Language desk
< January 31	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 2 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 1

"The" before expressions including personal names

It's very common to see/hear statements from the media like "The death of British film star Nigel Smythe has been announced. His widow, Slovak gymnast Marina Kasarova, said he would hardly be missed and she would be marrying her long-time boyfriend, German novelist Gunther Brandenburg, next week".

Yet, in conversation, we'd prefer "The death of the British film star Nigel Smythe has been announced. His widow, the Slovak gymnast Marina Kasarova, said ...", and " ... her long-time boyfriend, the German novelist Gunther ...".

Ok, poor example; I can't imagine anyone uttering those exact sentences in conversation, but I hope you understand what I'm on about. It'd probably be more like:

Me: I just heard that Nigel Smythe is dead.

Him: Really? What a shock! Now, he was married to some semi-obscure Eastern European, wasn't he?

Me: Yes, he married the Slovak gymnast Marina Kasarova.

Him: Poor thing. What's she going to do now?

Me: Oh, she's happy. She's marrying the German novelist Gunther Brandenburg without delay. They've been shacking up for years, apparently

Why has the "the" been dropped by the media? And is it appropriate to use this media-style in encyclopedia articles? Whenever I see such an example in our articles, I correct it, but I fear I'm losing the battle. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of my bêtes noires, too. I think the dropping of the the is usually traced to the practice of Time magazine, which used to treat such generic identifiers as quasi-titles, as in "the ex-wife of Actor William Holden" or "the latest book by French Novelist Albert Camus." (I have no idea whether Time still does this; I don't read it.) The idiosyncrasy of capping the identifying expressions apparently never caught on elsewhere, but the dropping of the sure did. Deor (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time magazine gave up the annoying practice of capitalizing all occupations before proper names around 1988 or so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you should have a column of your own, mate. I think you'd be a sight more diverting than some of the current contributors to The Australian. But, to your point, I agree that "the" should be preserved (or "a" as appropriate) in any formal writing. As to the media usage, who gives...? They've lost the plot long ago across such a broad spectrum. (The use of colons and attributive hyphens is one that grates on me. They've got it back-to-front! E.g. "Inflation the main enemy : Rudd. ; Doctors - Hospitals facing crisis.) Retarius | Talk 02:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?? I think that may be exclusive to Australia...I've certainly never seen that, and I would be dumbfounded by it if I ever did... -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Retarius. I gave up reading the Australian a long time ago. But that column idea sounds alright. They seem to be a great way of getting paid well for spouting their opinions about whatever their current gripe is on the day of the deadline, and usually about some personal issue that's none of anyone else's business. Hmm, on second thought, I don't think I'll bother. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if there are only adjectives before proper names, but no nouns? Is the definite article appropriate in such case or not? Example: The death of (the) famous Nigel Smythe has been announced. His widow, (the) semi-obscure Marina Kasarova, said he would hardly be missed and she would be marrying her long-time boyfriend, (the) handsome Gunther Brandenburg, next week. I've always had problems with that. By the way, I know it was just an eample, but is it typical to refer to people from Central Europe as "obscure East Europeans"? — Kpalion^(talk) 10:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offence was intended to any Eastern or Central Europeans. My example was contrived to make Ms Kasarova an obscure person of deliberately vague origin, so the response would have to specify her name, her occupation, and where exactly she was from, which turned out not to be from Eastern Europe but Central Europe. If "Him" had known all this about her, or if Kasarova were a household name, he wouldn't have asked the question, and any reference "Me" made to her would not have required any explanation of who she was.

One wouldn't say "The death of (the) famous Nigel Smythe has been announced", with or without the "the". It would be "(the) famous <something>", not just "(the) famous". Same for "(the) semi-obscure <something> Marina K.", and "(the) handsome <something> Gunther Brandenburg". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Backward ran sentences until reeled the mind". DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this may date from the time when correspondents often sent their copy in by telegram, so were ordered to cut out as many extraneous words as possible? In theory, that shouldn't affect the final copy, but the habit of losing words runs deep. Alternatively, journalists (quite rightly) are encouraged to write tight prose, and from a literary point of view their economy with words does get overdone in some ways. Xn4 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the absence of "the" makes perfect sense to me. In the example above, the nouns (film star, gymnast) are being used as adjectives, at which point the "the" is not required (if we said "the black-haired Nigel Smythe" we would ask ourselves what colour hair the other Nigel Smythe had). To add "the" to "british filmstar Nigel Smythe" is like saying "The Nigel Smythe". Whether we think loading adjectives in such manner is good sentence construction or not is another matter. It's just another example of "thirty-year-old mother-of-two Mary Jones" style news-speak, and not a problem with a missing "the". Gwinva (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that, Gwinva. British is certainly an adjective, but one that qualifies film star (and only indirectly relates to Nigel Smythe). In "film star", film is an adjective that qualifies star. "Film star" as a discrete term is not an adjective but an attributive noun. Let's leave out British, and replace film star with actor. So, would it be "The death of the actor Nigel Smythe has been announced", or just "The death of actor Nigel Smythe has been announced"? Or, if you rearranged the wording, would it be "The death of Nigel Smythe, the actor, has been announced", or "The death of Nigel Smythe, actor, has been announced"? It's not a question of disambiguating names, because even where no other notable person has the same name (e.g. Gough Whitlam), the announcement would still refer to the reason for the person's notability. I know which versions I prefer, but obviously others differ, as is their right. There's still my basic point that these forms of language appear in some written contexts, and in spoken contexts by the media, but not in spoken contexts by ordinary people in everyday conversation. I guess there are many ways in which colloquial expression differs from "professional" expression, and this is one of them. I seem to have the answer I was after, so thanks particularly to Deor for the Time magazine source, but also to everyone else for taking the time. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you, Jack. I'm just suggesting the rationale for dropping 'the' is that the newspaper uses "British film star" as a stack of adjectives. You're quite right when you say we wouldn't do that in speech; we don't tend to stack adjectives and would continue to use the noun. And good on us for resisting the news-speak jargon of turning every noun we can into an adjective. It's a shocking, sensationalist, clumsy, confusing and unnecessary habit. ! Gwinva (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it not be argued that an article, definite or indefinite, is redundant in most sentences ? What, if anything, is the semantic value of "The" death of British film star blah blah.

"Cat sits on table" may grate on the linguistic sensibilities for one or two generations, but it says exactly the same as does "The cat sits on a table".

The Roman Empire seems to have lasted quite a while without anybody missing an article in the Latin language. I find no hypothesis which blames the absence of an article before the subject or object for the eventual demise of the Empire. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but there you have it. The Empire never existed. Perhaps the Barbarians realised that, and lo, it fell. Gwinva (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that we can do without articles entirely, and various languages do just that. But since we have them, you can't get away from the fact that "the" and "a" serve different purposes, and those purposes are useful. "The death of Nigel Smythe, the British film actor, has been announced" says something rather different from "The death of Nigel Smythe, a British film actor ...". In the first case, it's confirming what most people are assumed to already know about Nigel; in the latter, it's providing additional information that's assumed not to be already known by the majority of the readership/listernership, but still by a sufficiently large minority to warrant news of his death being of some interest to the media. It's a neat way of denoting where the person falls on the "Relative Obscurity-Notability Spectrum" (RONS) - [Legal note: I just made up this term and acronym and I claim copyright]. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Nigel Smythe has risen from humble obscurity to thespian notability, then why is he a red link:) --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

by a semi-obscured Central European... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the haughtily handsome Gunther Brandenburg (please note the use of the word "the"), besides being a 20-books-a-year novelist, is also an arch-Wikipedian (his user name must remain secret), but he's been too busy having fun with Marina Kasarova lately to have enough time to get around to creating a stub for Nigel Smythe. well, you did ask ... :) . -- JackofOz (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thread interests me because I (born in California in the mid-Seventies) see nothing wrong with a construct like "MIT student Dave Barker". I never realized before now that anyone objects to it. Furthermore, "MIT student Dave Barker" and "the MIT student Dave Barker" mean subtly different things to me. With the article it sounds like one is mentioning in passing (for purposes of identification) something about the person. Without the article it sounds more like an integral part of the person's identity, a defining characteristic instead of a disambiguating characteristic. It's like the difference between "Squadron Commander Dave Barker" (or "Dave Barker, Squadron Commander") on the one hand and "Dave Barker, the squadron commander" on the other. I realize that capitalization is arguing against me here, but nevertheless that's how it feels to me. I also associate this distinction for some reason with the practice of referring to prominent figures with a bare last name. I personally might talk about the films of Alfred Hitchcock or the films of Hitchcock, but never the films of Mr. Hitchcock. This last would sound more natural to me if he were less famous or still alive. The choice between "Hitchcock" and "Mr. Hitchcock" seems similar to the choice between "director Alfred Hitchcock" and "the director Alfred Hitchcock". If I'm right then I'd expect the article (and the "Mr.") to be omitted more commonly in obituaries and retrospectives than in, say, interviews or profiles. -- BenRG (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that input, BenRG. I've heard that point of view before - the view that claims "British film star" plays exactly the same role in "British film star Nigel Smythe" as "President" does in "President Nixon", ie. it's a title, effectively. I've never seen it that way, I have to say. "President" is a recognised title for presidents, just as "Squadron Commander" is for squadron commanders, "King" is for kings and "Detective Chief Inspector" is for DCIs, etc. But "film star", "novelist", "politician", "composer", whether preceded by adjectives or not, are not titles but attributive nouns. Yet they get used as if they were titles, and people have become used to hearing it that way despite never emulating that usage in speech. Americans seem to have a propensity for titles in cases that don't apply in other countries: Fire Chief Smith, Principal Skinner, Police Chief Wiggum, Mayor Quimby, etc. British/Australian usage differs. It's enough to know that Mr Skinner is the Principal; he's just called Mr Skinner. Mayors are sometimes addressed as "Mr Mayor", but never referred to as Mayor Smith; it would be "The Mayor, Fred Smith, said today ...". So maybe those immersed in US-speak are perfectly OK with the "the" thing; and those at some remove tend to notice it. Maybe it's also an age thing - you were born at a time when this usage was becoming common, and I guess it sounds perfectly normal and natural to you; whereas I was born over 20 years earlier, and I've witnessed its impertinent arrival. :) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lao kung

What does it mean in Chinese, despite of its being a proper or a common noun? --Omidinist (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question can't really be answered unless you or somebody associates these syllables with specific written Chinese characters. However, Lao in certain semi-famous names can be 老 "old"... AnonMoos (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of guessing is problematic as well, because "ma" pronounced with five different tones can mean five different things. Zh-pinyin tones with ma.ogg I think "lao" and "kung" would be similar. --Kjoonlee 09:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be Wade-Giles for what in pinyin would be spelled "lao gong". Could mean anything from "husband (colloquial)" to "labour". Either tonal marks or some context would be needed to work out exactly what characters this relates to, and thus what it actually means. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "old laborer" maybe? --Omidinist (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An unlikely construction, but you never know... What is the context? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely what is deduced from its context, in light of the above comments. Thanks for your care. --Omidinist (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation with links

Which version should be used in websites?

This is a link.
This is a link.

that is, should the punctuation be included in the <a> tag?

and...

This is (unrelated) link.
This is (unrelated) link.

should braces be included? --grawity ^{talk / PGP} 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would always exclude punctuation from links. It's certainly the default way links appear in Wikipedia, unless you give them "special treatment". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I was already afraid of a huge search/replace. --grawity ^{talk / PGP} 14:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]