article question. what's the difference?

[slim1111]

Hello,

As a non native speaker, the problem of choosing the right definite/indefinite article has been very frustrating, and the following problem has been extra perplexing to me.

1. In economics, [the] prices of gasoline and food have a significant impact on the overall economy.

Setting aside the validity of the above sentence, I really can't tell what the difference would be in including "the" there or not including it. If somebody can explain to me in detail, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks in advance for your valuable time.

 

[SoothingDave]

I can't think of any difference in this example if you include "the" or not.

 

[slim1111]

Thank you for answering my question. May I ask a follow up question on the same subject?

1. He is a son of a pastor
2. He is the son of a pastor

If I were to say these two sentences to describe a man whose father was a pastor, and assuming that that is all the information I posses, would either of those sentences be wrong?

 

[SoothingDave]

"He was the son of a pastor" would mean that his pastor dad had only one son. Probably.

"He was a son of a pastor" would not say anything about whether he had other brothers.

 

[5jj]

"He was the son of a pastor" would mean that his pastor dad had only one son. Probably.

"He was a son of a pastor" would not say anything about whether he had other brothers.

I don't agree on this one. Although this would seem to be logical, I think that we use 'the son of a ...' to mean 'a ...'s son'; We don't normally use 'a son of a ...'. I don't know why this should be so.

 

[emsr2d2]

I don't agree on this one. Although this would seem to be logical, I think that we use 'the son of a ...' to mean 'a ...'s son'; We don't normally use 'a son of a ...'. I don't know why this should be so.

I agree. If someone said to me "I am the son of a pastor", I would not assume that he had no brothers. I would know that if he said "I am the only son of a pastor". You're right, we simply don't say "I'm a daughter of ..." or "He's a son of ..." (well, we might say the latter but it would be followed by the rest of a well-known insult!)

 

[5jj]

I've just checked with COCA. There are hundreds of '... is the son of a P' where P is a person defined by profession or race. There are only one or two examples of '... is a son of a P', though there are a hundred or more examples of '... is a son of a (insulting word)'

 

[TheParser]

CAUTION: NOT A TEACHER



Slim,

I thought that you would like this information that I found in a grammar book entitled
A Grammar of the English Grammar, which was written by the great grammarian George O. Curme:

A noun is often without an article ... when the noun does not designate a definite

individual but something abstract, such as a relationship:

Willliams was son of an officer in the service of the East India Company.


(Volume II, Syntax, page 513, "Definite Article with Generalizing Force.")

 

[emsr2d2]

CAUTION: NOT A TEACHER



Slim,

I thought that you would like this information that I found in a grammar book entitled
A Grammar of the English Grammar, which was written by the great grammarian George O. Curme:

A noun is often without an article ... when the noun does not designate a definite

individual but something abstract, such as a relationship:

Willliams was son of an officer in the service of the East India Company.


(Volume II, Syntax, page 513, "Definite Article with Generalizing Force.")

It may appear in a grammar book, but "Williams was son of an officer in the service of the East India Company" sounds extremely unnatural to me without the article. May I ask when the book was written?

I can understand it being article-less if it follows a comma:

Williams, son of the first ever commercial airline pilot, was killed in an air crash in 1963.

Sarah Jones, daughter of the famous scientist Mark Jones, has been imprisoned for possession of drugs.

 

[TheParser]

May I ask when the book was written?

CAUTION: NOT A TEACHER


(1) It was written in the great year of 1931.

(2) He refers to the East India Company, so I assume that it is older English.

(3) It is, however, still very elegant writing, IMHO.

(4) Many people feel that Professor Curme's book will outlive some of the books

written by various whippersnappers. :lol:

 

[5jj]

Many people feel that Professor Curme's book will outlive some of the books written by various whippersnappers. :lol:

As I have pointed out pretty often, most of us consider that it is well past its sell-by date now. No matter how good Curme's book was in its day, it was written about the language spoken over eighty years ago almost before the days of talking films, and certainly before the days of television and computers. Except for those interested in the history of English grammars (as I am, which is why Curme's book is in my collection of grammars) it is of very little value indeed when discussing the language spoken and written today.

"Williams was son of an officer in the service of the East India Company" is not appropriate today.

 

[TheParser]

As a non native speaker, the problem of choosing the right definite/indefinite article has been very frustrating

.

CAUTION: NOT A TEACHER


(1) This also confuses native speakers like me, so I did some research and am delighted to report the results.

(2) Sometimes it makes a big difference:

(a) We were met at the airport by the officials of the government.
(b) We were met at the airport by officials of the government.

What's the difference? Well, an expert named Wilson Follett (Modern American Usage) says (a) = all or all of the important officials met us; (b) = only a few officials
met us.

(3) Regarding your sentence, the omission of "the" may be an example of

journalistic "corruption." That is, American newspapers started dropping articles

in order to make the stories brisker (faster). So now many people write that way, too.

(4) I most respectfully suggest that you include the definite article.

(a) I went to Google "books" and copied some examples for you:

(i) The reason ... is that the prices of gasoline and accessories, such as tires, have been so high that ....

-- Barrel and Box (1919) by Edgar Harvey Pefbaugh.

(ii) In round figures, the prices of foods had been reduced by 5-7%, clothes and shoes 5 to 10%, ...

-- Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law (1938) by Columbia University.

(iii) ...has been mainly attributed to the increased prices of food articles.

-- Eastern Economist (1975).

(iv) Great fluctuations which have occurred during the last thirty years in the prices of corn and other commodities.

-- Thoughts and Details (1824) by Thomas Tooks.

 

[5jj]

Frankly, Parser, examples from 1824,1919 and 1938 are not relevant to the way we write today. 1975 seems more recent, but even that example is now 37 years old.

All of the examples you gave are perfectly acceptable today without the article (and also with it).

 

[slim1111]

its comforting to know that often times both usages are acceptable because I could not figure out for the life of me which one would be correct as both sounded "ok" in my ears. I guess I just got to trust my intuition
.
Thank you guys, TheParser, 5jj, emsr2d2 and soothingDave for the insightful discussion.