in sunny Hokkaido

[Sarapva]

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.

Yes, that's how I see those sentences, too. I think this might be a British vs. American thing, though using "a" like this is done in the U.S. too. But when I think about it, it seems more "British" to me, and I've heard this type of sentence more from British people than Americans. It does seem to be used to add emphasis, and it seems to me to add some humor (humour?) to the sentence.

"Ruffy was a very frustrated dog when he couldn't find his bone, and slunk off under the bushes."

"Having not found his bone, a very frustrated Ruffy slunk off under the bushes."

Maybe the journalist in the Japan Times should have written, "... except in Hokkaido , where it was unusually sunny"!

 

[made of stone]

Glenski san, I earlier meant to suggest that it was 'unnecessary', but possible, rather than 'unacceptable'.

In some cases (where that information is not a key point) it's optional whether to include it or not, I'd suggest (as per my earlier posts). Even in my examples of Tokyo, there is room for either adding or removing the article, depending on the delicate nuance one might hope to impart.

I think from the contributions on this thread, that the grammar is clear, and the use of it on both sides of our Atlantic established.

The only real difference of opinion between us I think is over an editorial decision about the example in hand, and I think we'll have to simply agree to disagree on that.

cheers!

 

[nekocat]

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.

Why doesn't the same thing apply to #1?