[Grammar] Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron

[kadioguy]

We say The Washington Post, but say Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron (without 'the').

Could you tell me why?

Is it like things in "'the General' but 'General John'"? Can we say 'we don't use an article before titles if the title is used before a name'?

--------
(The source)

 

[Tarheel]

I'm fairly sure it's a stylistic thing. (They can use their name any way they like. )

 

[kadioguy]

I'm fairly sure it's a stylistic thing. (They can use their name any way they like.)

But it seems more like to me that we don't use an article before titles if the title is used before a name. :-?


PS - How about this?

the Washington Post's executive editor Martin Baron

 

[GoesStation]

The phrase tells us what kind of executive editor Martin Barrow is. No article is possible.

 

[GoesStation]

PS - How about this?

the Washington Post's executive editor Martin Baron

It needs a comma.

 

[kadioguy]

It needs a comma.

A. Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron
B. the Washington Post's executive editor, Martin Baron

C. He is the General.
D. He is General John.
E. He is the general/General, John.

Are they all correct?

 

[GoesStation]

A. Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron
B. the Washington Post's executive editor, Martin Baron

C. He is the General.
D. He is General John.
E. He is the [STRIKE]general/[/STRIKE]General, John.

Are they all correct?

Yes. I started to change "John" to "Johnson", which is a more typical last name, but then I remembered a family named John who used to live in town.

 

[jutfrank]

It needs a comma.

Not if it's used appositively.

This is the same kind of example as Avatar's director James Cameron, which appeared in another post yesterday.

 

[jutfrank]

We say The Washington Post,

Sometimes but not always. We need an article when one is needed.

but say Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron (without 'the').

There's no need for an article there.

Is it like things in "'the General' but 'General John'"?

Not really, no.

Can we say 'we don't use an article before titles if the title is used before a name'?

It's not exactly a title, but you can think like that if you think it'll help.

 

[kadioguy]

Not if it's used appositively.

This is the same kind of example as Avatar's director James Cameron, which appeared in another post yesterday.

1. the Washington Post's executive editor, Martin Baron

2. the Washington Post's executive editor Martin Baron
----------
Aren't they both in apposition?

Please see:

A relationship between two or more words or phrases in which the two units are grammatically parallel and have the same referent (e.g. my friend Sue; the first US president, George Washington).

https://www.lexico.com/definition/apposition

 

[tzfujimino]

[...] it seems more like to me that [...][/I]

Off-topic
That's an interesting phrase.
Is it correct?

 

[jutfrank]

1. the Washington Post's executive editor, Martin Baron

2. the Washington Post's executive editor Martin Baron
----------
Aren't they both in apposition?

Yes, but very different kinds. The first is restrictive and the second is non-restrictive.

GoesStation is saying that when the appositive phrase is meant to be restrictive, only Washington Post executive editor is correct. The possessive form, with the definite article is only okay when it is meant as non-restrictive. I'm saying that I don't agree with that.

Anyway, we don't need to discuss this point in order to answer your question. We could just say that when an appositive noun phrase is meant to be restrictive, it is not usually necessary to make it longer than the shortest form possible. In other words, any articles and possessive apostrophes are not needed, and the shortest form will usually do.

 

[YAMATO2201]

Off-topic
That's an interesting phrase.
Is it correct?

I think kadioguy meant to say "... it seems more likely to me that ...".

 

[tedmc]

I think kadioguy meant to say "... it seems more likely to me that ...".

How about: ... it seems to me more like ...?

 

[kadioguy]

1. the Washington Post's executive editor, Martin Baron

2. the Washington Post's executive editor Martin Baron

Yes, but very different kinds. The first is restrictive and the second is non-restrictive.

Did you mean to say 'The first is non-restrictive and the second is restrictive'?

 

[kadioguy]

GoesStation is saying that when the appositive phrase is meant to be restrictive, only Washington Post executive editor is correct. The possessive form, with the definite article is only okay when it is meant as non-restrictive. I'm saying that I don't agree with that.

Anyway, we don't need to discuss this point in order to answer your question. We could just say that when an appositive noun phrase is meant to be restrictive, it is not usually necessary to make it longer than the shortest form possible. In other words, any articles and possessive apostrophes are not needed, and the shortest form will usually do.

A. Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron (restrictive)

B. Washington Post's executive editor Martin Baron (restrictive)

C. Washington Post's executive editor, Martin Baron (non-restrictive)

D. the Washington Post executive editor Martin Baron (restrictive)

E. the Washington Post's executive editor Martin Baron (restrictive)

F. the Washington Post's executive editor, Martin Baron (non-restrictive)


So all of them are correct, but (A) is most often be used. Is it right?

 

[jutfrank]

In B and C, use the at the beginning (to produce E and F).

In D, remove the (to produce A).