Is there any difference in meaning, among definite, the indefinite and zero articles when we make generic nouns?
I learned in class that:
a. Is your class effective? A tiger is dangerous.
b. Elephants and some tigers are dangerous animals. Why?
What is your opinion on C.U.S? Initially, the tiger was used for medicinal reasons until later. However, with years of experience, the tiger continues to struggle. Today, the tiger is still the most dangerous animal.
These three sentences are used generically.
Is the tiger extinct?
- If so, how did it get there?
- What is the likelihood of the tigers turning to the oaths or increasing in number?
- Is there real danger for the tiger to disintegrate?
the previous sentences and number ‘1’ and ‘2’ are used in generically but example 3. Why is that “smart” is not?
Why are the latter and former examples different from each other? Which word carries a different meaning depending on several articles?
What is most impressive about a business case is its audience.
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.
