the choice of car vs the choice of a car

Status
Not open for further replies.

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Your explanations are always helpful, even if I don't fully understand them or feel satisfied. But let's take a broader look. This discussion is not only about you and me. I'm sure it can also be helpful for other learners having difficulties with articles. At least I noticed that my threads about articles are read by many visitors.

Aren't we exploring these ideas right now? If you mean reading books, the problem with them is I can't talk with their authors, but I can talk with you, which is priceless.

Okay. Thanks for saying that.

Can we apply this to other features: the wheel of car, the steering wheel of car, the door of car and so on?

No, it only applies to what I call 'category' words. Things like colour, size, length, etc. They must be abstract qualities, not physical objects or parts.

What does you drive modify in "The colour of car you drive says a lot about you"? What confuses me about this sentence is that without the article it sounds as if it's the colour of car that is drove.

That's right. That's why it's wrong. You can't drive a colour.

I really don't understand in what sense The colour of the car you drive says a lot about you is not about the colour in the first place.

It is. Did I suggest it isn't?

I remember that you don't want to take a deep dive into the definite article. Would you just give me a context or two where you would only use the colour of the car?

Q: Alexey, what do you think about my new car and boat?
A: I like the colour of the boat but I don't like the colour of the car.

There's reference to the colour and the car and the boat, which is why the speaker uses the.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
That's right. That's why it's wrong. You can't drive a colour.

I'm confused. You gave me The colour of car you drive says a lot about you in #12 as a correct variant. I explained why it's confusing: it sounds as if you drives the colour of car. And now you agree that it's wrong. Maybe I misunderstood what exactly was wrong.

It is. Did I suggest it isn't?

You said, "We don't need an article before car because it isn't necessary: There is no car being referred to", from which I concluded that if we inserted the article (The colour of the car you drive says a lot about you) the sentence would be about the car, not the colour.
 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I'm confused. You gave me The colour of car you drive says a lot about you in #12 as a correct variant. I explained why it's confusing: it sounds as if you drives the colour of car. And now you agree that it's wrong. Maybe I misunderstood what exactly was wrong.

So I did. Sorry. Although that sentence does sound natural and makes good sense in context, it isn't a good example because the logic is unsound—you can't drive a colour. If you want the logic to be sound, you could rephrase it to: The colour of car [of the car] you drive says a lot about you. That's the sense I wanted what to show. Note that the sentence is not natural English with the bracketed part uttered.

You said, "We don't need an article before car because it isn't necessary: There is no car being referred to", from which I concluded that if we inserted the article (The colour of the car you drive says a lot about you) the sentence would be about the car, not the colour.

It's now about both in a way. If you use the before car, you're making specific reference to the car. You're talking about the particular colour of a particular car.

Can we please stop talking about definite articles? Can't we focus on zero articles? Isn't that the thread topic?

A related point to all this is how we use zero articles in front of nouns when those nouns are modifying other nouns with respect to showing type or kind. In this way, those nouns are necessarily general and singular (as with uncountable nouns).

What kind of person would do that?
It's a different type of thing.
He's a special kind of man.

In each case above, I suggest that the idea is essentially the same as in colour of car. We don't use articles in the bold phrases because the words person, thing and man don't refer to anything. They are just general concepts that can be categorised into different kinds. In the same way, I'm saying that in the phrase colour of car, you can understand that the speaker is thinking of the word colour as a certain type/kind and car as a truly general concept that can potentially manifest in various types/kinds. We don't use indefinite articles when we imagine stuff to be truly general, because indefinite articles show that we are thinking of something as countable (i.e. possible to be individuated), and truly general concepts cannot be countable, by their very nature. Does that make sense?
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Let me give you a quick picture of my view of the way words and reality are related. It might help us understand each other.

Over the course of evolution, we've evolved two theories of matter. That is to say, there are two competing ways of understanding the nature of reality.

1) Reality is made up of 'stuff'
2) Reality is made up of 'things'

1) When we're working with the first theory, we understand that the primary ontology of reality is substance. Reality itself is a substance, which can be classified further into different substances. In this way, you can have substances of substances of substances of ... Substance can be physical or mental or concrete or abstract, and are always expressed in language with nouns. Some examples of substance are expressed with the words reality/matter/carbon/work/peace/grammar. In terms of language, these nouns are what we call uncountable nouns. Uncountable just means that they are understood as substance. Substance can never be used with indefinite articles (if it is, then it is by definition not substance).

2) The other theory of matter envisions reality to fundamentally consist of things. The world is made up of objects, which are in some important way distinctly individuated from each other. Like substance, these objects can be physical, mental, real, imaginary, abstract, etc. They are expressed by what we call countable nouns because they are by their nature seen as having individual existence. They may/must be used with indefinite articles.

This all means that when you see/hear an indefinite article before a noun, you know the person has an individual mental object in his mind. And when you see/hear a zero article before a (singular) noun, you know the person has a substance in his mind. This is always and definitively true, and is, I think, the key to understanding the use of the English article system.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Can we please stop talking about definite articles? Can't we focus on zero articles? Isn't that the thread topic?

OK. Sorry.

Does that make sense?

Nothing confuses me when it comes to kind/type of + (zero) count singular noun. This structure suggests that we consider the object as mass and abstract, and we divide it into different kinds/types. But colour... I still find it difficult to see it that way. Moreover, I couldn't find a single example of colour of + (zero) count singular noun on the internet. I'll try to illustrate what exactly causes the difficulties by the following analysis:

1) The type of car you drive says a lot about you. -> You drive modifies the type of car. -> You drives a particular type of car which says a lot about you.

All that makes perfect sense to me.

2) The colour of car you drive says a lot about you. -> You drive modifies the colour of car. -> You drives a particular colour of car which says a lot about you.

That doesn't make sense to me.

3) The colour of car you drive says a lot about you. -> Car is a prepositional object, but logically, it is the colour that is the object of car you drive. -> Car you drive has a particular colour which says a lot about you.

That does make sense to me, but car you drive is semantically definite. We can omit the blue part and just say The car you drive says a lot about you. It remains definite even when I'm talking about its colour or size. So, I don't quite understand why I should omit the before car in such cases.
 
Last edited:

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
I would appreciate it if other members would participate in the thread.
 

Rover_KE

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I lost the thread of this thread a long time ago. :-(
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I have just had a look at post 25. I'm afraid it doesn't help much.
1)a. The type of car you drive says a lot about you. -> You drive modifies the type of car. -> b. You drive[STRIKE]s[/STRIKE] a particular type of car which says a lot about you.
[...]
2)a. The colour of car you drive says a lot about you. -> You drive modifies the colour of car. -> b. You drive[STRIKE]s[/STRIKE] a particular colour of car which says a lot about you.
If you are saying that the sentences I have labeled b have the same meaning as those I have labeled a, you are mistaken

3) a. The colour of car you drive says a lot about you. -> Car is a prepositional object, but logically, it is the colour that is the object of car you drive. -> b. Car you drive has a particular colour which says a lot about you.
Sentence 3a is the same as sentence 2a. I don't see how the colour is the object of car you drive. Sentence 3b is not grammatical.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
If you are saying that the sentences I have labeled b have the same meaning as those I have labeled a, you are mistaken

b is not a sentence actually. It's just my comment, analysis of sentence a.
Sorry if my writing is confusing.

You drive[STRIKE]s[/STRIKE]

You = "You", anyone who drives the car. That's why I italicized it.

Sentence 3b is not grammatical.

It's a comment too. I italicized car you drive, but not "has" after it. I didn't expect it would be so confusing. Sorry again.

Sentence 3a is the same as sentence 2a. I don't see how the colour is the object of car you drive.

Maybe I chose the wrong term. The colour of car you drive says a lot about you.
How would you analyze the part in blue syntactically and semantically? I mean the relationships between colour, car, you and drive.
 

Charlie Bernstein

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I would appreciate it if other members would participate in the thread.
Sorry. I have absolutely no idea what you're going on about. But I can say this:

"The color of the car you drive says a lot" is about you. It's about the car you actually drive. Whether or not I've ever seen it, I believe that it provides an insight into your personality.

"The color of car you drive says a lot" is about anyone who owns a car. It's a much more blanket statement. It means that, in general, the color of a person's car says something about that person.

I think that's all been said above, and I don't know whether it sheds any light on whatever it is you're trying to figure out. You should probably get back to dickering with Jut. Jut is good at it.

(Personally, I just buy whatever I can afford. I've had dozens of cars, and I've never chosen one for its color. And that should tell you a few things about me!)
 
Last edited:

GoesStation

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Joined
Dec 22, 2015
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I once found and bought a car when I was in a nearby city on business. When I told my wife about it, she asked what color it was. I said "Uh, well … car colored?" I've made it a practice to buy only car-colored cars ever since.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
"The color of the car you drive says a lot" is about you. It's about the car you actually drive. Whether or not I've ever seen it, I believe that it provides an insight into your personality.

The pronoun you can be general/non-referring = anyone or referring to a particular person. Let's take You should be careful on the road. If this statement is addressed to a particular person, you is referring. But if it's just a sign, you is non-referring and means anyone.

The color of the car you drive says a lot about you would also be a general statement with you meaning anyone if you saw it on a poster.

How would it differ from The color of car you drive says a lot about you, then?

"The color of car you drive says a lot" is about anyone who owns a car. It's a much more blanket statement. It means that, in general, the color of a person's car says something about that person.

Is the price of car also possible?

I don't know whether it sheds any light on whatever it is you're trying to figure out.

It does, really.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Charlie Bernstein

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Member Type
Other
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
. . . Is the price of car also possible? . . .
I don't know. Maybe. But if a car has a price, it's for sale. So it implies that the car hasn't been sold yet.

More likely:

- What you paid for a car . . . . / What you paid for your car. . . .

- What a car cost . . . . / What your car cost . . . .
 

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Is the price of car also possible?

Good question. I say yes. It fits alongside the other examples we've been discussing. It might not be very natural, but I think it can be analysed (semantically) in the same way as with the other 'category' words. The lack of article means there's no reference. The word car modifies the sense of price.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Good question. I say yes. It fits alongside the other examples we've been discussing. It might not be very natural, but I think it can be analysed (semantically) in the same way as with the other 'category' words. The lack of article means there's no reference. The word car modifies the sense of price.

I don't quite understand what you mean by category words. Let's take a) kind/type, b) cost/colour and c) door/wheel.

To me, b) is a way more closer to c) than to a) because the former are not features of a car, while (b-c) are. They are separate units semantically and objectively, while kind/type are not. And that's the reason I wouldn't say a door of car. We can say a colour/door/wheel are features or components of a car, but we can't say a kind is a feature of a car. Kind of car is a whole indivisible semantic unit.

That's why colour/size/cost of car sound so odd to me.

The lack of article means there's no reference. The word car modifies the sense of price.

But you drive modifies car, not the colour of car, right? Because we don't drive cars' colours. So car is semantically separate from the colour, which, again, is not the case with the type of car because we do drive types of cars. I can't understand why then that modifier doesn't make car definite.

I just can't tell the difference between two general statements with you meaning anyone:

The colour of the car you drive says a lot about you.
The colour of car you drive says a lot about you.


 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
I don't quite understand what you mean by category words. Let's take a) kind/type, b) cost/colour and c) door/wheel.

To me, b) is a way more closer to c) than to a) because the former are not features of a car, while (b-c) are. They are separate units semantically and objectively, while kind/type are not. And that's the reason I wouldn't say a door of car. We can say a colour/door/wheel are features or components of a car, but we can't say a kind is a feature of a car. Kind of car is a whole indivisible semantic unit.

Hmm. I think I've explained what I mean very badly again. Let me try a completely different approach.

Think about compound nouns. For example, this:

car door

I'm suggesting that the word car does not 'refer' to any car that exists either in the real world, or in the mind. That's what I mean when I say it has 'no reference'. All it does is categorise the kind of door (the function it has, the form it has, the 'type' it is) that we're talking about. It isn't a bedroom door or a garage door or a patio door.

Similarly, with the compound noun nail polish colour, the modifying phrase nail polish doesn't refer to any nail polish. It's just a way of determining which 'kind' of colour we're talking about. If I ask you what your favourite nail polish colour is, you might respond 'Ruby Tuesday, by Max Factor'.

Well, I see the pattern X of NP (where NP is a noun phrase with a zero article) to mean that of NP signifies a kind of X. In other words:

colour of car = car colour
size of shoe = shoe size
flavour of ice cream = ice cream flavour


Does that make sense? Whether you agree or not, do you follow what I mean?



But you drive modifies car, not the colour of car, right? Because we don't drive cars' colours.

Yes.

So car is semantically separate from the colour, which, again, is not the case with the type of car because we do drive types of cars.

But we don't drive types of cars. We drive cars, not types. We drive cars of certain types.

I can't understand why then that modifier doesn't make car definite.

This is very tricky because I agree that the modifier you drive does make car definite to some extent. That's what defining relative clauses do—they 'define' (make definite) the NPs they modify. But I think I want to say that although car you drive is definite, the wider NP colour of car you drive is not definite. Honestly, I think this is very confusing and I'd rather keep things as simple as possible. Can we focus only on what I've said above about car colour = colour of car for the time being at least. I want to know if what I'm saying makes sense. Thanks.

I just can't tell the difference between two general statements with you meaning anyone:

The colour of the car you drive says a lot about you.
The colour of car you drive says a lot about you.

I'd parse it like this:

a) The colour of the car you drive
b) The colour of car you drive

I don't know if that helps. The idea is that in a) the bold NP has reference to an actual car, and you drive defines which actual car I'm talking about, whereas in b) the PP of car tells us which kind of colour we're talking about.

So with this view, b) doesn't actually make sense because you can't drive a colour. Another way of phrasing b) is: The car colour you drive.

I'm not sure why b) seems to make sense, however. I think it's because we'd naturally interpret it to mean The colour of car [of the car] you drive.

That's the best way I have of understanding it, anyway.
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
Does that make sense? Whether you agree or not, do you follow what I mean?

I think I follow you. But... while car door and car colour are similar in being non-referential kinds of things, a difference appears when we reformulate them:
car colour = kind of colour = colour of car
car door = kind of door = [STRIKE]door of car[/STRIKE] (?) Door of a car would be a thing, not a kind, right?

You say this is because colour is somewhat different from door, i.e. it's a category word. It's still not clear to me what you mean by that, given that car door and car colour are both mean categories.

But we don't drive types of cars. We drive cars, not types. We drive cars of certain types.

Believe it or not, I knew you would say that.:) Yes, literally speaking we can't drive types. It's a metonymy. Every car is of some kind.

a) What kind of car you drive? = b) Of what kind is the car you drive?

The
car
is still there in a); it's just hidden under the kind of car.

So, The kind of car you drive says a lot about you = The car you drive says a lot about you.

But if we apply this method to colour, the result would either make no sense (1) or be irrelevant (2):

1) The colour of car you drive says a lot about you = The colour you drive says a lot about you.
2) The colour of car you drive says a lot about you = The car you drive says a lot about you.

But I think I want to say that although car you drive is definite, the wider NP colour of car you drive is not definite.

Not definite? Isn't it the colour of car?

Can we focus only on what I've said above about car colour = colour of car for the time being at least. I want to know if what I'm saying makes sense. Thanks.

Maybe it would sound funny, but your explanation does make sense, although, I don't fully understand it.

a) The colour of the car you drive
b) The colour of car you drive

I don't know if that helps. The idea is that in a) the bold NP has reference to an actual car, and you drive defines which actual car I'm talking about, whereas in b) the PP of car tells us which kind of colour we're talking about.

That's exactly how I understand and... don't understand the difference at the same time, which you very clearly formulated here:

So with this view, b) doesn't actually make sense because you can't drive a colour. Another way of phrasing b) is: The car colour you drive.

I'm not sure why b) seems to make sense, however. I think it's because we'd naturally interpret it to mean The colour of car [of the car] you drive.

Do you think we can consider The colour of car [of the car] you drive a metonymy, which is basically a kind of speech and meaning compression?
 

Alexey86

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Russian Federation
Current Location
Russian Federation
I think I understood what you meant be category words. They refer to the features of a car as a whole: every car is of some size, weight, shape, colour, price. But we can't say of some door or steering wheel. Is that correct?

Would you just give me a context or two where you would only use the colour of the car?
Q: Alexey, what do you think about my new car and boat?
A: I like the colour of the boat but I don't like the colour of the car.

There's reference to the colour and the car and the boat, which is why the speaker uses the.

Would you please give me an example or two in which only the colour of car would work so that I could better see its difference from the colour of the car?
 
Last edited:

jutfrank

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
Do you think we can consider The colour of car [of the car] you drive a metonymy, which is basically a kind of speech and meaning compression?

I think that's a good idea, yes. In fact, I was close to mentioning that in my last post. It makes sense to me to think of it as metonymy.

I think I understood what you meant be category words. They refer to the features of a car as a whole: every car is of some size, weight, shape, colour, price. But we can't say of some door or steering wheel. Is that correct?

Yes, exactly.

Would you please give me an example or two in which only the colour of car would work so that I could better see its difference from the colour of the car?

To do this, I don't need to use the before colour. I only need to use a zero article before car. So:

Car salesman: Hello, Sir. Welcome to our showroom. We do things a little differently here—first, you choose which colour and size of car you would like and then we'll suggest a make of car to suit your preferences. Is that okay?
Customer: Yes, fine.
Car salesman: So what colour of car would Sir like?
Customer: Yellow.
Car salesman: Very good, Sir. And what size of car?
Customer: Extra large.
Car salesman: Excellent choice, Sir.
Customer: So what make of car do you suggest?
Car salesman: I suggest a Lamberrari Cointreau AG-762 Turbo.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top