Alexey86
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Russian
- Home Country
- Russian Federation
- Current Location
- Russian Federation
Since the referent is immediately and visibly present, it is very easily identifiable. Therefore, a definite noun phrase is appropriate.
Maybe we understand “identifiable” differently. To me, for a thing to be identifiable it should be known to the listener. To identify an object you have to build a bridge between your knowledge/memory and the information you’re getting at the moment of speaking. But the act of seeing something new and hearing of it can’t provide you with the necessary material. In context 1 you can only identify the type of thing: it’s a book. But the follow-up mental process is not part of the identification, but of getting new information (N gave me for my birthday) and of (semi-)unconscious deducing or inferring (I'm seeing this for the first time, but he has used “the” → N gave him only one book). But if I come to visit you with the same book again and say, "I've brought with me the book N gave me for my birthday" (the book I brought last time would be more natural, but we're discussing possibilities), it will be subject to identification in its true sense.
Of course, I’m just trying to reconstruct your possible mental processes. At least, I would think that way if I were the listener.
If the relative clause were non-defining (, which N gave), there would be no problem. I think this is why I don't like this example very much.
That’s why I like this variant: it’s possible, but the reason is mysterious to me.
I think the qualifier rare adds a sense of openness to the book's identity
As well as “the book N gave me” removes openness, which should lead you to the conclusion that N gave me only one book.
But for some mysterious reason it doesn’t. At least you allow for more than one.
Last edited: