Why do we omit the indefinite article before "legal title"? Автор темы: Pawel Bartoszewicz
|
|---|
Hi everyone.
I was asked this question and I don't really know the answer. The problem phrase is "to obtain legal title to the property". Professor Google confirms that the phrase is much more common without the article. Is there any rule governing this?
I will appreciate your feedback.
Pawel
| | | | Giles Watson 
Италия
Local time: 02:19
итальянский => английский
Памяти | Not so much "why" you use the definite article as "when" | Sep 11, 2012 |
Hi Pawel,
There's nothing special about "legal title".
Like its near synonym "ownership", (legal) title is an abstract noun that can be treated as uncountable with non-specific reference to legal title/ownership in general (no article) or countable (with the definite article) where for example the speaker wants to place more emphasis on legal title/ownership of a specific property.
Whether or not there is a definite article will depend on the speaker's int... See more Hi Pawel,
There's nothing special about "legal title".
Like its near synonym "ownership", (legal) title is an abstract noun that can be treated as uncountable with non-specific reference to legal title/ownership in general (no article) or countable (with the definite article) where for example the speaker wants to place more emphasis on legal title/ownership of a specific property.
Whether or not there is a definite article will depend on the speaker's intentions, the context (you are more likely to find the definite article if the concept of legal title has already been introduced into the discourse) and the register or genre (you are less likely to find the definite article in legalese than in conversational English).
FWIW ▲ Collapse
| | | | urbom
Великобритания
Local time: 01:19
немецкий => английский
+ ...
| uncountable noun -- no INdefinite article | Sep 11, 2012 |
Giles is right to point out that 'legal title', like 'ownership', is an uncountable noun. You either have legal title to something, or you don't. That's why we don't use an indefinite article ('a') with the term.
As Giles rightly pointed out, the term is sometimes used with the definite article ('the').
You can also search the British National Corpus to find more examples of the phrase "legal title... See more Giles is right to point out that 'legal title', like 'ownership', is an uncountable noun. You either have legal title to something, or you don't. That's why we don't use an indefinite article ('a') with the term.
As Giles rightly pointed out, the term is sometimes used with the definite article ('the').
You can also search the British National Corpus to find more examples of the phrase "legal title" used in context and to analyse the usage patterns for this term. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Giles Watson
Италия
Local time: 02:19
итальянский => английский
Памяти | Countability | Sep 11, 2012 |
Hi urbom,
Rather than simply state that "ownership" is uncountable (it is, but not always), it's probably more useful to say that countability/uncountability is one of the productive oppositions that enable English to evolve.
Abstract nouns often shift from being uncountable to countable depending on context. For instance, "acidity" is usually uncountable but it if you google "a bright acidity", you will see that nowadays it can become countable when you are describing... See more Hi urbom,
Rather than simply state that "ownership" is uncountable (it is, but not always), it's probably more useful to say that countability/uncountability is one of the productive oppositions that enable English to evolve.
Abstract nouns often shift from being uncountable to countable depending on context. For instance, "acidity" is usually uncountable but it if you google "a bright acidity", you will see that nowadays it can become countable when you are describing a specific wine or coffee.
In another - epic - thread, people are discussing the concept of nativeness. One of the things that distinguish native English speakers from non-natives is the ability to use the countability/uncountability opposition in a context-appropriate manner.
FWIW again. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
urbom
Великобритания
Local time: 01:19
немецкий => английский
+ ...
| on relevance and irrelevance (and learning worn lightly) | Sep 11, 2012 |
How silly of me to have restricted myself to addressing the original question as posed by the OP, which was specifically about the lack of the indefinite article in the phrase 'obtain legal title to...'!
In case the OP or anyone else reading this thread would like to investigate the use of articles with uncountable (a.k.a. non-count) nouns more generally, here are some of the standard English grammar reference books that address the topic:
... See more How silly of me to have restricted myself to addressing the original question as posed by the OP, which was specifically about the lack of the indefinite article in the phrase 'obtain legal title to...'!
In case the OP or anyone else reading this thread would like to investigate the use of articles with uncountable (a.k.a. non-count) nouns more generally, here are some of the standard English grammar reference books that address the topic:
- Michael Swan, Practical English Usage, 3rd ed (OUP, 2005). See section 149.4.
- Quirk et al, A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Longman, 1985). Now somewhat dated, but a classic title. See the notes after section 5.9.
- Biber et al, Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Pearson Education, 1999) See especially section 4.4.1.4, Generic reference.
Of these three works, Swan's Practical English Usage is probably by far the most comprehensible to non-native English speakers.
* * * * *
But if I may be so bold as to return yet again to Pawel's original question, I'm afraid that as in so many other cases involving articles, collocations, syntax, etc., the reasoning for why the expression is used that way is rather circular: it just sounds right that way because that's how people use it. Michael Hoey's theory of 'Lexical Priming' has some interesting things to say about this. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Giles Watson
Италия
Local time: 02:19
итальянский => английский
Памяти | Ricapitolando... | Sep 11, 2012 |
urbom wrote:
But if I may be so bold as to return yet again to Pawel's original question, I'm afraid that as in so many other cases involving articles, collocations, syntax, etc., the reasoning for why the expression is used that way is rather circular: it just sounds right that way because that's how people use it. Michael Hoey's theory of 'Lexical Priming' has some interesting things to say about this.
... or going back to the original question.
The presence (countable) or absence (uncountable) of an article, definite or indefinite, indicates among other things the way the speaker views the noun in terms of the countability/uncountability opposition.
@urbom
There is nothing that contradicts the above in the excellent grammars that you have wheeled out. In the case of abstract concepts, countability is a speaker-assigned option, not an inherent quality.
| | | | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Why do we omit the indefinite article before "legal title"? | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | Pastey | Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
