babies are supposed to cry
Masa
example.
But as I searched on the net, I got a large number of example
sentences saying "Babies are supposed to cry." ,and very few with "The
baby is supposed to cry."
I thought that "the" of the baby in this case is a certain article
called typical "the" that shows
the typical character of something.
In this case, it shows a typical baby who cries by saying "the baby".
What do you think?
John O'Flaherty
wrote:
More likely, it would refer to a particular mentioned baby:
"Don't be concerned if your new baby cries when it is hungry. The baby
is supposed to cry. All babies are supposed to cry when hungry."
--
John
Lars Eighner
<fe2a12f6-a54e-495b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Masa broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> My dictionary lists a sentence "The baby is supposed to cry." for an
> example. But as I searched on the net, I got a large number of example
> sentences saying "Babies are supposed to cry." ,and very few with "The
> baby is supposed to cry."
> I thought that "the" of the baby in this case is a certain article called
> typical "the" that shows the typical character of something.
I do not know where you get this theory, but it is not correct in this case.
Babies are supposed to cry.
A baby is supposed to cry.
mean it is in the nature of babies to cry. Without any further
qualification, these statements do not refer to particular babies or
circumstances.
The baby is supposed to cry.
refers to a particular baby.
> In this case, it shows a typical baby who cries by saying "the baby".
> What do you think?
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 34
833.3 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change.
Masa
Could you think like follows:
The baby is supposed to cry.
This 'the ' is the same as in
1)The lion is the king of beasts.
2)The pine is evergreen.
In both sentences, the usage of "the" is named as "generic" or
"representative".
If so, "the baby" of my question above could be representative of
all babies, too.
Lars Enderin
No.
Lars Eighner
<f70a08eb-0438-4b87...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Masa broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> Could you think like follows:
> The baby is supposed to cry.
> This 'the ' is the same as in
> 1)The lion is the king of beasts.
> 2)The pine is evergreen.
There are some contexts in which this might be the intented interpretation.
In a textbook on neonatal care you might find something like: "The baby may
be born with a substance dependency."
> In both sentences, the usage of "the" is named as "generic" or
> "representative".
> If so, "the baby" of my question above could be representative of
> all babies, too.
No one will take it this way in ordinary conversation.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 34
837.4 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Eric Walker
[...]
> I do not know where you get this theory, but it is not correct in this
> case.
>
> Babies are supposed to cry.
> A baby is supposed to cry.
>
> mean it is in the nature of babies to cry. Without any further
> qualification, these statements do not refer to particular babies or
> circumstances.
>
> The baby is supposed to cry.
>
> refers to a particular baby.
Not so, at least in American English. As Follett points out in _Modern
American Usage_:
"There is an observable tendency, likely rather to increase than to
decrease, toward so confusing the definite and the indefinite article as
to make each do duty for the other. They are, of course, often
interchangeable: it makes no difference to meaning whether we say 'The
exception tests the rule' (any exception, any rule) or 'An exception
tests a rule'; and 'the proof of the pudding' is the same as 'the proof
of a pudding'."
That last, I think, covers the ground: "the pudding" and "a pudding" are
perfectly interchangeable, as I daresay--in context--"the baby" and "a
baby" are as well.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Athel Cornish-Bowden
For me it sounds a lot more natural in the plural. With "a" it would be
OK in the singular; with "the" it doesn't.
--
athel
Robert Bannister
> In our last episode,
> <fe2a12f6-a54e-495b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, the
> lovely and talented Masa broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>
>> My dictionary lists a sentence "The baby is supposed to cry." for an
>> example. But as I searched on the net, I got a large number of example
>> sentences saying "Babies are supposed to cry." ,and very few with "The
>> baby is supposed to cry."
>
>> I thought that "the" of the baby in this case is a certain article called
>> typical "the" that shows the typical character of something.
>
> I do not know where you get this theory, but it is not correct in this case.
>
> Babies are supposed to cry.
> A baby is supposed to cry.
>
> mean it is in the nature of babies to cry. Without any further
> qualification, these statements do not refer to particular babies or
> circumstances.
>
> The baby is supposed to cry.
>
> refers to a particular baby.
Not necessarily. This is a particular way of speaking that used to be
common among certain professional classes.
--
Rob Bannister
John Varela
Ditto. "The baby..." evokes a grandmother explaining to a new
mother.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
John Varela
wrote:
You're outvoted. Comments so far indicate that most of us here think
that "The baby" means a particular baby, unless context makes it
clear otherwise.
Frank ess
You might see a different split on "The teenager", eh?
The teenager is not designed to be understood.
Teenagers are a little less human than babies, I suspect.
--
Frank ess
Robert Bannister
Corrupt ballot. You're only the second person I've noticed with this view.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Like the sexual life of the camel.
--
Rob Bannister
John Varela
I count John O'Flaherty, Lars Eighner, and maybe Athel
Cornish-Bowden in addition to me.