a or the?

[nado92]

. . ............ computer has changed the way we work.

a- A b- Thec-No article d-An


I will choose The ...Am I right?

Thanks in advance.
​

 

[Barb_D]

Yes.

 

[hanky]

I am not a teacher nor English native speaker.

If "we" means a particular group of people, I would agree with Barb.

However, I think here "we" means people or all of us. Thus I suppose neither "a" nor "the" could be used since we are talking about "things in general". I go with:

Computer has changed the way we work.

 

[emsr2d2]

I am not a teacher nor English native speaker.

If "we" means a particular group of people, I would agree with Barb.

However, I think here "we" means people or all of us. Thus I suppose neither "a" nor "the" could be used since we are talking about "things in general". I go with:

Computer has changed the way we work.

The computer has changed the way we work OR computers have changed the way we work.

 

[Barb_D]

I am not a teacher nor English native speaker.

If "we" means a particular group of people, I would agree with Barb.

However, I think here "we" means people or all of us. Thus I suppose neither "a" nor "the" could be used since we are talking about "things in general". I go with:

Computer has changed the way we work.

Hi Hanky,
You need an article or you need the plural. Since the test started with the singular, then you need an article.

In fact, we do use "The" for things in general, as we do in "The lion is called the king of the jungle" or "The family is the most important social unit in all humanity."

It's a bit backwards from how we usually think of it, but in this case, if we had said "A computer" we'd be thinking about a specific computer, just not one that we've talked about before. By saying "The computer" we mean "The idea of computers."

 

[kfredson]

. . ............ computer has changed the way we work.

a- A b- Thec-No article d-An


I will choose The ...Am I right?

Thanks in advance.
​

Yes, I would agree with "The." That would mean that the use of computers in general has changed the way we work. If you used "A" you would be pointing to one particular computer which has accomplished this.

"A computer [that is, the one we have had in our little office] has managed to change the way our little group of people has been doing its work."

We might have said this back in the 1980s when computers were being introduced to the work place, but it would be unusual to say it now, unless you were in a little village somewhere where the computer was a recent arrival.

 

[hanky]

Hi Hanky,
You need an article or you need the plural. Since the test started with the singular, then you need an article.

In fact, we do use "The" for things in general, as we do in "The lion is called the king of the jungle" or "The family is the most important social unit in all humanity."

It's a bit backwards from how we usually think of it, but in this case, if we had said "A computer" we'd be thinking about a specific computer, just not one that we've talked about before. By saying "The computer" we mean "The idea of computers."

Hi Barb,
Thanks for the post. English is really confusing! I have learned that for things in general we don't use article. You said that it's maybe not the case, so what's the rule?

BTW: Lions don't live in the jungle, do they?

 

[kfredson]

Hi Barb,
Thanks for the post. English is really confusing! I have learned that for things in general we don't use article. You said that it's maybe not the case, so what's the rule?

BTW: Lions don't live in the jungle, do they?

You have raised a very big issue here. I look forward to seeing how Barb explains it!

In the meantime, I would say that things that are, well, things (objects in space) require an article when in the singular: the table, the house, the lion, the asteroid.

However, concepts often do not: love, compassion, education, etc. There are also some phenomena which do not: lightning, thunder, rainfall, etc.

When referring to a particular instance of a phenomenon you would, however, need the article.
Hence, "Thunder can often be heard for many miles."
BUT
"The thunder last night shook us out of our beds."

But I, too, would like more concrete rules about all this.

 

[mmasny]

How about this example then:

He has revealed the nature of man.

 

[euncu]

I'm surprised by the native-speakers' answers. I'd say "computers" or no article. Do you the native-speakers put the definite article to make it plural? Otherwise, it'll be very confusing for me because I really don't get how to infer that "the computer" means "The idea of computers." as Barb suggested.

 

[kfredson]

How about this example then:

He has revealed the nature of man.

"Nature" [as in our natural environment] is a concept that doesn't necessarily require an article.
"Human nature" also can stand on its own without an article.
If we refer to "nature of man," however, it cannot stand on its own and requires an article: "the nature of man." It is a particular kind of nature, that is to say, set of attributes.

I hope that is clear. I am struggling to find a rule myself.

 

[mmasny]

"Nature" [as in our natural environment] is a concept that doesn't necessarily require an article.
"Human nature" also can stand on its own without an article.
If we refer to "nature of man," however, it cannot stand on its own and requires an article: "the nature of man." It is a particular kind of nature, that is to say, set of attributes.

I hope that is clear. I am struggling to find a rule myself.

Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't clear enough myself. I meant the lack of an article before the word 'man'. Could you explain this?

 

[Barb_D]

Huh. Well, we grew up saying "The king of the jungle" or "The king of the beasts." Probably because kids can't spell serengeti.

Yeah, articles totally suck.

In my opinion, the hardest things to learn about English articles, prepositions, and the word "would."

The use of "the" can play a few roles.

• It's used for the particular thing we either already talked about or already have in common. (I saw a dog. The dog was cute. -- Now you know which dog; it's the one I saw. We need to get the oil changed in the car. -- We share a car, and you know I mean our car.)
• It's used when there's only one of something. (The Earth.)
• It's used when it can only apply to one thing. (The best book I ever read -- only one "best"; the nearest hospital -- there's only one that is "nearest")
• It's used for "singular countable nouns to talk about a type of thing": The computer has changed the way we work. (Your example, and interestingly, "The computer" is also the example in the Web site I went to collect my thoughts.)

(Here's the link I borrowed this phrasing for the last one from: English Grammar - Articles)

I read something recently that said that sometimes, the use of articles will be the only clue that something was written by a non-native speaker. It's probably true.

 

[euncu]

(Here's the link I borrowed this phrasing for the last one from: English Grammar - Articles)

This is from the same link;

3. We use no article when we are talking about people or things in general.

Carrots are good for you. -- carrots in general
English people drink a lot of tea. -- English people in general


And, it seems to confirm my reasoning. (However, the examples given are plural. I don't know whether it denotes a rule or not)

 

[IHIVG]

I read something recently that said that sometimes, the use of articles will be the only clue that something was written by a non-native speaker. It's probably true.

I'm curious do natives always know exactly which one of the articles should be used in particular case?

 

[Barb_D]

This is from the same link;

3. We use no article when we are talking about people or things in general.

Carrots are good for you. -- carrots in general
English people drink a lot of tea. -- English people in general


And, it seems to confirm my reasoning. (However, the examples given are plural. I don't know whether it denotes a rule or not)

Yes - I'd say the two ideas agree and the difference is exactly that they're plural.

The carrot is a vegetable that's good for you. = Carrots are good for you. (Minus the information about their being vegetables, of course).

The Englishman is a curious creature=Englishmen are weird. (For editorial purposes only.)

 

[Barb_D]

I'm curious do natives always know exactly which one of the articles should be used in particular case?

I sometimes struggle with whether to use the zero article or "the."

Work continued on the project throughout the harshest months of winter.
The work continued...

I'll go back and forth on things like that, trying to decide which reads better.

 

[nado92]

I'm surprised by the native-speakers' answers. I'd say "computers" or no article. Do you the native-speakers put the definite article to make it plural? Otherwise, it'll be very confusing for me because I really don't get how to infer that "the computer" means "The idea of computers." as Barb suggested.

Simply ,we put the before inventions .

 

[nado92]

"Nature" [as in our natural environment] is a concept that doesn't necessarily require an article.
"Human nature" also can stand on its own without an article.
If we refer to "nature of man," however, it cannot stand on its own and requires an article: "the nature of man." It is a particular kind of nature, that is to say, set of attributes.

I hope that is clear. I am struggling to find a rule myself.

Simply, we are referring to something specific.

 

[nado92]

This is from the same link;

3. We use no article when we are talking about people or things in general.

Carrots are good for you. -- carrots in general
English people drink a lot of tea. -- English people in general

And, it seems to confirm my reasoning. (However, the examples given are plural. I don't know whether it denotes a rule or not)

The carrot is good for you. Here the carrot represents all the carrots.