chair is soft

[keannu]

These all make sense,
A chair is soft/The chair is soft/Chairs are soft

But why doesn't "Chair is soft" make sense?
For Koreans, Japanese, Chinese who use nouns without indefinite articles, this is a really challenging issue. They can't understand why article-less nouns don't make sense while they use them all the time.

I once asked an American about this and he said "It's because it sounds like a barbarians' language", and my temporary conclusion is it sounds like a concept not an actual thing, but Koreans/Japanese/Chinese say article-less nouns without considering concept or an actual thing.

I need your comprehensible explanation. Thank you in advance.

 

[SlickVic9000]

(Not a Teacher)

I'm not sure how to explain it, compadre. "Chair is soft" just sounds broken and inept to me. And yet, sometimes we omit articles in speech occasionally for the sake of brevity (like in news headlines) and it doesn't bother us at all.

 

[keannu]

(Not a Teacher)

I'm not sure how to explain it, compadre. "Chair is soft" just sounds broken and inept to me. And yet, sometimes we omit articles in speech occasionally for the sake of brevity (like in news headlines) and it doesn't bother us at all.

Other than brevity, in normal usages, what kind of impression does it give you more? Some abstract concept or imperfect image?

 

[Barb_D]

There is no point in asking "why" things happen in any language. The simple fact is that countable nouns in English require an article if they are in the singular to be grammatical correct.

A cheetah can purr. -- Any cheetah
The cheetah can purr. -- The category of animals knows as "cheetah"
Cheetahs can purr. -- All cheetahs
Cheetah can purr -- Ungrammatical, unless you have a kitty cat named "Cheetah" and it's a proper noun.

I object to your American's friend categorization as "barbarian" but "ungrammatical" would be accurate.

 

[shannico]

These all make sense,
A chair is soft/The chair is soft/Chairs are soft

But why doesn't "Chair is soft" make sense?
For Koreans, Japanese, Chinese who use nouns without indefinite articles, this is a really challenging issue. They can't understand why article-less nouns don't make sense while they use them all the time.

I once asked an American about this and he said "It's because it sounds like a barbarians' language", and my temporary conclusion is it sounds like a concept not an actual thing, but Koreans/Japanese/Chinese say article-less nouns without considering concept or an actual thing.

I need your comprehensible explanation. Thank you in advance.

I'd use the chair is comfortable as opposed to soft though.

 

[Barb_D]

I suggest "A chair is soft" (or comfortable, it doesn't matter) is grammatically okay, but semantically nonsense. Not all chairs are soft. It is not a description of a chair in general.

If you mean a specific chair, you'd say "This/That/The chair is soft."

If you are pointing around to a suite full of furniture, you might say "One of these chairs is soft" or "These chairs are soft."

I am unable to think of a time when a native speaker would say "A chair is soft" in a meaningful context.

 

[shannico]

I suggest "A chair is soft" (or comfortable, it doesn't matter) is grammatically okay, but semantically nonsense. Not all chairs are soft. It is not a description of a chair in general.

If you mean a specific chair, you'd say "This/That/The chair is soft."

If you are pointing around to a suite full of furniture, you might say "One of these chairs is soft" or "These chairs are soft."

I am unable to think of a time when a native speaker would say "A chair is soft" in a meaningful context.

I meant semantically, I wouldn't say a/the/this or that chair is soft but I would replace soft with comfortable.
I find it frustrating at times how grammar books focus on the structure of a sentence regardless of its meaning.

 

[keannu]

There is no point in asking "why" things happen in any language. The simple fact is that countable nouns in English require an article if they are in the singular to be grammatical correct.

A cheetah can purr. -- Any cheetah
The cheetah can purr. -- The category of animals knows as "cheetah"
Cheetahs can purr. -- All cheetahs
Cheetah can purr -- Ungrammatical, unless you have a kitty cat named "Cheetah" and it's a proper noun.

I object to your American's friend categorization as "barbarian" but "ungrammatical" would be accurate.

I expected some awkward feeling in native speakers' minds when they hear "chair is soft", I mean, some feeling-wise reluctance for that, but if it's a grammar-wise problem, there seems to be no way to explain to Korean students except the grammar rules. Don't get me wrong. I just imagined native speakers have a feeling-wise reason.

 

[Raymott]

I expected some awkward feeling in native speakers' minds when they hear "chair is soft", I mean, some feeling-wise reluctance for that, but if it's a grammar-wise problem, there seems to be no way to explain to Korean students except the grammar rules. Don't get me wrong. I just imagined native speakers have a feeling-wise reason.

There is a feeling-wise reason. If someone said "Chair is soft", in the lack of a very specific context, such as just having sat down, you'd think, "What chair is soft? What are you talking about?" You'd wonder if you misheard a sentence such as "Cheese is soft", for example, or something else. You might feel concerned that the speaker has had a stroke and is starting to garble their words. You might have all sorts of reactions.
I imagine the feeling would be the same if a Korean person said something ungrammatical in Korean for no obvious reason.

 

[keannu]

There is a feeling-wise reason. If someone said "Chair is soft", in the lack of a very specific context, such as just having sat down, you'd think, "What chair is soft? What are you talking about?" You'd wonder if you misheard a sentence such as "Cheese is soft", for example, or something else. You might feel concerned that the speaker has had a stroke and is starting to garble their words. You might have all sorts of reactions.
I imagine the feeling would be the same if a Korean person said something ungrammatical in Korean for no obvious reason.

It's hard to explain the difference between Korean/Japanese/Chinese,etc and English in terms of articles, especially in indefinite article. I'm not telling you which is better or worse but just telling you the difference between those similar languages and English.

For example, for an unspecific noun, Korean/Japanese/Chinese use a zero article noun like "If you go to the corner, there is woman" And this is 99 percent more common in Korean/Chinese/Japanese than using indefinitel articles. Even without an article, we understand there is a woman in there, and if you used "There is a woman" in Korean/Japanese/Chinese, they would take it very weird. Except for very few special cases, we always use zero article nouns.
And even for nouns in general, we say zero article nouns like "Guy like beautiful woman".

I'm not saying what is natural for Japanese/Koreanse/Japanese should be accepted by English speakers. I think probably it's the difference of being used to something. We are used to inferring a general concept or an unspecific noun even from zero article nouns, but English speakers don't seem to be used to such nouns. Also, English seems more logical in designating unspecific nouns with articles.
They seem to perceive them as an imperfect noun that has no reality. This is what I want to know just to explain to almost every Korean or Japanese/Chinese who don't use "a/an" in their daily lives. And I'm not saying which is better or worse, it's just the problem of difference.

 

[Barb_D]

I don't understand what is wrong with simply saying "In English, single countable nouns require an article."

 

[Raymott]

They [English speakers] seem to perceive them as an imperfect noun that has no reality.

That's right. "Chair" has no reality in English as a chair. It has reality as a word and a symbol, and when used in reference to a real (or imaginary) chair in accordance with English grammatical rules, it becomes a semantic symbol/sign for a concrete chair - either a definite or indefinite one or several, etc. depending on the other grammatical parameters used.
The word "chair" does conjure up images of a chair in an English-speaker's mind. It's not as if one's mind is unconscious of what "chair" could refer to unless there's an article attached to the word. But "chair" by itself generally has no communicative value. On the other hand, if you shouted "Snake!", that might have communicative value, even though it's not a grammatical sentence. In this case, the context would make up for the missing article.

 

[keannu]

Thanks a million!!! It may be bugging you, and I seem to be the most follow-up questioner on this site. Sometimes I feel guilty as I have the feeling I'm bothering the teachers with endless questions that don't make sense, but unless I'm the equal level with teachers, it's hard to understand your explanation hundred percent, and I'm kind of a meticulous person.

Just one last question! I think you blew away my curiosity with the clear answer and if I didn't misunderstand you, my concept of zero article nouns seems similar to your explanation, It's just an "image, symbol, word" with no reality. Just to make sure, in the following, is the "imaginary chair" related to nouns with articles or without articles?
As my conclusion is like this.
1.Zero article nouns - unreal, image, symbol
2.nouns with articles - real, concrete, actual
But where does "imaginary" noun belong?

...when used in reference to a real (or imaginary) chair in accordance with English grammatical rules, it becomes a semantic symbol/sign for a concrete chair - either a definite or indefinite one or several,....

 

[Raymott]

Thanks a million!!! It may be bugging you, and I seem to be the most follow-up questioner on this site. Sometimes I feel guilty as I have the feeling I'm bothering the teachers with endless questions that don't make sense, but unless I'm the equal level with teachers, it's hard to understand your explanation hundred percent, and I'm kind of a meticulous person.

Just one last question! I think you blew away my curiosity with the clear answer and if I didn't misunderstand you, my concept of zero article nouns seems similar to your explanation, It's just an "image, symbol, word" with no reality. Just to make sure, in the following, is the "imaginary chair" related to nouns with articles or without articles?
As my conclusion is like this.
1.Zero article nouns - unreal, image, symbol
2.nouns with articles - real, concrete, actual
But where does "imaginary" noun belong?

...when used in reference to a real (or imaginary) chair in accordance with English grammatical rules, it becomes a semantic symbol/sign for a concrete chair - either a definite or indefinite one or several,....

I simply meant that if Alice saw a chair in Wonderland that spoke to her, it would be an "imaginary chair". If you dreamt of a chair it would be an imaginary chair. But you can talk about those chairs to someone else using the defininite article because they have existance in the imagination. "I dreamt of a chair. The chair started speaking to me." Also, if I said "We need to buy a chair for the basement", this is also an imaginary chair, unless I have a specific chair in mind that I intend buying. And my wife might say, "When are you going to buy that chair for the basement?" It's still to some extent imaginary.
But I don't want to start a discussion on what is imaginary and what is not. We are having enough trouble defining what "chair" is without tackling what "imaginary" is. "Chair" as a word doesn't have existence as a chair, even in the imagination. It only has existence as a word until it is instantiated with a real (or imaginary, as I've explained) chair.

Anyhow, your conclusion is still wrong. Most abstract nouns don't come with articles - happiness, life, prosperity, death. But they are still real.
I don't follow where you are taking this, or why. There is an obvious difference between things (real or imaginary) and the names that we give them. A real chair is not even a "chair" at all to someone who doesn't know English. It's a "silla, 椅子, кресло, كرسي, stol, etc."

 

[keannu]

I simply meant that if Alice saw a chair in Wonderland that spoke to her, it would be an "imaginary chair". If you dreamt of a chair it would be an imaginary chair. But you can talk about those chairs to someone else using the defininite article because they have existance in the imagination. "I dreamt of a chair. The chair started speaking to me." Also, if I said "We need to buy a chair for the basement", this is also an imaginary chair, unless I have a specific chair in mind that I intend buying. And my wife might say, "When are you going to buy that chair for the basement?" It's still to some extent imaginary.
But I don't want to start a discussion on what is imaginary and what is not. We are having enough trouble defining what "chair" is without tackling what "imaginary" is. "Chair" as a word doesn't have existence as a chair, even in the imagination. It only has existence as a word until it is instantiated with a real (or imaginary, as I've explained) chair.

Anyhow, your conclusion is still wrong. Most abstract nouns don't come with articles - happiness, life, prosperity, death. But they are still real.
I don't follow where you are taking this, or why. There is an obvious difference between things (real or imaginary) and the names that we give them. A real chair is not even a "chair" at all to someone who doesn't know English. It's a "silla, 椅子, кресло, كرسي, stol, etc."

Oh, I meant it only for countable, common nouns, not for massive or abstract nouns. I already know the latter are real. So your confirmation seems to mean zero article nouns are only names or symbols, not concrete reality. Okay I will try to remember it. But a slight worry is Koreans/Japanese/Chinese perceive even names or images as a real thing, but as languages are different, I can't help but conclude names or images in English don't make sense. We think if something has an image, it makes sense, but English doesn't seem to make sense. Okay, thanks so far for this!!!

 

[5jj]

We think if something has an image, it makes sense, but English doesn't seem to make sense.

English does not make sense - if you analyse it in Korean or Chinese ways, but it makes perfect sense to English speakers. If we analyse Korean and Chinese in English ways, they will seem very strange, but they are perfectly sensible and logical to native speakers.

Moslem learners find it hard to accept that most people who speak English believe that it is possible to think about a future that is certain. Many British, American, Australian, etc people find the way Moslems cannot speak about the future without adding In shaa'Allah (إن شاء الله‎) quite strange.

If we attempt to understand the language and culture of one group of people through the eyes of another group of people, there are bound to be things that are incomprehensible to us.

 

[keannu]

Thanks a lot, You have a good point in there! I will keep that in mind. I swore not to make any more question, but I can't help adding more!
My grammar book has this example.
ex)David is a baseball player whose position is pitcher.

Before I saw your explanation, I understood why pitcher doesn't have an article vaguely. But now I guess it's because it's a name like "His name is David". Isn't it?