the choice of car vs the choice of a car

[Alexey86]

1. To them, the choice of a car is as important as the choice of a home or a spouse, and only a philistine would let a few dollars stand between him and the car he wants. (The New Yorker)

2. "The choice of car is a major cost-driver in terms of what you're going to pay for insurance", says Jeanne Salvatore, a spokesperson for the Insurance Information Institute. (Forbes)

What's the difference in meaning between the choice of car and the choice of a car?

 

[jutfrank]

It appears that the first is trying to say something like the freedom to choose a car/home/spouse. It isn't completely clear to me. Do you have more context? If so, is that right, do you think?

The second is very clear. It means which car you choose.

 

[Alexey86]

It appears that the first is trying to say something like the freedom to choose a car/home/spouse. It isn't completely clear to me. Do you have more context? If so, is that right, do you think?

You are right. Here's an excerpt:

Suppose that Car and Driver decided to tailor its grading system just to sports cars. Clearly, styling and the driving experience ought to count for much more. So let’s make exterior styling worth twenty-five per cent, the driving experience worth fifty per cent, and the balance of the criteria worth twenty-five per cent. The final tally now looks like this:

1. Lotus Evora 205

2. Porsche Cayman 198

3. Chevrolet Corvette 192.

There’s another thing funny about the Car and Driver system. Price counts only for twenty points, less than ten per cent of the total. There’s no secret why: Car and Driver is edited by auto enthusiasts. To them, the choice of a car is as important as the choice of a home or a spouse, and only a philistine would let a few dollars stand between him and the car he wants. (They leave penny-pinching to their frumpy counterparts at Consumer Reports.) But for most of us price matters...

So, for auto enthusiasts the freedom to choose a car is equally important as that of a home or a spouse.

 

[jutfrank]

There you go, then. Very different senses of the word choice.

 

[Alexey86]

The construction the choice of + noun allows both (zero) noun and a noun depending on context. But I've never seen the type of + a noun.
Can you think of any context where you would say the type of a car?

 

[jutfrank]

Yes.

The type of a car can tell you a lot about its driver.

This is like saying 'a car's type'. You can do the same kind of thing with other categories:

The colour of a car can tell you a lot about its driver.
The size of a car can tell you a lot about its driver.
The cost of a car can tell you a lot about its driver.

 

[Alexey86]

The type of a car can tell you a lot about its driver.

This is like saying 'a car's type'.

Hmm... Doesn't the type of car mean the same? I feel like changing its to the, though. Compare:

1. The type of car can tell you a lot about its driver.
2. The type of car can tell you a lot about the driver.

What do you think?

 

[jutfrank]

What do you think?

My goal was to give you examples using the article. The point was that they don't work without the articles. Working out why is how you get at the difference.

Compare my sentence to this one:

The type of car that a driver drives can tell you a lot about its driver.

The above sentence has the same meaning as my other one, but does not and cannot have an article. Does that help you see the difference in meaning?

By the way, please don't change my example. It doesn't matter a great deal whether you replace its with the, but on reflection I decided it would be better with its, so let's leave it in place.

 

[Alexey86]

The type of car that a driver drives can tell you a lot about its driver.

The above sentence has the same meaning as my other one, but does not and cannot have an article. Does that help you see the difference in meaning?

The type of car is an inseparable semantic unit, while the type of a car consists of two parts with the first functioning as a property of the second, so we can change the type to the color or some other feature.

Considering type as a separable feature, and as long as The colour of the car he drives can tell you a lot about him is correct, would this be correct:

The type of the car he drives can tell you a lot about him.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

The type of car is an inseparable semantic unit, while the type of a car consists of two parts with the first functioning as a property of the second, so we can change the type to the color or some other feature.

Considering type as a separable feature, and as long as The colour of the car he drives can tell you a lot about him is correct, would this be correct:

The type of the car he drives can tell you a lot about him.

No.

 

[Alexey86]

No.

1a) The colour of a car can tell you a lot about its driver.
1b) The colour of the car he drives can tell you a lot about him.

2a) The type of a car can tell you a lot about its driver.
2b) The type of the car he drives can tell you a lot about him.

Why are type and colour grammatically interchangeable in 1a) and 2a), but not in 1b) and 2b)?

 

[jutfrank]

The type of car is an inseparable semantic unit, while the type of a car consists of two parts with the first functioning as a property of the second, so we can change the type to the color or some other feature.

I'm not completely sure but I think you're on the right lines. Let me present this in a different way.

You can use certain 'category' words (that's my made-up term) in two quite distinct senses—as general abstract concepts and as a discrete labels of description. Let's take colour as an example.

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

In the sentence above, colour of car essentially means red or blue or black or yellow or pink. That is to say, the word colour has the sense of referring to a very particular wavelength of light. This is the sense we use when we say that 'green is a colour'. We're talking about one discrete thing among many. The speaker is thinking that there's a finite number of different colours available. Cars come in certain colours.

The colour of a T-shirt fades after several washes.

Here, the word colour refers to the idea of colour, as an abstract concept. It's an open, non-discrete class. That's why it can be followed by an indefinite noun phrase. We're not talking about the particular colour (pink or green) of the T-shirt, but about the general quality of colour itself.

If this difference isn't clear, let's try another category word: size. Similarly, size can refer to a very general abstract concept of extension in space, but it can also refer to one of a group of particular instantiations of the general concept—for example, small/medium/large.

The size of a man's hands can tell you a lot about him. [open class]
How much you spend in McDonald's depends on the size of drink you order. [discrete class]

Do you see? When you use a zero article, you're thinking about a discrete class, as opposed to an open one. It's the same with 'type', and other 'category' words.

Considering type as a separable feature, and as long as The colour of the car he drives can tell you a lot about him is correct, would this be correct:

The type of the car he drives can tell you a lot about him.

So in both those examples, you ought to use the zero article, because (I think) you're thinking about discrete classes. That is, you're thinking that cars come in certain discrete colours and types, and you can match these particular colours and types with particular character types.


(I live in hope that one day you might ask an easy question. Is that possible?)

 

[Rover_KE]

See Finding the Right Car For You by Iona Ferrari and Hiram Organ.

 

[jutfrank]

See Finding the Right Car For You by Iona Ferrari and Hiram Organ.

I have a rather splendid volume on auto theft, by Jack Okupe and Luca van Robben.

(I'll never be as good as you, Rover.)

 

[Alexey86]

You can use certain 'category' words (that's my made-up term) in two quite distinct senses—as general abstract concepts and as a discrete labels of description. Let's take colour as an example.

So in both those examples, you ought to use the zero article, because (I think) you're thinking about discrete classes. That is, you're thinking that cars come in certain discrete colours and types, and you can match these particular colours and types with particular character types.

I would be happy with your explanation if I hadn't found these examples (all found on fraze.it):

a) He had chosen paint that matched the color of the temple as closely as possible.
b) This turned out to be true, she said, as evidenced by the color of the clusters.
c) Additionally, the color of the rocks can affect the organisms living on a shore.
d) He had seen the hit and run and had taken down the license and color of the car.

Aren't all these colors discrete? The temple has a particular color -> the color of the temple. The same goes for the others examples.
Would you please try to explain the difference between The colour of car you drive says a lot about you and The colour of the car you drive says a lot about you one more time?

(I live in hope that one day you might ask an easy question. Is that possible?)

The next one will be easier.

See Finding the Right Car For You by Iona Ferrari and Hiram Organ.

Google can't find it.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

1a) The colour of a car can tell you a lot about its driver.

Good.

1b) The colour of the car he drives can tell you a lot about him.

Good. It would also be fine without "the" in some contexts, but the meaning would be slightly different. Since there's no context, I can just say that the sentence is fine.

2a) The type of [STRIKE]a[/STRIKE] car can tell you a lot about its driver.

I can't say using an article isn't grammatical, but I do know that it's much more natural without it.

2b) The type of [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] car he drives can tell you a lot about him.

See 2a.

Why are type and colour grammatically interchangeable in 1a) and 2a), but not in 1b) and 2b)?

I don't know. I know more about usage than grammar.

In fact, you know more about English grammar than I do.

 

[jutfrank]

I would be happy with your explanation if I hadn't found these examples (all found on fraze.it):

a) He had chosen paint that matched the color of the temple as closely as possible.
b) This turned out to be true, she said, as evidenced by the color of the clusters.
c) Additionally, the color of the rocks can affect the organisms living on a shore.
d) He had seen the hit and run and had taken down the license and color of the car.

Aren't all these colors discrete? The temple has a particular color -> the color of the temple. The same goes for the others examples.

Yes, that's right. Obviously, all of those examples use definite articles in definite noun phrases. Please let's not bring definite articles into this. At least, not in this thread. It's going to make everything much more complicated, and much harder to explain and understand. I'd focus solely on the use of the zero article, if I were you.

Would you please try to explain the difference between The colour of car you drive says a lot about you and The colour of the car you drive says a lot about you one more time?

I really don't want to get into definite articles here. I can't explain the difference without a lot of effort. I'll just say that the second sentence is probably what you mean, and I think you already know what the is doing there.

Again, I suggest you focus on the zero article use.

colour of car
make of car
type of car

These are all ways of referring to certain, particular colours, makes, and types. We don't need an article before car because it isn't necessary: There is no car being referred to.

The next one will be easier.

I'll hold you to that.

Google can't find it.

It was a joke. It isn't a real book.

 

[Alexey86]

I don’t know how to reconcile (1) with (2):

(1)

The type of a car can tell you a lot about its driver.

This is like saying 'a car's type'. You can do the same kind of thing with other categories:

The colour of a car can tell you a lot about its driver.
The size of a car can tell you a lot about its driver.
The cost of a car can tell you a lot about its driver.

My goal was to give you examples using the article. The point was that they don't work without the articles.

(2)

2a) The type of [STRIKE]a [/STRIKE]car can tell you a lot about its driver.

I can't say using an article isn't grammatical, but I do know that it's much more natural without it.

If I got them correctly, these statements are at odds. jutfrank says The type of a car can tell you a lot about its driver requires the article, while Charlie says that not only is the indefinite article unnecessary there, but it's unnatural. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I really don't want to get into definite articles here. I can't explain the difference without a lot of effort.

I can relate. It's important to remind ourselves that this forum is a hobby, not a job.

I'll just say that the second sentence is probably what you mean, and I think you already know what the is doing there.

I don't. Honestly.

Again, I suggest you focus on the zero article use.

colour of car
make of car
type of car

These are all ways of referring to certain, particular colours, makes, and types. We don't need an article before car because it isn't necessary: There is no car being referred to.

I don't quite get that. We can run the anaphor test:

The colour of car you drive says a lot about you. So does its size.

We couldn't use its if there were no car being referred to in the first sentence. Am I wrong?

 

[jutfrank]

If I got them correctly, these statements are at odds. jutfrank says The type of a car can tell you a lot about its driver requires the article, while Charlie says that not only is the indefinite article unnecessary there, but it's unnatural. Correct me if I'm wrong.

What can I say? The article is necessary. It's wrong without it. That's exactly the reason I chose this example!

I can relate. It's important to remind ourselves that this forum is a hobby, not a job.

You know I'm happy to help you understand things if I feel I'm getting somewhere. Sometimes it feels like I'm trying to provide a neverending explanation. Please tell me that all of the effort I've ever made in trying to explain how I think reference works has enlightened you in some way at least. I'm getting close to the point where I feel that if my explanations are no longer helping you, then you'll not make any more progress unless you start exploring for yourself some of the main philosophical ideas about how its possible to make sense of the world using language, and how use of language can reveal how we make sense of the world.

I don't. Honestly.

You do. The word the does what it always does. It does the only thing it can do. Every time you see the word the, you can be sure that it's a way for the speaker to make specific reference to something. That means that he has something particular in mind.

I don't quite get that. We can run the anaphor test:

The colour of car you drive says a lot about you. So does its size.

We couldn't use its if there were no car being referred to in the first sentence. Am I wrong?

Yes. The sentence is wrong. It needs the before car for it to make sense. The fact that you've added So does its size tells me that you're thinking of the antecedent of its as the car instead of the colour, which is a misinterpretation. You can't drive colours.

Think of the colour of car as equivalent in meaning to the car's colour or the car colour. It's about the colour, not the car. Think of the word car in the phrase as saying the type of colour. There are different types of colours—car colours, nail polish colours, pen colours, etc. There's no reference to any cars, nail polishes, or pens because those words just say what type of colour.

 

[Alexey86]

Please tell me that all of the effort I've ever made in trying to explain how I think reference works has enlightened you in some way at least.

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.

you'll not make any more progress unless you start exploring for yourself some of the main philosophical ideas about how its possible to make sense of the world using language, and how use of language can reveal how we make sense of the world.

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.

Think of the colour of car as equivalent in meaning to the car's colour or the car colour. It's about the colour, not the car. Think of the word car in the phrase as saying the type of colour. There are different types of colours—car colours, nail polish colours, pen colours, etc. There's no reference to any cars, nail polishes, or pens because those words just say what type of colour.

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

Think of the colour of car as equivalent in meaning to the car's colour or the car colour. It's about the colour, not the car.

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. 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.

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?