Articles in noun chains

[Nonverbis]

That's what I was asking in post 12. Why do you need to quote a book or cite a source?

I have already answered in post 14. Anyway, it is offtopic. We discuss me and my goals whereas the question itself is not discussed at all.

It is a simple question. At least it must be simple. And the material is for secondary school children. But somehow I can't find the explanation in textbooks. Maybe this is too obvious for everybody. Look at the discussion. None of you has even told anything on the subject.

You yourself advised me a book. I have found it. If I'm not mistaken. But where in the book is there anything on the subject?

 

[5jj]

None of you has even told anything on the subject.

As two of us have pointed out, jutfrank gave you a very good response, in which he did give you useful information on the subject.

 

[Nonverbis]

As two of us have pointed out, jutfrank gave you a very good response, in which he did give you useful information on the subject.

I don't consider it useful. In answers by jutfrank a compound noun was mentioned.

https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/threads/289014-Articles-in-noun-chains?p=1721455#post1721455

If I'm not mistaken, it is not a compound noun. A compound noun is something that can be found in a dictionary. Like basketball or bookstore.

What I am asking about is a noun chain. Like cotton yarn production. Such chains are hardly be called compound nouns. And definitely no dictionary will pay special attention to them as a noun. It is not a nount but a phrase.
This grammar notion is called something like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct
Or noun + noun sometimes. Anyway, maybe not a compound nouns, though I may be wrong.

The individual words pump and war have no bearing on article use because they are only modifiers to their head words (house and damage).

This would suit me if it were written in a textbook. But I didn't ask for explanation.
It is obvious for all of us that there are no articles there. Because each of us has come across this many times.

So. No explanations required. I asked only for a textbook quotation: where to read this.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I have already answered that in post 14. Anyway, it is off [space] topic. We're discussing me and my goals, whereas the question itself is not discussed at all.

We asked about your purpose because you're not looking for our opinions, you're looking for a text. Naturally, we wondered why. So we asked, and you sort of told us.

It is a simple question.

Yes, it is: You asked why house has an article but damage does not. It's because house is countable and damage, in the sense of war damage, probably isn't — although without the context we can't say for sure.

Again, I'm sure you can find the topic of articles and countable in nouns lots of books.

At least it must be simple. And the material is for secondary school children. But somehow I can't find the explanation in textbooks. Maybe this is too obvious for everybody. Look at the discussion. None of you has even told anything on the subject.

We've given you answers, and we've named books.

You yourself suggested a book. I have found it, if I'm not mistaken. But where in the book is there anything on the subject?

I don't know.

That's the best I can do.

 

[probus]

This thread reminds me of Nikita Kruschev banging his shoe on the lectern.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Nonverbis, can you give us the two phrases in complete sentences? It will give us a better a sense of what you're looking for. That's why we ask students to give us complete sentences.

 

[probus]

People who know their onions recognize Usingenglish.com for its high-quality answers.

 

[jutfrank]

You don't seem to understand your own question, Nonverbis. It is not true that the words pump and war are not used without articles, so your question is all wrong. I've already told you that the countability of any noun phrase relates to the head word, not to any modifiers of the head word. I'm not convinced you've understood what that means.

You seem to be confused about the basics of article usage, so I suggest (again) you start there.

 

[5jj]

If I'm not mistaken, it is not a compound noun.

You are.