those feathers

[svetlana14]

5:25. Why did she say those feathers, looking at her friend who put them on. The grammar rules (that is to say, Cambridge Grammar of English by Ronald Cartner and Michael McCarthy, 196f) say that that and those are referred to object which may not be easily identified from the situation?

 

[emsr2d2]

It's entirely natural and grammatical. It's used to specify that she's talking about the feathers right in front of her rather than any other feathers that exist in the world. What word did you think she should have used instead of "Those"?

 

[svetlana14]

It's entirely natural and grammatical. It's used to specify that she's talking about the feathers right in front of her rather than any other feathers that exist in the world. What word did you think she should have used instead of "Those"?

These to be these feathers? These vs. those is the point that's unclear for me in the given context. Following the above-mentioned grammar rule, I would use those as the reference to the feathers, that is to say, she could try before and these for the dress she is trying at the moment of speaking (when her friend says that (these) the feathers suit her perfectly).

 

[jutfrank]

You've misunderstood the difference between 'these' and 'those'. Tell us again your interpretation of the grammar rule you've learned and we'll tell you what you've got wrong.

 

[svetlana14]

You've misunderstood the difference between 'these' and 'those'. Tell us again your interpretation of the grammar rule you've learned and we'll tell you what you've got wrong.

The rule is: "The most common function of this and these is to point to things and people which are close to the speaker/writer in time and space. The most common use of that and those is to refer to objects and people which may not be easily identified from the situation. That and those are used to refer to things which are more distant in time and space, even though it may be possible to see such things..."




Actually there are two dresses in the episode: the one which is on the first lady and the second one (stretching) which in the hands of the second one. I thought that the feathers refer to the dress which is being tried on by the first lady and which is the third lady talking about as those feathers?

 

[jutfrank]

Now I'm confused about which dress you're talking about.

A: Don't I look hot?
B: Those feathers are really pretty.

B is referring to the black dress being tried on by A. Person B uses those because the feathers are distant in space from her.

 

[svetlana14]

Now I'm confused about which dress you're talking about.

A: Don't I look hot?
B: Those feathers are really pretty.

B is referring to the black dress being tried on by A.

Why did she use those instead of these? If the mentioned grammar rules are used, aren't the feathers close and easily identifiable as the rules suggest?

 

[jutfrank]

Use this simplified rule: If you're holding something in your hand or touching it in some way, use this/these and if you're not holding something in your hand or touching it, use that/those. If you're referring to something that another person has in her hands or is touching, use that/those if you yourself are not touching it.

In other words, if I'm wearing or holding a dress I call it 'this dress' and if you're wearing or holding a dress I call it 'that dress'.

 

[svetlana14]

Use this simplified rule: If you're holding something in your hand or touching it in some way, use this/these and if you're not holding something in your hand or touching it, use that/those. If you're referring to something that another person has in her hands or is touching, use that/those if you yourself are not touching it.

In other words, if I'm wearing or holding a dress I call it 'this dress' and if you're wearing or holding a dress I call it 'that dress'.

What's about the rule mentioned by me: does it explain such nuanses? I was focusing on the distance and immediate availability (identification) of the thing (the dress) as the marker for those/these to use. For me, it was evident from the dialogue that the dress is in front of the speaker, who is looking at it (so it is close and available). That made me to chose these (strictly following the rule?) Am I wrong thinking in that way?

 

[Piscean]

Where did you find your 'rule'?, svetlana? jutfrank's simplified rule is more useful

 

[svetlana14]

Where did you find your 'rule'?, svetlana? jutfrank's simplified rule is more useful

Cambridge Grammar of English by Ronald Cartner and Michael McCarthy, 196f

 

[svetlana14]

Where did you find your 'rule'?, svetlana? jutfrank's simplified rule is more useful

fhttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/this-that-these-those Those rules are also not helpful as applicable to my specific context. Can I say that when there is one thing which is CLOSE (in my firends hand and I can see it) but is not in my hand, I should use jutfrank's simplified rule. The problem is that most of books and other sources use mostly "things which are close or at a distance" to make the difference: it is confusing as one thing could be close to me but not in my hand or I cannot touch it otherwise.

 

[jutfrank]

The problem, for you at least, with Carter and McCarthy's rule is this part:

The most common use of 'that' and 'those' is to refer to objects and people which may not be easily identified from the situation.

This is the part that has misled you and I can understand why. As you say, the feathers do seem to be fairly easily identifiable so your way of thinking is understandable. In my opinion, the way that the authors have expressed the rule is quite unclear because it's hard to say what "easily identified from the situation" actually means..

 

[jutfrank]

Can I say that when there is one thing which is CLOSE (in my firends hand and I can see it) but is not in my hand, I should use jutfrank's simplified rule.

Yes.

The problem is that most of books and other sources use mostly "things which are close or at a distance" to make the difference: it is confusing as one thing could be close to me but not in my hand or I cannot touch it otherwise.

Yes, it's very hard to understand the difference between something being close and at a distance. This is why we're trying to simplify things for you.

 

[Piscean]

C and M also say, slightly more helpfully, also:

In general, this and these can be said to be speaker-oriented [...].
In general, that and those can be said it be listener-oriented, or oriented towards a third person, place or entity [...].

 

[güey]

Can I say that when there is one thing which is CLOSE (in my firends hand and I can see it) but is not in my hand, I should use jutfrank's simplified rule.

Although you keep saying the dress is "close" to the speaker, it is actually not, it is at a (relative) distance and that's how it's perceived by the speaker.
This is from the link in #11:
We use that and those most commonly to point to things and people which are not easy to identify in a situation. They are often more distant from the speaker, and sometimes closer to the listener:

I would use those as the reference to the feathers, that is to say, she could try before and these for the dress she is trying at the moment of speaking (when her friend says

This could work but in a different context. Say, she tries on a feather-adorned dress, takes it off and puts on another feathered dress. Then the speaker could say something like, These feathers look prettier, stressing these (because the feathers are closer in time even though not in distance).