Putting the proper article before a noun is really complex. To be frank, I'm still learning this! I don't remember the source, but I had read somewhere that even students of English Literature make mistakes in placing proper articles in their sentences.
Even more confusing is the usage of these articles while describing natural things. I am taught to put the article the for natural things (the sun, the moon, the earth etc.), as they are the only ones.
Now why does Harvard describes it as The Himalaya here whereas Britannica calls it Himalaya here? Smart Wiki calls it both here in its main article and about Ecology of The Himalaya here!
My question is:
Do we have to place the while describing the natural things like mountains and rivers? And if the answer is no, why? When I talk about Mount Everest, it's the Mount Everest, the only one. It's definite and so the is needed.
Does it have something to do with being 'plural' (as in the range of Himalayas so it's The Himalayas)? But then I watched The Nile on Discovery!
A request: Please point out mistakes in placing articles in this question as well. This'll be the bonus for me! :)
Answer
You are right that it gets a little confusing with things like mountains, rivers, etc.
I was going to type up some examples, but this site does it just fine. To summarize it (including only ones relevant to this question):
without "the"
- names of countries in the singular; summits of mountains; continents; towns
- single islands
- parks; lakes
With "the"
- names of countries in the plural; mountain ranges; regions
- groups of islands
- name with of-phrase (ex: The Statue of Liberty); oceans; seas; rivers
I wish I could give you an easy rule to follow with this... but I cant. Some things just work one way, and others a different way. Maybe an expert could explain why the distinction was made. I guess, eventually, you just develop an ear for it. Until then, you may have to just memorize the common examples, and try to use that to "guess" for the other ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment