in sunny Hokkaido
- Thread starter nekocat
- Start date
- 19 Jan 2005
- 1,972
- 232
No, #2 would not be acceptable in that context. One would not say, "I went to a sunny Florida for vacation." They would normally say, "I went to sunny Florida for vacation."
Compare:
1. California is a sunny state.
2. Sunny California is a great place to visit.
Compare:
1. California is a sunny state.
2. Sunny California is a great place to visit.
- 18 Feb 2007
- 932
- 51
- 4 Sep 2007
- 113
- 3
I disagree, made of stone. The "sunny Hokkaido " in the article is actually referring to being sunny at that particular point in time. Inserting "a
" would only be grammatically (and therefore, contextually) correct if you're not using a proper noun. Compare:
1. That made him a very happy chipmunk.
2. That made him a very happy Chipper.
Since "Chipper" is a proper noun, using an article is grammatically incorrect. This is not true for "chipmunk", however, as this is a normal noun.
BUT.
Just because it's grammatically incorrect doesn't mean it's not used. While a newspaper article (which I assume that quote is) would not intentionally make such a mistake, people often do so in spoken English. Therefore, in speech, saying that would raise no eyebrows.
" would only be grammatically (and therefore, contextually) correct if you're not using a proper noun. Compare:1. That made him a very happy chipmunk.
2. That made him a very happy Chipper.
Since "Chipper" is a proper noun, using an article is grammatically incorrect. This is not true for "chipmunk", however, as this is a normal noun.
BUT.
Just because it's grammatically incorrect doesn't mean it's not used. While a newspaper article (which I assume that quote is) would not intentionally make such a mistake, people often do so in spoken English. Therefore, in speech, saying that would raise no eyebrows.
- 18 Feb 2007
- 932
- 51
I couldn't agree more with the part I've quoted, ECS san!!
However, as we're getting into the finer points of meaning here, we can only assume that from the limited context we're given (and I thank nekocat chan for the context given, but it's always very useful to have as much as possible!)
To explain more; anyone who doesn't know that Hokkaido isn't always sunny would not be able to tell precisely between:
a) Hokkaido is a generally sunny place
and
b) Hokkaido was sunny on that day, or at that time
So, in British English (and I'm looking forward to the international versions that our dear members will present here!!) we can more specifically narrow the meaning down to b) by using 'a'.
If you'd like to, please do compare (and these are two real examples, from my first two trips to Tokyo, in letters home):
1) We spent a very interesting week in a deserted Tokyo over the New Year period.
2) We've just got back from hectic Tokyo.
Cheers!
mos
Last edited:
Sarapva
Midnight and Snowflake
- 25 Feb 2007
- 1,072
- 48
I agree that "a sunny Hokkaido " sounds like it's not always sunny there (just sunny on that particular day), whereas "sunny Hokkaido" sounds like it's sunny year-round. By the way, is Hokkaido sunny year-round?
This is another part of English that gets used creatively sometimes, especially in writing.
This is another part of English that gets used creatively sometimes, especially in writing.
- 28 Jul 2005
- 5,238
- 172
First of all, as I have stressed in the past to no or very little avail (and yes, this is coming, in whatever sense, from the realm of exasperation) context IS important. I too, am glad to see as much as I do, here.
Then, based on that, I'd say that inserting the indefinite article here is useless (nothing would be added to the point being made) so it just wouldn't happen--in this case. Along with the point being that voter turnout (all over Japan) was low, due to bad weather (according to the news article), a passing (dependent) phrase allowing the potential to show that only Hokkaido had clear weather, without having to make a complete clause, is used for brevity.
In fact, I would say that in this particular contextual setting (including the journalistic medium and obvious intent) inserting an 'a' there would be more damaging to the tenor, and that due to that tenor, confusion of an example of a countable noun may come into play, thus stumbling the reader for a second--again, damaging. . . there is only one Hokkaido.
I would also stress, that unless it's just exercise for school work, it doesn't really matter anyway--the question is pretty much moot in the practical arena.
No, Hokkaido is not sunny year-round.
Then, based on that, I'd say that inserting the indefinite article here is useless (nothing would be added to the point being made) so it just wouldn't happen--in this case. Along with the point being that voter turnout (all over Japan) was low, due to bad weather (according to the news article), a passing (dependent) phrase allowing the potential to show that only Hokkaido had clear weather, without having to make a complete clause, is used for brevity.
In fact, I would say that in this particular contextual setting (including the journalistic medium and obvious intent) inserting an 'a' there would be more damaging to the tenor, and that due to that tenor, confusion of an example of a countable noun may come into play, thus stumbling the reader for a second--again, damaging. . . there is only one Hokkaido.
I would also stress, that unless it's just exercise for school work, it doesn't really matter anyway--the question is pretty much moot in the practical arena.
No, Hokkaido is not sunny year-round.
- 18 Feb 2007
- 932
- 51
Many thanks for that post, MM san!!
Despite my reservations about posting on this threads - it is not what I come to Jref for, after all, (and yet I cannot resist the urge to get involved!) - I still am learning, and especially about how educated USers perceive their (and, indeed, all of our!) language, so that is a very great thing
I'd just like to make the point, again, that here in the British Isles I believe there's a delicate, precise, but significant difference in the two phrases, and to comment on those has been my only intention in posting here at all.
Cheers!!
Despite my reservations about posting on this threads - it is not what I come to Jref for, after all, (and yet I cannot resist the urge to get involved!) - I still am learning, and especially about how educated USers perceive their (and, indeed, all of our!) language, so that is a very great thing
I'd just like to make the point, again, that here in the British Isles I believe there's a delicate, precise, but significant difference in the two phrases, and to comment on those has been my only intention in posting here at all.
Cheers!!
- 28 Jul 2005
- 5,238
- 172
You are most welcome, made of stone san! I do agree about the sublte difference that you have pointed out. (my own editorial decision being that there was no real intent to focus on Hokkaido ...it was simply in passing mentioned...so ) Language being as it is, I tend to reason that the subtleness shifted in American English--not that it's not there, but that it is to be found in different places. (and it may well have lost volume some too: which I would not attempt to deny.)
I also understand, getting involved here too, that such (getting involved nevertheless) happens. You may have noticed that there is no 'pinned' guideline for this particular sub-fora, whereas there is for the 'Learning Japanese' one. . .but I am holding every question asker to be responsible for the same 'rule of thumb.' My greater effort, therefore, is to incourage critical thinking, well-filled-out demonstrations of the question, and willingness to theorize more on their take of the problem--this is not a place to get help with school work; per se.
You may have also noticed that I am a missionary of Pragmatics, and therefore sometimes play the 'it makes no difference, I got the essential data' card. Thanks for your concerned thoughts and comments, and I look forward to seeing you 'round !! MM
I also understand, getting involved here too, that such (getting involved nevertheless) happens. You may have noticed that there is no 'pinned' guideline for this particular sub-fora, whereas there is for the 'Learning Japanese' one. . .but I am holding every question asker to be responsible for the same 'rule of thumb.' My greater effort, therefore, is to incourage critical thinking, well-filled-out demonstrations of the question, and willingness to theorize more on their take of the problem--this is not a place to get help with school work; per se.
You may have also noticed that I am a missionary of Pragmatics, and therefore sometimes play the 'it makes no difference, I got the essential data' card. Thanks for your concerned thoughts and comments, and I look forward to seeing you 'round !! MM
nekocat
先輩
- 3 Apr 2007
- 265
- 11
- Thread starter
- #10
"sunny Hokkaido " is what is so printed in Japan Times.
Hokkaido, as you may know, is not particularly known for its sunny weather, rather, being located north of Japan, it's associated with cloudy and cold weather.
The writer of the election report wanted to say just that Hokkaido on that day happened to be sunny.
To read MOS and Sarapva's posts, you could use "a sunny Hokkaido" in the sentence, but to others, it's strange.
I don't know which advice to take, but I appreciate your input!
- 20 Aug 2003
- 4,910
- 416
Only Mars Man has even come close to giving the correct explanation.
The answer, of course, is no. Option #2 is unacceptable.
As Mars Man pointed out, 'a' is an indefinite article. Let's stop right there. It's indefinite because that means there is no definite noun to follow, unless you take certain literary liberties as EvilCowSlayer showed with "Chipper", and that is rare and not the case here.
Hokkaido is not indefinite. It is a proper noun. Essentially, there is only one Hokkaido (don't Google for other geographical possibilities to serve as exceptions, because the meaning is plain in the context used above).
You can delete "sunny" or replace it with any other adjective and still have no reason to use 'a'. It has nothing to do with time or voters or anything else.
Hokkaido is a definite noun and does not deserve 'a' in this example.
You might want to invest in a 50-page (or so) book on articles called Three Little Words. A, An, and The.
The answer, of course, is no. Option #2 is unacceptable.
As Mars Man pointed out, 'a' is an indefinite article. Let's stop right there. It's indefinite because that means there is no definite noun to follow, unless you take certain literary liberties as EvilCowSlayer showed with "Chipper", and that is rare and not the case here.
Hokkaido is not indefinite. It is a proper noun. Essentially, there is only one Hokkaido (don't Google for other geographical possibilities to serve as exceptions, because the meaning is plain in the context used above).
You can delete "sunny" or replace it with any other adjective and still have no reason to use 'a'. It has nothing to do with time or voters or anything else.
Hokkaido is a definite noun and does not deserve 'a' in this example.
You might want to invest in a 50-page (or so) book on articles called Three Little Words. A, An, and The.
- 28 Jul 2005
- 5,238
- 172
I would hope you would trust me, nekocat, when I say that after all things have been considered, regarding your original question, you would most surely find that the original sentence, in that contextual setting and tenor, in that Japan Times article (and for those who are not familiar with that newspaper, they adhere primarily to British English) is fine just the way it is.
There is no reason to think that it needs to, or can, be changed in the manner you have presented in order to improve it. While I do agree that the style--a certain tool, you might say--is, or can be used at times in other writing modes--essay or short story, for example--it is simply not fitting for this style and tenor. That's all.
I was a little surprized--of course I guess in a pleasant way--Glenski san, although (and this is just in case) I do agree with made of stone in that inserting an 'a' before a proper noun (as in the example he had given) is used to give a certain momentary flavor to a story which bears, especially, on the speaker or character in a story. As pointed out above, my decision would be against it in the OP's example due to see above, however.
I did notice you worded it well, though, as 'unacceptable. I like that, and I'm sure others would too, because it's not that often that we can use such black and white terms like 'right' and 'wrong.' I know of that book.
- 20 Aug 2003
- 4,910
- 416
Mars Man,
To me, there is no "flavor" to the story by putting 'a' before a proper noun. It is a literary way to convert that proper noun to an indefinite one.
Example:
"Hey, don't ask me for more money. Do you think I'm some sort of a Bill Gates or something?!?
"Only in science fiction stories do you hear of a 'United States of Africa', and I don't think it would ever really happen."
To me, there is no "flavor" to the story by putting 'a' before a proper noun. It is a literary way to convert that proper noun to an indefinite one.
Example:
"Hey, don't ask me for more money. Do you think I'm some sort of a Bill Gates or something?!?
"Only in science fiction stories do you hear of a 'United States of Africa', and I don't think it would ever really happen."
- 28 Jul 2005
- 5,238
- 172
Thank you for the extra info, Glenski san ! I see.
I do agree with the technicalities of what's happening there, yes. I guess that what has been proposed regarding the 'flavor,' is a fairly recent phenomenon of adding some, I'll propose, 'cultural flavor,' by doing just as you have correctly pointed out--making a known-to-be definite identity into an indefinte one.
Again, I would never suggest such in the journalistic context the OP has provided, and would very seldom use such myself, but do not take that general technique as being illegitimate.
Otherwise, (if actually this is 'otherwise') I am right with you !! MM
I do agree with the technicalities of what's happening there, yes. I guess that what has been proposed regarding the 'flavor,' is a fairly recent phenomenon of adding some, I'll propose, 'cultural flavor,' by doing just as you have correctly pointed out--making a known-to-be definite identity into an indefinte one.
Again, I would never suggest such in the journalistic context the OP has provided, and would very seldom use such myself, but do not take that general technique as being illegitimate.
Otherwise, (if actually this is 'otherwise') I am right with you !! MM
Last edited:
- 18 Feb 2007
- 932
- 51
There is much to talk about here, and not least in MM's thoughts on how to approach these learning threads, and the fact that we don't have any guidelines to go on (that discussion perhaps suggests a thread of its own!)
But, to the issue immediately at hand:
That is another acceptable use of the indefinite article before proper nouns, but it's quite different from what we're discussing here: i.e. the use of the article to emphasise the condition of a person or place at a a particular time.
I agree with MM san that the OP's example doesn't need the 'a' and it would add little, as the fact that Hokkaido was sunny for once isn't one of the main thrusts of the sentence.
However I disagree that phrases like ' a sunny Hokkaido' are not acceptable in journalism - in fact, that is where i think we see them most often here in Britain!
Having thought about this more, I would think the careful nuance involved lends itself particularly well in journalism, where making maximum impact whilst being concise is such a consideration.
Reading The Times yesterday I quite came across three or four examples within ten minutes. (Interestingly, most of them seemed to be on the sports pages, or is that just where I spent most of my time?
)
I do wonder if this is far less common in US English, or perhaps only exists in the English of certain areas (the ones that have most in common with British English, perhaps?) I did a few minutes of Googling of similar phrases I guessed were likely, and interestingly couldn't find that many examples, but here are a few:
1) Outlines Emerge for a Shaken New Orleans. (A headline from The New York Times)
2) Although either a victorious Bush or Gore would put up a brave show, insisting that a win is a win, reality is far different. (From Business Week)
3) The Queen, a sprightly 81, gave an embarrassed Bush a gracious nod after he suggested she had celebrated the United States' founding in 1776. (From that bastion of journalistic integrity, Fox News)
From a still-fascinated made of stone
But, to the issue immediately at hand:
That is another acceptable use of the indefinite article before proper nouns, but it's quite different from what we're discussing here: i.e. the use of the article to emphasise the condition of a person or place at a a particular time.
I agree with MM san that the OP's example doesn't need the 'a' and it would add little, as the fact that Hokkaido was sunny for once isn't one of the main thrusts of the sentence.
However I disagree that phrases like ' a sunny Hokkaido' are not acceptable in journalism - in fact, that is where i think we see them most often here in Britain!
Having thought about this more, I would think the careful nuance involved lends itself particularly well in journalism, where making maximum impact whilst being concise is such a consideration.
Reading The Times yesterday I quite came across three or four examples within ten minutes. (Interestingly, most of them seemed to be on the sports pages, or is that just where I spent most of my time?
)I do wonder if this is far less common in US English, or perhaps only exists in the English of certain areas (the ones that have most in common with British English, perhaps?) I did a few minutes of Googling of similar phrases I guessed were likely, and interestingly couldn't find that many examples, but here are a few:
1) Outlines Emerge for a Shaken New Orleans. (A headline from The New York Times)
2) Although either a victorious Bush or Gore would put up a brave show, insisting that a win is a win, reality is far different. (From Business Week)
3) The Queen, a sprightly 81, gave an embarrassed Bush a gracious nod after he suggested she had celebrated the United States' founding in 1776. (From that bastion of journalistic integrity, Fox News)
From a still-fascinated made of stone
- 20 Aug 2003
- 4,910
- 416
made of stone,
Americans use the same expressions, but think about it.
The articles 'a' or 'an' are required before those adjectives, and the combination create the same indefinite noun as before, but the adjective is needed to indicate what type of New Orleans, Bush, or Gore out of their many perceived attributes. That's all they are doing, and that's perfectly acceptable.
However, as we seem to agree, in the example from the OP, this was not the intention, so the article is omitted as unnecessary.
Americans use the same expressions, but think about it.
The articles 'a' or 'an' are required before those adjectives, and the combination create the same indefinite noun as before, but the adjective is needed to indicate what type of New Orleans, Bush, or Gore out of their many perceived attributes. That's all they are doing, and that's perfectly acceptable.
However, as we seem to agree, in the example from the OP, this was not the intention, so the article is omitted as unnecessary.
- 18 Feb 2007
- 932
- 51
Thanks for your response Glenski!
I understand where you're coming from a lot clearer now from that. I agree that in the examples I've given the article is necessary.
There are other cases, though, in which the article is not necessary, but may still be chosen by the writer to add that emphasis if so desired.
The quote in the OP is one of these, I'd say.
The original question was simply 'is it possible? and I still say 'yes it is!'
cheers
I understand where you're coming from a lot clearer now from that. I agree that in the examples I've given the article is necessary.
There are other cases, though, in which the article is not necessary, but may still be chosen by the writer to add that emphasis if so desired.
The quote in the OP is one of these, I'd say.
The original question was simply 'is it possible? and I still say 'yes it is!'
cheers
- 19 Jan 2005
- 1,972
- 232
- 20 Aug 2003
- 4,910
- 416
made in stone,
You'll have to explain a little more about why you think the OP's example is possible. In the context given, I'd say no.
1) The source is a newspaper, which usually does not go in for literary license on such things. It sounds too casual, too.
2) I've already explained, and you & Mars Man agreed, why it is not appropriate. "Possible"? Maybe we are splitting hairs here, but I don't think so. If it were a spoken broadcast, and there was a reason for identifying Hokkaido in that whimsical way, ok, but this is not the case above and given the context. Also, from the way it's written, one would expect the next logical sentence to emanate from the last couple of words, and to take off into some description of why most of Japan was discouraged (or what consequences the weather had), but not to tangent off into Hokkaido's situation.
Are there ways that 'a' and 'an' can be used like #2? Sure. Are they likely or appropriate in a newspaper like this one? No, I think we've made the case against that. Does "likely" leave room for "possible"? Yes, but you're going to have to give some very extreme circumstances, and although they may be useful for the OP, it doesn't discount what has been discussed about the current example.
Pachipro wrote:
You'll have to explain a little more about why you think the OP's example is possible. In the context given, I'd say no.
1) The source is a newspaper, which usually does not go in for literary license on such things. It sounds too casual, too.
2) I've already explained, and you & Mars Man agreed, why it is not appropriate. "Possible"? Maybe we are splitting hairs here, but I don't think so. If it were a spoken broadcast, and there was a reason for identifying Hokkaido in that whimsical way, ok, but this is not the case above and given the context. Also, from the way it's written, one would expect the next logical sentence to emanate from the last couple of words, and to take off into some description of why most of Japan was discouraged (or what consequences the weather had), but not to tangent off into Hokkaido's situation.
Are there ways that 'a' and 'an' can be used like #2? Sure. Are they likely or appropriate in a newspaper like this one? No, I think we've made the case against that. Does "likely" leave room for "possible"? Yes, but you're going to have to give some very extreme circumstances, and although they may be useful for the OP, it doesn't discount what has been discussed about the current example.
Pachipro wrote:
I hope you can see the difference between "a sunny Hokkaido" and "a sunny Hokkaido day".
- 28 Jul 2005
- 5,238
- 172
Gentlemen, Ladies. . . (for they have also participated herein). . . If I may be allowed one last, very off-topic comment; please.
Yet for the frivolties and fun of the ole coliseum, the actors on the stage of white marble fulfilling the lives of others, all eyes and ears from the surrounding hill of stone seating fixed on them. Those well rehearsed movers of emotion jerk at the heart, pulling tears of saddness with the tradgedy, as if to lead each involved watcher down to the depths of Hades itself. Then, before the blink of an eye, the wound is healed and rubbed with the sweet smelling fragrance of spiced oils; such that the laughter of comedy provide. At that, the tears are those of joy.
It is both sad and humorous that this thread is now going into page two, but it is, now, for fun. May it be fun. (as I am only having by posting this)
I thank you for forgiving me my silly off-topicness here. sorry !
:nuts:
Yet for the frivolties and fun of the ole coliseum, the actors on the stage of white marble fulfilling the lives of others, all eyes and ears from the surrounding hill of stone seating fixed on them. Those well rehearsed movers of emotion jerk at the heart, pulling tears of saddness with the tradgedy, as if to lead each involved watcher down to the depths of Hades itself. Then, before the blink of an eye, the wound is healed and rubbed with the sweet smelling fragrance of spiced oils; such that the laughter of comedy provide. At that, the tears are those of joy.
It is both sad and humorous that this thread is now going into page two, but it is, now, for fun. May it be fun. (as I am only having by posting this)
I thank you for forgiving me my silly off-topicness here. sorry !
:nuts:
- 19 Jan 2005
- 1,972
- 232
Mars Man said:It is both sad and humorous that this thread is now going into page two, but it is, now, for fun. May it be fun. (as I am only having by posting this)
I thank you for forgiving me my silly off-topicness here. sorry !
LOL MM and you are forgiven. Did you enjoy a sunny Shiga in Nagano today? (Now it's me who's getting silly in cool, sunny Tennessee today.)
- 18 Feb 2007
- 932
- 51
It's all in my previous posts. Grammatically, it's possible. Meaning-wise, ditto. In terms of what we can see in the (quality) British press, it's completely acceptable.
Again, as I've explained, it's not casual at all - it's a very precise way of imparting extra specific meaning most carefully - and with just a single letter.
I agreed that it wasn't the writer's intention to use that nuance, and felt that also it may further confuse a passage that is already poorly written, overly-complicated, and which parses badly (imho) while defending it as 'possible'. I don't see it as inappropriate or unacceptable in any way.
Glenski san, I'm genuinely mystified that if you can write this, you can also write the following:
Who has? Certainly not me! I have seen that your good self and MM san (and others!) disagree with me, and I was quite prepared to accept that, and put it down to subtle differences in our respective versions of English. Some others from the US agree with me.
To repeat (and sincerely; have you read the whole thread?): I see equivalent examples daily, and have listed some. I would say that this is something you would only normally see 99% of the time in written English, and journalism in particular!!
mos
- 20 Aug 2003
- 4,910
- 416
Well, made of stone, I thought one of your statements earlier was an agreement on the unacceptability. Perhaps I misunderstood. We can go around this endlessly, and I'm sure more highly educated linguists can do so infinitum ad nauseum. I don't think it has anything to do with "subtle differences in our respective versions of English", but I'm also not sure precisely what that means. No foul in either court.
You wrote something earlier that I am finally getting around to. You asked people to compare the following examples.
You wrote something earlier that I am finally getting around to. You asked people to compare the following examples.
The former refers to one aspect of Tokyo (an indefinite one among others that are possible, that is), so 'a' plus the adjective is necessary. The latter uses grammar without the 'a' because it assumes that most readers know that Tokyo is a hectic place, hence not something new or isolated as in the first example.
