Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    ENGLISH_TUTOR    |    English Tutoring for Students of the Eng    |    4,347 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 3,833 of 4,347    |
|    Ardith Hinton to alexander koryagin    |
|    Old stuff    |
|    16 Feb 22 23:54:15    |
      MSGID: 1:153/716.0 20dd2832       REPLY: 2:5075/128.130 bc4a687f       CHRS: IBMPC 2       Hi, Alexander! Recently you wrote in a message to Ardith Hinton:              AH> The head is part of the body.              ak> It can be understood that "This head is a part of        ak> this body" A criminal investigation. :)                      Archaeologists & criminologists may at times be called upon to       identify various body parts which have been separated for whatever reason(s).        In such a situation, however, I'd say "xxx is part of yyy" as I did there.               In my example I used "head" & "body" in a general sense... and as       Anton has pointed out, "the" is often used in such a context. When       grammarians speak e.g. of "the article" or "the dictionary" they don't mean to       imply there's only one they regard as worthy of serious consideration. They       believe that if their readers aren't quite sure what an "article" is they know       how to look it up, and that they'll get +/- the same answer regardless of       where they look.... :-)                            ak> And why not "a body"?                      I guess because it's already been taken. In dialectical English it       may mean a person, not necessarily identified... as in the Scottish folk song:               If a body meet a body coming through the rye        If a body kiss a body, need a body cry?                            AH> The capital of Canada is Ottawa, Ontario.       AH> The President of the US remarked yesterday that...        AH> [blah blah].              ak> Well, it seems, I see, "The" is necessary when there is no       ak> definition before the countable noun and this noun defines       ak> something unique.                       Okay, I think you're on the right track.... :-)                            ak> In my case we will have "the" if we paraphrase the       ak> sentence: |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca