I am not a teacher nor English native speaker.
If "we" means a particular group of people, I would agree with Barb.
However, I think here "we" means people or all of us. Thus I suppose neither "a" nor "the" could be used since we are talking about "things in general". I go with:
Computer has changed the way we work.
I am not a teacher nor English native speaker.
If "we" means a particular group of people, I would agree with Barb.
However, I think here "we" means people or all of us. Thus I suppose neither "a" nor "the" could be used since we are talking about "things in general". I go with:
Computer has changed the way we work.
. . ............ computer has changed the way we work.
a- A b- Thec-No article d-An
I will choose The ...Am I right?
Thanks in advance.
Hi Hanky,
You need an article or you need the plural. Since the test started with the singular, then you need an article.
In fact, we do use "The" for things in general, as we do in "The lion is called the king of the jungle" or "The family is the most important social unit in all humanity."
It's a bit backwards from how we usually think of it, but in this case, if we had said "A computer" we'd be thinking about a specific computer, just not one that we've talked about before. By saying "The computer" we mean "The idea of computers."
Hi Barb,
Thanks for the post. English is really confusing! I have learned that for things in general we don't use article. You said that it's maybe not the case, so what's the rule?
BTW: Lions don't live in the jungle, do they?
How about this example then:
He has revealed the nature of man.
Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't clear enough myself. I meant the lack of an article before the word 'man'. Could you explain this?"Nature" [as in our natural environment] is a concept that doesn't necessarily require an article.
"Human nature" also can stand on its own without an article.
If we refer to "nature of man," however, it cannot stand on its own and requires an article: "the nature of man." It is a particular kind of nature, that is to say, set of attributes.
I hope that is clear. I am struggling to find a rule myself.
(Here's the link I borrowed this phrasing for the last one from: English Grammar - Articles)
I'm curious do natives always know exactly which one of the articles should be used in particular case?I read something recently that said that sometimes, the use of articles will be the only clue that something was written by a non-native speaker. It's probably true.
This is from the same link;
3. We use no article when we are talking about people or things in general.
Carrots are good for you. -- carrots in general
English people drink a lot of tea. -- English people in general
And, it seems to confirm my reasoning. (However, the examples given are plural. I don't know whether it denotes a rule or not)
I'm curious do natives always know exactly which one of the articles should be used in particular case?
I'm surprised by the native-speakers' answers. I'd say "computers" or no article. Do you the native-speakers put the definite article to make it plural? Otherwise, it'll be very confusing for me because I really don't get how to infer that "the computer" means "The idea of computers." as Barb suggested.
Simply, we are referring to something specific."Nature" [as in our natural environment] is a concept that doesn't necessarily require an article.
"Human nature" also can stand on its own without an article.
If we refer to "nature of man," however, it cannot stand on its own and requires an article: "the nature of man." It is a particular kind of nature, that is to say, set of attributes.
I hope that is clear. I am struggling to find a rule myself.
This is from the same link;
3. We use no article when we are talking about people or things in general.
Carrots are good for you. -- carrots in general
English people drink a lot of tea. -- English people in general
And, it seems to confirm my reasoning. (However, the examples given are plural. I don't know whether it denotes a rule or not)