[Grammar] Still struggling with "the" and "a (an)"

[Snappy]

We don't have definite or indefinite articles ("the" or "a" or "an) in our language (Japanese), and I still have difficulty using them.​

I believe native speakers of English use them by instinct and they do not have difficulty using them.

​

Please tell me if my understanding to the following sentences is correct.

​

1. We celebrate the arrival of autumn.

​

In the above sentence, "the" before "arrival" cannot be left out, because it means "autumn's arrival."​

Similarly, "the" is required when I say, "I'm awaiting the arrival of an important parcel," because I am talking about an important parcel's arrival.

​

2. We need elimination of the employer-based system.​

3. Can we see the elimination of property tax next year?

​

There is no definite article (i.e., "the") before "elimination" in sentence 2 while there is in sentence 3. In these sentence structure, "the" before the abstract noun "elimination" can be left out depending on the meaning.​

In my understanding, sentence 2 is talking about just an idea of eliminating the employer-based system while sentence 3 is talking about a rather concrete idea of eliminating property tax. Unlike sentence 1, "Of phrase" in sentences 2 and 3 does not express possession (i.e., we cannot say, "Can we see property tax's elimination next year?).​

 

[Pokemon]

"The development of science / the construction of a bridge / the arrival of smb" - if a noun modified by the following of-phrase indicates a process, it takes the definite article.

 

[SoothingDave]

I would use "the" in sentence 2 as well as in 3.

 

[Snappy]

"The development of science / the construction of a bridge / the arrival of smb" - if a noun modified by the following of-phrase indicates a process, it takes the definite article.

Thank you for your advice.
Doesn't "the arrival of smb" indicates smb's act of arriving? Does it indicates a process?

I found this on the Internet and again I am confused.

"Canadian tourism boosted with arrival of first Chinese leisure tourists."

 

[Verona_82]

Snappy, if it is the title of an article, the absense of 'the' could be easily explained since the articles are often left out in headings and headlines.
I have always explained that to myself like this: the act of arriving somewhere at some time is kind of a unique thing that describes an object/a person, that's why you say 'the arrival of...'

 

[Snappy]

Snappy, if it is the title of an article, the absense of 'the' could be easily explained since the articles are often left out in headings and headlines.
I have always explained that to myself like this: the act of arriving somewhere at some time is kind of a unique thing that describes an object/a person, that's why you say 'the arrival of...'

Thank you for your advice.

I found the following sentences on the Internet.

1. The closure of the factory will mean hundreds of jobs will be lost.
Does this sentence denote the entire act of closing the factory (and the completion of the act) and that is why "the" is used before "closure of"?

2. Surgical closure of the defect is recommended if the defect is large, the heart is swollen, or symptoms occur.
Does this sentence denote the act of closing the defect (without referring to the completion of the act) and that is why "the" is not used before "surgical closure"?

 

[Pokemon]

Thank you for your advice.
Doesn't "the arrival of smb" indicates smb's act of arriving? Does it indicates a process?

</p>
"Arrival" semantically belongs to "verbs of accomplishments" which imply that a situation has been developing before it has reached its final point. Somebody had travelled before they arrived.</p>

 

[Snappy]

Let me use other examples that I found on the Internet.

1. We specialize in the delivery of air cargo containers.

Can I understand that the person is saying that they specialize in delivering air cargo containers to the destinations (connoting that there is a particular method of delivery in the person's mind)?

2. We specialize in delivery of sail and power yachts from 35 to 90 feet.

Can I understand that the person is saying that they specialize in delivering sail and power yachts from 35 to 90 feet (not connoting that there is a particular method in the person's mind but they will probably take a certain appropriate method)?

 

[Pokemon]

I think "specialize in delivery of smth" isn't grammatical. It should either be "specialize in delivering smth' or "specialize in the delivery of smth".

 

[Snappy]

Thanks Gil.

Let me use two other examples.

1. We specialize in the delivery of air cargo containers.
Can I understand that the person is saying that they specialize in delivering air cargo containers to the destinations (connoting that there is a particular method of delivery in the person's mind)?

2. We specialize in delivery of sail and power yachts from 35 to 90 feet.
Can I understand that the person is saying that they specialize in delivering sail and power yachts from 35 to 90 feet (not connoting that there is a particular method in the person's mind but they will probably take a certain appropriate method).

 

[Snappy]

1. We specialize in the delivery of air cargo containers.
Can I understand that the person is saying that they specialize in delivering air cargo containers to the destinations (connoting that there is a particular method of delivery in the person's mind)?
It is not the destination that is important here, it is the act of delivery. In the sentence, "We specialize in the delivery...", "the" is used to point out the act of delivery. The sentence could as well be written, "We specialize in delivery of..." An article is really not required here because the matter is about containers - could be any number of containers.

2. We specialize in delivery of sail and power yachts from 35 to 90 feet. This is the same as #1. The article "the" could or could not be used. The article "the" adds emphasis to delivery.
Can I understand that the person is saying that they specialize in delivering sail and power yachts from 35 to 90 feet (not connoting that there is a particular method in the person's mind but they will probably take a certain appropriate method).

Thanks Gil.

I feel that if “of phrase” can be replaced with the ing-form without largely changing the meaning, "the" before the "of phrase" is optional in many cases. Am I correct?
E.g., “The post office has stopped the acceptance of mail.” vs. "The post office has stopped acceptance of mail." Both means that the post office has stopped accepting mail."

However, "We specialize in delivering of yachts" may become ambiguous, because native speaker I know told me:
"We specialize in delivery of yachts" refers to a delivery company that specializes in yachts. "We specialize in the delivery of yachts" refers to a yacht company that specializes in delivery.

 

[Snappy]

My point is:
I often find the following types of sentences:
1. The post office has stopped the acceptance of mail.
2. The post office has stopped acceptance of mail.

Both mean that the post office has stopped accepting mail. The difference is that sentence 1 has "the" before "acceptance of mail," while sentence 2 does not.

Can I make a hypothesis that the definite article before an "of-phrase" may be left out if the "of-phrase" consists of a deverbative noun + of (a noun derived from a verb + of)?

In many cases, except for idiomatic expressions, such "of-phrases" can be replaced with the "ing-form" without largely changing the meaning.

Example:
Non-payment could result in loss of property. (= losing property)
Non-payment could result in the loss of property. (= losing property or losing property in the way you are aware of)
The principal aim of this paper is to describe the process of liberalization of the pension systems in Central. (= liberalizing the pension systems)
The principal aim of this paper is to describe the process of the liberalization of the pension systems in Central. (= liberalizing the pension systems or liberalizing the pension systems in the way people are currently aware of or discussing)

However, it seems to me that even careful users of English who would usually put "the" before such "of-phrases" do not care about the omission when they read the newspaper or weekly magazines.
Am I correct?

 

[Snappy]

Ｉt seems to me that even careful users of English who would　usually put "the" before such "of-phrases" or distinguish the difference in meaning between phrases with and without "the" do not care about the　omission when they read the newspaper or weekly magazines.
Maybe native speakers unconsciously add "the" in their mind in such cases.
It's just like the expression of dates. If I write, "December 20, 2010," they would understand that it means "December the twentieth, 2010."