A kagaroo is the national animal of Australia: Indefinite article

[English maniac]

Hello Teachers,
Greetings.
Is it grammatically correct to say
"A kangaroo is the national animal of Australia"?
I know we can use "a/an" or "the" to refer to a whole class of people or things. I am concerned about the use of "a" before "kangaroo" in this particular context, which somehow seems a bit more specific to me and makes me think that only "the" is natural English.
Many many thanks for your help in advance.

 

[Skrej]

Either is grammatically correct, but they carry different meanings.

Using 'the national animal' means that there is only one national animal of Australia.

Using 'a national animal' means that there are several national animals, and the kangaroo is one of them.

Edit: If you can trust Wikipedia, Australia does have two national animals, so 'a national animal' may be the better choice if you're concerned about making your sentence accutate as well as grammatically correct.

Edit #2. I guess though, that one is a national animal, and the other is a national bird. So depending upon how semantically accurate you wish to be, perhaps 'the national animal' is the most accurate choice.

 

[SoothingDave]

I think you missed his question. It should be "The kangaroo."

Saying "A kangaroo is the national animal of Australia" makes it sound like it is one specific kangaroo.

 

[Skrej]

Yup, I misread and focused on the wrong article.

Agree, it should be 'the'.

 

[English maniac]

Thank you very much, SoothingDave and Skerj. You guys have been really nice and helpful. It's my first post on the forum, and I hope to learn a lot from you all knowledgeable members.
Don't we also use the indefinite article to determine a whole class? We do. "A/ The tiger is ferocious by nature." Then what makes "the" obligatory here, or is it?
Thanks a bunch.

 

[Tdol]

The indefinite article carries a meaning similar to any when talking about a whole class, which doesn't really fit when talking about a national symbol.

 

[Boris Tatarenko]

Can we say "Kangaroo is the national animal of Australia."?

 

[Boris Tatarenko]

I'm still wondering if it's OK to say: "Kangaroos are the national animal of Austrlia."

;-)

 

[Skrej]

Actually, this works for me. I don't see a problem with it.

 

[Skrej]

If you consider 'kangaroos' as a collective noun, there isn't the agreement issue.

 

[Skrej]

A difference of perception, then.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Kangaroos applies to more than one animal.

 

[teechar]

I've only heard such expressions in the singular.

 

[Tdol]

Actually, this works for me. I don't see a problem with it.

It sounds OK to me too.

 

[MikeNewYork]

For me, it only works with the definite article. A singular kangaroo is not the national animal. The kangaroo (representing the kangaroo in general) works.

 

[Tdol]

Given the degree of disagreement over the plural version, it's safe to say that the kangaroo is the best form to use.

 

[Raymott]

I could be pedantic and say that it is a kangaroo that is our emblem, the red kangaroo, Macropus rufus. That is, there are several types of kangaroo, and only one is the emblem.

 

[SoothingDave]

Is that the one with the boxing gloves? :-D

 

[MikeNewYork]

What about the green kangaroo? :-D

 

[SoothingDave]

No, there were green alligators, and long-necked geese...