[Grammar] Use of "the" before the inhabitants of a country- Indians/The Indians

[Sahil Dhankhar]

This is not my homework.

In his book "A Remedial English Grammar For Foreign Students", Frederick T. Wood states -
"Put the before nouns which name the inhabitants of a country collectively or as a community, but not before the names of their languages.
Examples- the British, the Indians, ..."
Just next to this, he states-
"Plural nouns standing for the people of a particular country, however, are not preceded by the if the people in question are thought of individually.
Indians have dark skins.
Russians drink vodka."

Would someone explain the term "thought of individually" to me along with some examples of context in which the inhabitants of a country will be preceded by the and not precede by the.

 

[jutfrank]

Despite having a very impressive T. in the middle of his name, Frederick T. Wood has completely missed the target on this. I don't know what he was thinking when he wrote the phrase, but thought of individually is a very poor way to explain this rule. In fact, it's quite the opposite in a sense.

The rule of article usage for the following examples is the same here as for nouns in general: use zero article (no the) when you mean to make generalisations about classes of things:

Indians have dark skins.
Norwegians have pale skins.
People have two legs.
Tables have four legs.

The challenge for a writer of a grammar book is to provide a rule for any exception to this. Here are a couple of examples where the above rule is problematic:

Britishes have bad teeth.
Frenches have big noses.
Dutches are tall.
Japaneses are short.

Apart from being harmful stereotypes and factually dubious, the above generalsations of nationalities do not work for pronunciation reasons. In each case, we are forced to produce an extra syllable at the end of each nationality word. This is because of their final consonants. To get around this 'problem' we must say:

The British have great dental health.
The French are charming and attractive.
The Dutch are progressive and forward-thinking.
The Japanese are strong and industrious.

The meaning remains the same: we are making group generalisations.

Among the nationalities that need a the are ones ending:

-ese
-ish
-ch

 

[Sahil Dhankhar]

Excellent explanation.
But, kindly have a look at this text from Practical English Usage by Michael Swan.
"When we generalise about members of a group, we usually use no article. But if we talk about the group as a whole- as if it was a well-known-unit- we are more likely to use the
This often happens when we talk about nationalities. compare-
New Zealanders don't like to be mistaken for Australians.
The Australians suffered heavy loses in the First World War."

 

[jutfrank]

When we generalise about members of a group, we usually use no article. But if we talk about the group as a whole- as if it was a well-known-unit- we are more likely to use the
This often happens when we talk about nationalities. compare-

New Zealanders don't like to be mistaken for Australians.
The Australians suffered heavy loses in the First World War.

Yes, that's correct. If you use the before Australians, (as in the second sentence), then you are specifying. The second sentence is not a generalisation. It's just a fact based on evidence (i.e. the number of reported casualties.)

 

[Sahil Dhankhar]

So, would it be incorrect?-
1-Australians suffered heavy loses in the First World War.

2-The New Zealanders don't like to be mistaken for The Australians.

 

[GoesStation]

Number one will be okay if you correct a spelling error. Can you find the mistake?

Number two is not natural, and the second "the" should not be capitalized. It, and the first one, don't belong there anyway.

 

[Sahil Dhankhar]

I think losses is the correct word.
"It, and the first one, don't belong there anyway." Are you hinting at facts?

 

[jutfrank]

So, would it be incorrect?-
1-Australians suffered heavy loses in the First World War.

2-The New Zealanders don't like to be mistaken for The Australians.

1) Yes, that's incorrect. You need the here because you are specifying.
2) Yes, that 's incorrect. Don't use the here because you are generalising.

Not that 2) might be said by some people in some contexts, but don't worry about that. Just focus on understanding the logic for now.

 

[GoesStation]

I think losses is the correct word. :tick:
"It, and the first one, don't belong there anyway." Are you hinting at facts?

I don't understand the question. Can you ask it with different words?

 

[Sahil Dhankhar]

"It, and the first one, don't belong there anyway."
I didn't get the meaning of the above sentence. kindly explain a bit.

 

[Roman55]

Look at sentence 2 in post #5. It refers to the word 'the' before Australians, and the first one refers to the word 'the' before New Zealanders.

 

[GoesStation]

... the second "the" should not be capitalized. It, and the first one, don't belong there anyway.

"It, and the first one, don't belong there anyway."
I didn't get the meaning of the above sentence. kindly explain a bit.

"It" refers to "the second the". "The first one" refers to the first the in the passage.