a/an: generic or specific reference

[sitifan]

Whether we find a joke funny or not largely depends on where we have been brought up. The sense of humour is mysteriously bound up with national characteristics. A Frenchman, for instance, might find it hard to laugh at a Russian joke. In the same way, a Russian might fail to see anything amusing in a joke which would make an Englishman laugh to tears.
Source: https://www.enfamily.cn/thread-15848-1-1.html
Are the nouns with a/an in bold generic or specific?

 

[5jj]

Do you think one specific Frenchman (or Russian joke/Russian/joke/Englishman) is being referred to?

 

[sitifan]

Do you think one specific Frenchman (or Russian joke/Russian/joke/Englishman) is being referred to?

In the quotation “a joke which would make an Englishman laugh to tears”, one specific type of joke is being referred to.

 

[5jj]

It's a type of joke, not a specific joke.

 

[jutfrank]

The relative clause does restrict the head noun joke but such restriction doesn't make it mean one specific joke. As 5jj says, it makes it a kind of joke.

 

[emsr2d2]

Whether we find a joke funny or not largely depends on where we have been brought up. The sense of humour is mysteriously bound up with national characteristics. A Frenchman, for instance, might find it hard to laugh at a Russian joke. In the same way, a Russian might fail to see anything amusing in a joke which would make an Englishman laugh to tears.

Source: https://www.enfamily.cn/thread-15848-1-1.html

I clicked on the link to see if the original paragraph was written by a native speaker. I suspected it wasn't and I was right. I've marked in bold the parts that caused my suspicion:

1. I'd expect either "A" or "Our".
2. I've never seen or used that expression. I'd expect "make an English person cry with laughter" or "reduce an English person to tears". Context would make it clear that we didn't mean it would reduce them to tears of sorrow.

You might notice that I changed "Englishman" to "English person" above. I would have done the same with "Frenchman" if I'd quoted that part. These days, especially in professional situations, you have to be careful not to suggest that you're including just one gender. There's no alternative to "French person" in this context. However, if the writer had included the rest of Britain, not just England, they could have said "a Brit".

(As a side note, I'd point out that the example of "sick humour" in that link is nowhere near sick enough to class as a sick joke in the UK. It's not particularly funny even as a standard joke but it doesn't reach the threshold of a truly sick joke.)

 

[jutfrank]

I clicked on the link to see if the original paragraph was written by a native speaker. I suspected it wasn't and I was right.

Can I ask how you know? I reckon this is a native speaker using old-fashioned language.

 

[sitifan]

Can I ask how you know? I reckon this is a native speaker using old-fashioned language.

It is quoted from Longman's New Concept English by L. G. Alexander, which is a popular English language textbook teaching the British rules of English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Concept_English

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, it has that mid-twentieth century semi-academic style.

 

[emsr2d2]

Fair enough. I can see how someone in the mid-twentieth century would still have used "Englishman" as a cover-all for English people but I've never heard "make someone laugh to tears" in my life!