

---Do you mean some proper nouns work as common nouns? Is it an expanded functionality of proper nouns?
Can't I say things which need determiners are all concepts?
(That's my greatest concern.)

I doubt it. That (a beautiful Paris) would be extremely odd and unusual usage.

---I've seen similar phrases in catchphrases travel agencies in Japan created, but I agree with you in that it's odd and unusual. So how about "a Paris we hadn't imagined" or "the Paris in 1966"? Still odd and unusual?

I don't know if it's possible to assume plural Parises. I think it's also possible there is only one Paris in the world, and people see Paris from different angles or have different impressions about Paris, in which case there are no plural Parises in the world.
If you approve of plural Parises, I think you have to say Paris is a common noun.
Or do you need to still call Paris in such cases a proper noun for convenience, although it has lost the implicit message that Paris is the only thing in the world?

As for "John Smith", I've seen a sentence like "A John Smith came to see you.".
Probably "a John Smith" here means a person called John Smith. Here there are plural John Smiths.

In unusual cases such as this, the speaker is treating what is normally considered a proper noun (here the word Jane) as if it were a common noun. It sounds odd precisely because of this.

---Do you mean that "Jane" (as well as "Paris") isn't a common name?

Also, we call it London Bridge with no article.

---That's why I'm a bit confused with the London bridge.
I surmise some Londoners called a newly built bridge by that name, probably because they wanted to claim the new bridge, not the old London Bridge, is authentic and suitable enough to be called by that name. (of course it's just my surmise)
London Bridge and the London Bridge are 2 different things. It's not just that there are 2 London bridges, unlike plural Parises (?) above mentioned. So I think it can be said both 2 are definitely common nouns.

Can I say after all, that when an indefinite article is added to a proper noun, it functions as if it were a common noun, and when a definite article is added, it functions as a common noun? Am I right? I'm a bit confused, sorry. Proper nouns are difficult for me to understand. I'm sorry for holding you up so long.

 

[emsr2d2]

Jane is a proper noun, not a common noun.

 

[jutfrank]

---Do you mean some proper nouns work as common nouns? Is it an expanded functionality of proper nouns?
Can't I say things which need determiners are all concepts?
(That's my greatest concern.)

I meant that many proper nouns include determiners (usually definite articles), as part of the name.

The Incredible Hulk
The Statue of Liberty
The Aleutian Islands

---I've seen similar phrases in catchphrases travel agencies in Japan created, but I agree with you in that it's odd and unusual. So how about "a Paris we hadn't imagined" or "the Paris in 1966"? Still odd and unusual?

Yes, this is odd usage in that words which are normally proper nouns are effectively being used as common nouns. It is not common to do this, but it can be quite effective as a device. When there is such an effect, it is often precisely because of the oddness.

I don't know if it's possible to assume plural Parises. I think it's also possible there is only one Paris in the world, and people see Paris from different angles or have different impressions about Paris, in which case there are no plural Parises in the world.

We've touched on this before. There certainly are plural Parises in the sense that these Parises are objects of experience rather than of any external reality. There's Paris in the spring and then there's Paris in mid-winter, and Paris at night, and so on. When a speaker thinks like this, he is essentially positing different (hence plural) Parises.

If you approve of plural Parises, I think you have to say Paris is a common noun.

Yes, exactly.

Or do you need to still call Paris in such cases a proper noun for convenience, although it has lost the implicit message that Paris is the only thing in the world?

Well, you could just say that in those cases, Paris is a proper noun being used as (or being treated as if it were) a common noun.

The difference between saying that a particular word is, or merely being used as something, really depends on one's view of the use of language. For me, there's not a lot of point in describing language outside the context of use in which it is uttered. In my view, it makes just as much sense to say that in those special cases above, Paris actually is a common noun.

---Do you mean that "Jane" (as well as "Paris") isn't a common name?

No, I meant that it's odd to use Jane as a common noun.

We have a phrase in English—She's a plain Jane. Here, it is very obvious that Jane is a common noun because it is easy to see that it signifies a class of thing (a kind of woman) rather than an individual woman that you can pick out in the world.

---That's why I'm a bit confused with the London bridge.
I surmise some Londoners called a newly built bridge by that name, probably because they wanted to claim the new bridge, not the old London Bridge, is authentic and suitable enough to be called by that name. (of course it's just my surmise)
London Bridge and the London Bridge are 2 different things. It's not just that there are 2 London bridges, unlike plural Parises (?) above mentioned. So I think it can be said both 2 are definitely common nouns.

I don't follow what you're saying here but it doesn't sound right.

Can I say after all, that when an indefinite article is added to a proper noun, it functions as if it were a common noun,

Yes.

and when a definite article is added, it functions as a common noun? Am I right?

Not always, no, but possibly, yes. If you say: This is not the Paris I used to know and love, you are essentially conceiving two Parises to be compared. In this case, you are using the word Paris as a common noun, yes. The definite article is used to pick out which one you're referring to.

I'm a bit confused, sorry. Proper nouns are difficult for me to understand. I'm sorry for holding you up so long.

No problem, but let's try to keep the posts much shorter and deal with only one point at a time.

 

[abaka]

It may be that you are trying to define these classes of nouns to help you with the proper usage of the English articles. If you are, please allow me to offer a practical hint that in no way supersedes jutfrank's explanations.

The indefinite article "a/an" means "one", and the definite article "the" means "that/those".

When applied to abstract and proper nouns, these articles capture aspects of the thing in question.

For example, "an angry Jane" specifies quite explicitly that Jane can show other moods as well: she can be a happy Jane, a sad Jane, etc.

"The angry Jane" explicitly specifies her in the angry aspect, to the total (if temporary) exclusion of all others.

"Angry Jane" suggests her anger and nothing else, leaving open the possibility that she is always angry.

"A Jane" is one Jane among many; "the Jane" is that specific Jane that is being talked about, or is about to be specified.

"Freedom" is an abstract concept denoting the ability to act or think following the dictates of unconstrained will.

"A freedom" is the ability to act or think freely in one well-defined but unspecified aspect. "As the city gets denser and denser, we lose a certain freedom of choice".

"The freedom" is the ability to act or think freely in one well-defined and specified aspect, such as "the freedom of speech".

I have not answered your questions because when native speakers, no matter how deeply trained in English grammar and linguistics, communicate with others, they almost never refer to categories such as the ones you are asking about. Instead, they have so instinctively grasped the very basic meaning of the articles I've given above that it guides them infallibly.

If you are ever confused, try to see if "one X" or "that X" helps somehow.

 

[magic dragon]

Thank you jutfrank, and I'm sorry for troubling you a lot.
I'll keep my posts shorter.

 

[magic dragon]

Thank you abaka. Your idea is similar to mine.
However, there is one thing I don't approve of.

"The freedom" is the ability to act or think freely in one well-defined and specified aspect, such as "the freedom of speech".

--I think "freedom of speech" is a set phrase, so "freedom" isn't defined or specified by "of speech".
I should think you forget to add, to "freedom of speech", such words as "in that country" or "in the 1950s".

Another thing is;
my concern was whether "Jane" above is a concept or not, and whether it's a common name or not.
Anyway your explanation is helpful. Thank you.

Lastly

"Angry Jane" suggests her anger and nothing else, leaving open the possibility that she is always angry.

---Thanks to your explanation, I understand a bit more of the lyrics of "Angry Johnny" by Poe.

 

[emsr2d2]

magicdragon, yet again I have had to fix the quotes in your post. Please learn to use the "Reply with quote" facility.

 

[magic dragon]

Please learn to use the "Reply with quote" facility.

---It hasn't caught my attention. I'll use the facility from now, but it'll take some time before I get fully used to it.

 

[abaka]

--I think "freedom of speech" is a set phrase, so "freedom" isn't defined or specified by "of speech".
I should think you forget to add, to "freedom of speech", such words as "in that country" or "in the 1950s".

The meaning of "the" in the phrase "the freedom of speech" is identical to its meaning in "the freedom that usingenglish.com has afforded user 'abaka' to discourse pomposly online". It doesn't really matter whether or not "the freedom of speech" is a set phrase.

In any case, phrases tend to become set exactly because they are exemplary in the way their words have been put together. Instead of committing idioms to memory as indivisible wholes, we ought, I think, to analyse them as deeply as possible. -- In them lies the genius of the language, and the spirit of its speakers.