The tiger is not a generic phrase which relates to all tigers in general. It means a tiger, although it’s not specific about which tiger. So statement ‘a’ is true as a consequence of the truth of statements ‘b’ and ‘c’ — any individual tiger is likely to be dangerous because tigers are very dangerous.

What is the difference in that case is subtle, and can easily be ignored because of the correlation between the two statements. In the second group of statements, the distinction is significant. “Extinction” is something that can only happen to a species who is the individual, not the group. Why statement “3” is not meaningful, because an individual tiger cannot become extinct. Could a lion be wiped out if it couldn’t be effectively killed off? And how?

‘The Tiger’ can be used both specifically and generically. If the preceding text has made it clear that there is only one tiger that can be referred to then it’s specific to that tiger. Where’s a

housecat and a tiger in the room (as opposed to a dogs), do they really mix? What are some potential hazards of a tiger?

In this case, it’s referring to the particular tiger in the room.

The tiger is not a generic phrase which relates to all tigers in general. It means a tiger, although it’s not specific about which tiger. So statement ‘a’ is true as a consequence of the truth of statements ‘b’ and ‘c’ — any individual tiger is likely to be dangerous because tigers are very dangerous.

What is the difference in that case is subtle, and can easily be ignored because of the correlation between the two statements. In the second group of statements, the distinction is significant. “Extinction” is something that can only happen to a species who is the individual, not the group. Why statement “3” is not meaningful, because an individual tiger cannot become extinct. Could a lion be wiped out if it couldn’t be effectively killed off? And how?

‘The Tiger’ can be used both specifically and generically. If the preceding text has made it clear that there is only one tiger that can be referred to then it’s specific to that tiger. Where’s a

housecat and a tiger in the room (as opposed to a dogs), do they really mix? What are some potential hazards of a tiger?

In this case, it’s referring to the particular tiger in the room.

What acts as placeholder, analogous to a blank space if the question had been written out, e.g. when used like this, what acts as a placeholder, analogous to a blank space if the question had been written out?

In the May issue of Life, did Margaret Bourke-White have _________?

I encourage people to fill in blanks if they want to answer. When a blank is filled in, the article is used with the placeholder.

I don’t read the articles this article suggests, but it would be fine to write it without the article.

Is there Margaret Bourke white photo?

These are mainly stylistic choices.

Did someone never cared or never minded? Never minded that is the most common, and has practically always been so.

The two sentences mean the same thing, both are grammatical.

As for you first sounds less natural but according to Google Ngram it’s actually much more common. I don’t think

any one of them is perfect.

Are abbreviated phrases meant to help clarify the wording? in brief is short for something like in brief terms. So brief is an adjective, but the word it modifies has been elided.

For a man what’s enabledness as in a word. Words like antidisestablishmentarianism show how you can combine affixes in many valid ways; it’s a fairly general mechanism, like combining clauses into sentences. The rule is that -ness can be appended to an adjective to form a word that refers to the state of an object that may or may not have that condition, and enabled is a valid adjective describing such a condition.

I think it seems cumbersome because the adjective is a gerund form of a verb, and -ness is more often used with simple adjectives, e.g. English literalism and generalization. It seems cumbersome, since the adjective is a gerund form of a verb. Sadness. I can’t think of a simple adjective that means enabled, so those we could append the suffix to it. Off the top of my head I could not think of a simple adjective that means enabled, so that we could append the suffix to it. When adjectives need to be coined, they often come from verbs like this, and you end up with unfamiliar combinations as you derive other forms from them.

How can I make a song that sounds playful using enableditude?

UI elements that are enabled are sometimes referred too active, so Activeness could be another alternative