the man in a/the sweater

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:58 am

What influence would the first "the" have on the second there? Is it anaphoric, IYO?

Imitative.

My feeling ties with that of M Lewis: if there is a difference in form, there is probably a difference in use and meaning, however small.

And in trying to follow this prejudice Lewis digs himself into a hole. Enough debates on this point on the forum from two or three years back.

How about here? No difference in intended meaning - semantic or pragmatic?

here maybe; This is the point I'm making. There are cases where the difference in meaning is clear, cases where it is a subtle nuance, and cases where it doesn't exist at all.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:15 am

I think it's fine to think of possible nuances of meaning, but if the Corpus doesn't really support it, then we may be dealing with theories rather than realities.

And how do you know that the corpus doesn't show such nuances?

Another interesting thing I noticed is the South African park named The Kruger (National) Park. I've never been to The Kruger Park, but in English, I thought that we usually keep the article off of these proper names, at least when it comes to parks. Is this a dialectal variation? Does it sound awkward to others as it does me?

I've got a webpage on such things. I'll try to dig it out.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:19 am

And in trying to follow this prejudice Lewis digs himself into a hole.

Not that I've seen. Most of the criticism pointed at Lewis was based on silly-headed predjudice from members here.

There are cases where the difference in meaning is clear, cases where it is a subtle nuance, and cases where it doesn't exist at all.

This would be all in your opinion, would it? Or do you have results of corpus studies and other such research?

"had to go to * toilet"

"They were told that they had to go to the toilet in front of everyone else and American troops jokingly threw stones at them while they did."

Now, does that mean the specific toilet that was standing in front of everyone, or does "to go to the toilet" mean something else?

And here?

"During that ceremony we met quite often - Krzysztof has told this story so I'm allowed to tell it - because Krzysztof had a bladder infection so he had to go to the toilet all the time. "

'On the toilet,' he said, 'I always encountered the same people.

What does "on the toilet" mean?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:50 am

Mindy: Hi, where's Jake?
Mandy: He's at the bank.
Mindy: Which one? I'll go in search of him.
Mandy: I've no idea which bank he uses.
Mindy: Is it Barclay's, ING, Nat West?
Mandy: I've really no idea. All I know is that he's at the bank.

.......

Why "the bank"?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:04 pm

Jake: Mandy, I need to change some money; I'll go and find a bank.
[....]
Mindy: Hi, where's Jake?
Mandy: He's at the bank.
Mindy: Which one? I'll go in search of him.
Mandy: I've no idea which bank he uses.
Mindy: Is it Barclay's, ING, Nat West?
Mandy: I've really no idea. All I know is that he's at the bank.

It's a question of chunking. 'be at the bank' ---- 'go/find/look for a/the bank'.

Not that I've seen. Most of the criticism pointed at Lewis was based on silly-headed predjudice from members here.

You, Larry and Lewis all presume that difference in form must mean difference in meaning without attesting any logical reason why it should be so, and then go around inventing imaginary distinctions to back up the initial unwarranted assumption.

There are two tendencies; one is for homonymous forms to specialize and develop distinct ramifications. The other is for divergent forms to converge and become homonymous. Both tendencies exist in the same language. Some might argue that English shows more evidence of the first phenomenum and Spanish of the second, but that would be too long an argument.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:17 pm

It's a question of chunking. 'be at the bank' ---- 'go/find/look for a/the bank'.

Problem is, Stevie, you only have a monosemic reading of that expression.

You, Larry and Lewis all presume that difference in form must mean difference in meaning without attesting any logical reason why it should be so, and then go around inventing imaginary distinctions to back up the initial unwarranted assumption.

Lewis, Larry and yours truly all said "probably", but you love to change modal expressions in order to misrepresent posters. Get it together, Stevie.

Some might argue that English shows more evidence of the first phenomenum and Spanish of the second, but that would be too long an argument.

And for people such as you, there's probably no difference in using might or may there.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:19 pm

Alternatives.

Jake: Mandy, I need to change some money; I'm going to the bank.
[....]
Mindy: Hi, where's Jake?
Mandy: He's at the bank.
Mindy: Which one? I'll go in search of him.
Mandy: I've no idea which bank he uses.
Mindy: Is it Barclay's, ING, Nat West?
Mandy: I've really no idea. All I know is that he's at the bank.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:51 pm

You'll say 'going to the bank' when you know which bank you're going to.
You'll say 'going to find the bank" when you know which bank it is but not where it is
You'll say 'going to find a bank' when it doesn't matter which bank you use.

None of the three distinctions have anything to do with the one you made up about the distinction being between building and financial transaction. But then again, you've probably got as little respect for your original ideas as everybody else has.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:06 pm

You'll say 'going to the bank' when you know which bank you're going to.

You seem so sure about that. Better not to disturb you too much.

BTW, do you always know which toliet/bathroom you are going to when you say "I'm going to the toilet/bathroom"?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:13 pm

Fair enough; you'd also use it when it doesn't matter what bank you're going to, and I can see how this ties up with what you were saying before.

But the distinction is different in
"I'm off to rob the bank"
and
"I'm off to rob a bank."

It seems to me that there are varying connotations attached to the definite and indefinite articles, and differences in meaning or implication vary according to the particular phrase.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:21 pm

But the distinction is different in
"I'm off to rob the bank"
and
"I'm off to rob a bank."

And why need it be the same? "Going to the bank" When casually meaning "carrying out financial business" is much more common than robbing a bank, in most people's lives. Common sayings often become idiomatic or end up as lexicalised items. And "rob the bank" needs the verb which describes the action, where "go to the bank" does not. One can of course modify one's comment to say "I'm going to the bank to change money", but that is only necessary if one wants to be specific.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 4:22 pm

It seems to me that there are varying connotations attached to the definite and indefinite articles, and differences in meaning or implication vary according to the particular phrase.

And according to the particular context, pragmatic needs, individual users, etc.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 5:59 pm

And according to the particular context, pragmatic needs, individual users, etc.

Exactly

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:19 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:
And according to the particular context, pragmatic needs, individual users, etc.
Exactly

Which also can include my use of the expression "going to the bank" as an action.