Talk:The

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 February 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to Article (grammar)..

The may be used to replace the adjective "preeminent", as in "the hospital of choice for back problems"

In this case, the "the" is required even when using "preeminent", so it can hardly be said to be replacing it: "the preeminent hospital of choice..." (And in fact, "of choice" does the job just as well.) Additionally, the example phrase "five apples the dollar" does not parse in my idiolect. It could be "five apples a dollar" or perhaps "five apples to the dollar", however. --Brion

No, you've got it backwards. He's not saying that "preeminent" replaces "the", but "the" properly emphasized can mean "preeminent." Eg., "The hostipal of choice" is equivelant to "The preeminent hospital of choice" as long as the speaker or writer properly emphasizes "the."

I have the "a" versions of distribution on the A, an page. As for the adjective business, something happens there with the the that is more than just the definite article and there ought to be some way to express that. I thought first it was emphasis, which it is in speech, but I think you can write the preeminent whatever as the whatever and make that work too, but I'm less sure. Maybe written requires italics. Ortolan88 10:33 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)

Fixed. Ortolan88 15:49 Sep 28, 2002 (UTC)

Contents 1 Some excisions... 2 Anthony Appleyard's revert of 17 Feb 2006 to his version of 7 Feb 2006 3 The "The Whatever" 4 Wikipedia is not a dictionary 5 Writing about the word "the" 6 Application of article in cultures 7 Teh

[edit] Some excisions...

The can also mean "sufficient", as in "lacked the gumption to make his move".

I've removed the foregoing part. Use of "the" as "sufficient" is not a notable phenomenon; what's happening in the above is that the is performing one of the basic functions of the definite article, which is narrowing down a general term to be more specific. Plain-old nonspecific "gumption" is rendered specific "gumption to make a move." In this case it does happen to be "sufficient gumption" but that's due in particular to "to make a move" rather than a basic function of the.

(Likewise, the doesn't really mean "desired" simply because "this is the one I want" refers to the "desired" one, and the doesn't really mean "red" simply because "the woman in red" refers to the "red" woman.)

It can also be used as a possessive pronoun, as in "cannot walk right since the ankle went"

I've removed this one for similar reasons. Here the happens to be akin to "my" for the same reason that the happens to be akin to "sufficient," "desired," and "red" in the earlier examples. It's just a definite article making a nonspecific thing a specific thing (although, in contrast to the earlier examples, the specificity of the as "my" is implied rather than explicit [as in the as "red," above]).

... as an expression of a ratio, as in "five apples the dollar"

I'm removing this not because it's necessarily incorrect, but for two reasons: first, I suspect it might be representative of a regional dialect (I've never heard of it); and second, because expression of ratio is not a basic function of the definite article; the above sentence is just shorthand for "five apples to the dollar."

... Basically, none of the above seems particularly notable; they're just a few examples of the innumerable possibilities represented by the.Ex0pos 23:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Appleyard's revert of 17 Feb 2006 to his version of 7 Feb 2006

That looks like a lot of edits wiped out. But the only significant part was someone putting in a totally unprovable new theory that the Proto-Indo-European language had a definite article thaka. The rest of those edits were vandalisms and the resulting reverts, apart for someone making glottal stop into a link. Anthony Appleyard 23:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The "The Whatever"

Let's say there is a book called "Novel". If I wanted to refer to it, I might mention "the 'Novel' book". Now let's say another book is called "The Guide". Would it be correct to refer to it as "the 'The Guide' book", or would I have to get rid of the first, (or even second) "the"? It would only be consistant to have two of them, but I have been corrected (?) by others when doing this. Could anybody point me in the right direction to figure out the right way? Thanks a bunch! Retodon8 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world would you say “the Novel book” instead of “the book Novel”? Try it: The To Serve Man book.

In any cases where The is in a title, and the word the must come before it, I just use the title’s The as an article, e.g. “The Lord of the Rings trilogy.” I can’t think of any case where saying “the The …” would be correct or pleasant, except for the band (The The) linked in this article. Just my 2¢. —Frungi 23:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Why does this article exist? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If this article is allowed to exist, there is no word in English that does not rate an article, in which case Wikipedia becomes a de facto dictionary. Drogo Underburrow 10:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Suppose the article were retitled "Definite Article in English". Would that make you happy? --Mathew5000 09:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think this article is worthy of an article, but I would be in favor of changing it to definite article since that redirects here already. That way, all of the comparisons to other languages (el is Spanish, etc.) would all be much more relevant. If the page grows to the point where splinter pages could be justified, it could then be branched out into Definite article in English, Definite article in Spanish, Definite article in Latin (doesn't exist! little nerd joke there), and so on. It would also satisfy the incessantly annoying "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" faction (as if we're running out of room or something).--Hraefen 16:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be moved to Definite article. Since that already exists as a redirect it will require an administrator to do the move, right?

We might also reconsider the division of material between this article, Article (grammar), and Definiteness. --Jim Henry 16:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

JA: I think that was a joke. Anyway, I thought it was funny. WP is not just a dictionary, but it's pefectly okay and very useful to have an encyclopedia article that keys on the many facets, literary and philosophical, that are sometimes summed up and succinctly symbolized in a single word. Any attempt to split the facets apart will leave us with nothing but a scattering of abstract, insipid, sterile fragments. So why don't we just leave it be? Jon Awbrey 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that something is a word in English means it should have an entry in Wikipedia. Even a common word. I really think the policy "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" means what it says. Wikipedia does not define *words* it defines *things*. I would very much support moving this to Definite article. Dave w74 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

But words are also things, you know. "The" is a thing with a specific shape (a visual shape, if printed; an aural shape, if spoken). If a definition of a word exhausts everything that can be said about it, then by all means relegate it to your wiktionary. But can "the" even be defined? At all? I look it up in my print dictionary (Merriam Webster's New Collegiate, thank you very much), and all I see is a long, long list of ways in which "the" is used. Not a single definition. To my mind, if you can only describe how the word "the" is used, not what it means, then it is a tool -- a thing, or a word-thing, if you will. The article "the" definitely belongs here. Potosino 03:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

JA: On a related note, "the" has many functions that are not summed up in the term "definite article". Readers who love "the" may be emused by an Ongoing Desultory WikiPhilipic where the functions of "the" as a limiting modifier of diverse scope and significant power have served to provide not a few bones of contention. •. Jon Awbrey 13:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writing about the word "the"

If you were to write about an article, and were specifically prohibited from using the word within its definition (e.g. don't write "a black bear is a bear that is black") how could you write about the word "the" without using the word "the"? It's a thought... --Geopgeop 13:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say, um, circular definition, yeah... --Geopgeop 16:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Application of article in cultures

There are differences in the use of the article across different English-speaking cultures. For example, Americans say "in the hospital" while British say "in hospital" to mean the same thing.

In fact, "the" is not always used as a definite article. For "in the hospital", there is not necessarily a specific hospital being communicated. Same with "go to the store".

Some, mostly older, people add "the" before the names of illnesses, usually painful or serious ones: "he has the gout," though not usually "he has the fever" (unless we are talking about fanatacism, as in "the fever for the flavor"). On the other hand, in some cases this is common: "the flu", "the chicken pox".

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teh

I noticed Teh redirects to this article, but no mention of it is given in the article. Should we change this redirect to Internet Slang, or add a brief explanation to this article or what? Goodolclint 14:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and according to Teh's history, that was what it redirected to until a week ago. I'm going to be bold and revert the change.--NapoliRoma 23:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)