Think of all the good moments of this day.

[99bottles]

Think of all the good moments of this day.
https://www.idlehearts.com/images/t...-and-keep-a-smile-for-tomorrow-good-night.jpg

Is the necessary? Can one say Think of all good moments of this day?

 

[Tarheel]

I think "the" is necessary there. (Trying to explain why would require quite a bit of typing. ☺ )

 

[tedmc]

You are referring to the particular moments of the day which are good and worth mentioning.

 

[99bottles]

I think "the" is necessary there. (Trying to explain why would require quite a bit of typing. ☺ )

Check out this - I watched a beautiful movie last day. All the actors acted well. ( means actors of that movie)

Is equivalent to
I watched a beautiful movie last day. All actors in the movie acted well .

If he just says "All actors acted well" , it's grammatically misleading. As if he is speaking about all actors in the Earth !!
And it's actually pointless to use "All the actors in the movie" here. If you want to use it , avoid mentioning " in the movie " .

Hope you got it



The above is a reply I found on this thread...
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/4863/difference-between-all-and-all-the

That's why I think the is redundant here. Because we have already specified we're talking about the good moments of this day.

 

[jutfrank]

I'll start by answering the questions directly.

Is the necessary?

I'd prefer if you first say what you mean by 'necessary', but until you do that, I'll answer: Yes, because that's what you mean. But honestly, your use of the word 'necessary' in your question is not right. We're talking here about meaning, not necessity. We say what we mean and our words mean what we say. So if we say something that isn't what we mean, then it can be considered wrong. The kind of meaning that we're dealing with here is called 'reference'. Your question basically amounts to asking about what kind of reference the use of the definite article brings to the utterance.

Can one say Think of all good moments of this day?

If you're asking whether this sentence has the same meaning as the above, then the answer is no. In other words, if what you mean is expressed by the first sentence, then no, this second sentence is not right.

That's why I think the is redundant here. Because we have already specified we're talking about the good moments of this day.

Where have we already specified this?

By the way, why did you use the in the second sentence quoted above? If you can answer this, I think you'll be on your way to understanding things.

 

[emsr2d2]

Check [STRIKE]out[/STRIKE] this out:

"I watched a beautiful movie [STRIKE]last day[/STRIKE] yesterday. All the actors acted well. ( [STRIKE]means[/STRIKE] I mean the actors [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] in that movie) is equivalent to "I watched a beautiful movie [STRIKE]last day[/STRIKE] yesterday. All the actors in the movie acted well."

If he just says "All actors acted well", it's grammatically misleading. It's as if he is speaking about all the actors [STRIKE]in[/STRIKE] on the Earth!
[STRIKE]And[/STRIKE] Also, it's actually pointless to use "All the actors in the movie" here. If you want to use it, avoid mentioning "in the movie".

I hope you've got it." [STRIKE][/STRIKE]

The above is a reply I found on this thread:
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/4863/difference-between-all-and-all-the

That's why I think the is redundant here. [STRIKE]Because[/STRIKE] We have already specified we're talking about the good moments of this day.

Please note my multiple corrections to your post and to the reply you used as an explanation. I'm not entirely clear what the person was trying to say but "the" was required before "actors" each time.

 

[99bottles]

If you're asking whether this sentence has the same meaning as the above, then the answer is no. In other words, if what you mean is expressed by the first sentence, then no, this second sentence is not right.

I'm still confused.
1. If I say, 'Think of the good moments of this day', then all is redundant. Right? So why should I say 'all the'?
2. So both all the good moments of this day and all good moments of this day are correct, with the meaning changing depending on whether we use the? Care to explain the difference?

 

[Phaedrus]

1. If I say, 'Think of the good moments of this day', then all is redundant. Right? So why should I say 'all the'?
2. So both all the good moments of this day and all good moments of this day are correct, with the meaning changing depending on whether we use the? Care to explain the difference?

As I see it, both phrases refer to the same set of moments, but the phrase all the good moments of this day does so more directly, by presupposing the existence of a set of specific good moments. In contrast, the phrase all good moments of this day refers to every moment which is both a moment of this day and which is good.

Think of all the good moments of this day, which asks the hearer to contemplate a set of moments that is presumed to exist already in the hearer's mind, can be more easily processed than Think of all good moments of this day, which asks the hearer, in effect, to construct and then contemplate the set of moments, using the formula.

 

[99bottles]

As I see it, both phrases refer to the same set of moments, but the phrase all the good moments of this day does so more directly, by presupposing the existence of a set of specific good moments. In contrast, the phrase all good moments of this day refers to every moment which is both a moment of this day and which is good.

Think of all the good moments of this day, which asks the hearer to contemplate a set of moments that is presumed to exist already in the hearer's mind, can be more easily processed than Think of all good moments of this day, which asks the hearer, in effect, to construct and then contemplate the set of moments, using the formula.

Thanks. One more question. What if there was no specifier?

e.g. I went to the same place I went all previous/all the previous times.

 

[jutfrank]

1. If I say, 'Think of the good moments of this day', then all is redundant. Right? So why should I say 'all the'?

I understand what you're asking but I don't like your use of the word 'redundant'. It seems to me that the word all is probably a way of emphasising that there are lots of good moments. I don't think it's fair to say that that is redundant because it brings a kind of meaning to the utterance without which the utterance would be lacking.

2. So both all the good moments of this day and all good moments of this day are correct, with the meaning changing depending on whether we use the?

Well, they're both grammatically correct, yes, but your question isn't about grammar. The difference between the two sentences is that the first uses a definite article and the second doesn't. That's a difference in meaning.

Care to explain the difference?

Not really. Not yet, at least. Firstly, because Phaedrus has already supplied what I think is an interesting answer. Secondly, because I'm not certain what the sentence is supposed to mean. Thirdly, because I think we need first to separate the meaning of all from the meaning of the.

One way of using all is to express proportional relations. Imagine you're robbing a bank, instructing the clerk to give you:

all (of) the money
half (of) the money
some of the money
none of the money

The meaning of these quantifying phrases expresses a proportional relation of some kind. In other words, these phrases each relate to the totality of the quantity of money. With this in mind, I could interpret your sentence as meaning that you want me to think of 100% of the good moments of the day. You don't want me to think of only some of the good moments of the day. Another interpretation is that the word all is merely emphatic. Look at this example:

Think of all the people who've died from Covid.

I'm not suggesting here that you think of 100% of coronavirus deaths. I'm merely emphasising that you remember that a lot of people have died.

Which kind of meaning do you think the writer of the sentence actually meant?

 

[emsr2d2]

Thanks. One more question. What if there was no specifier?

e.g. I went to the same place I went all previous/all the previous times.

In that (unlikely) sentence, you can get away with no article because "all" is taken to mean "every" and we never use an article after "every". No native speaker would say either of them though. I'd say "I went to the same place I'd been every time before" or "I went to the same place I'd been every other time".

 

[Phaedrus]

Thanks. One more question. What if there was no specifier?

e.g. I went to the same place I went all previous/all the previous times.

I find "all previous times" extremely awkward in that context, though I might find it natural if you had a time machine and wished to say, with reference to a specific past time -- around, say, 1750 -- that "all previous times were/are pre-industrial." In other words, all times previous to the time under discussion to which we could travel were/are pre-industrial.

One way around having "all previous times" refer to every time point between the time under discussion and the beginning of time itself would be to restrict the meaning with a relative clause: "I went to the same place I went (to) all previous times that I went there." But it would be easier simply to use "the" ("I went to the same place I went to all the previous times"), it being understood that "the previous times" refers to a specific subset of previous times, namely, to the previous times that you went there.

If you want me to contrast "I went to the same place that I went to all previous times that I went there" with "I went to the same place that I went to all the previous times that I went there," my answer will be parallel to the one I gave above. "All previous times that I went there" is a formula that picks out the same times that "all the previous times that I went there," the only difference being that the latter sentence presupposes the existence of that set of times and is easier to process as a result.