Talk:English articles

Vowel sound disagreement

As an older person born and bred in England, I disagree that the use of AN is applied to Vowel Sounds. I was taught at school that AN was used in front of a word beginning with a vowel (A E I O U) and not with a vowel sound such as S (ess). Therefore, the concept of 'an S' must be American English (American) and NOT English. The exception was with words with a 'silent' aitch (H) such as Hotel (pronounced otel). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molbrum (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's quite plain in the supplied reference (from Cambridge, England): "Any abbreviation beginning with ... S takes an, because of the way these letters are pronounced" (emphasis as original). --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination between a and an

"An analogous distinction to that of "a" and "an" was once present for possessive determiners as well. For example, "my" and "thy" became "mine" and "thine" before a vowel, as in "mine eyes". This usage is now obsolete." - This strikes me as opinion; what source is there that would verify that this usage is obsolete? I would therefore suggest that the final sentence in this paragraph adds nothing to the understanding of the subject and should be removed. Hhosne (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Reference added.--Old Moonraker (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

When combined with brackets?

I tried to do some research just now but was unable to find a consensus on what to do with a/an in a case involving brackets, where the word inside the bracket starts with a vowel sound and the word outside with a consonant (or vice versa). For example, the sentence "She has taken up a/an (unusual) hobby". The sentence sounds better with an 'an', but only if the bit in brackets is there, which goes against the rules of bracket usage. Does anybody know/know how to find the answer? I have also added this point to the page on brackets. Dragongirlhellfire (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. The normal answer to any "an or a" question is to go by pronunciation, but the normal rule about editorial insertions into a direct quote is everything outside of the parentheses exactly the same as the actual words the person said. Here, these two seem to conflict. I don't know whether this has ever been explicitly dealt with and kinda doubt it has. What do you think of this? "She has taken up (an unusual) hobby." The fault in this case, omission of one word the quoted person said, doesn't seem as bad as other possible solutions. Chrisrus (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

But I think it's still incorrect because the sentence outside of the parentheses is "She has taken up hobby." Generally if I end up in a situation like this I try to find another way to put the sentence, for instance saying "She has taken up a (peculiar) hobby" or something, but it just really seems like there should be a rule to deal with this. Dragongirlhellfire (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is the word "unusual" in brackets? If the meaning is that "unusual" is not part of the quote, then the solution is to split "an" (and incidentally square brackets must be used): "She has taken up a[n unusual] hobby." Otherwise, leave out the brackets and use "an". Rothorpe (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, it was just the first sentence I thought of that was an example. Would that solution work even if it wasn't a quote (and you just really wanted to use some brackets)? I don't see why not, so hey, maybe that's the answer! Dragongirlhellfire (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you just want to suggest that "unusual" is optional, "a(n unusual) hobby" would do it. Rothorpe (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I was very happy with the solution of splitting the 'an' except now I can't think how it would work in reverse. Example: "There was a/an (not particularly trustworthy) antidote." There doesn't seem to be a way to split this direction conveniently! Dragongirlhellfire (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Personally, if I really wanted to use the brackets and it wasn't a quote, I would use "an", in recognition of how I would say it if I were speaking. (In speaking I might indicate the brackets by some kind of voice-lowering or pause or something, or not indicate them successfully at all, but I think I would always say "an".) Victor Yus (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If I were speaking I'd say 'an' (and maybe indicate the brackets vocally as you said), but it just doesn't seem correct when written down. Dragongirlhellfire (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because you've been thinking about it. "There was a (not particularly trustworthy) antidote" reads well. Rothorpe (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Under normal circumstances I don't think a reader's going to notice anything amiss in sentences like this. (Whereas if you use less natural devices like a/an or a(n ...) then the reader is going to stumble.) Victor Yus (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Juncture loss

A common example of juncture loss happening right now is with the word another. Its root is other, so with an indefinite article it would become an other, contracted to another.

But when splitting it to add an emphasizing word, the root gets changed; thus, rather than "a whole other", we often hear "a whole nother". This would seem to stem from a desire not to alter the original word another when splitting it, but also wanting to place the correct article a in front of the word whole.

This explanation can be tested by using a different word such as entire. In this case, the most natural phrase is "an entire other", not "an entire nother".

So now that I have advanced my original research, are there any legitimate references that discuss this phenomenon? TWCarlson (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

a nickname was once an ekename, where eke means "extra" (as in eke out meaning "add to")

In Norwegian this is "økenavn", which to my uneducated self seems a more plausible etymology for ekename than the above. Also original research. Gunnstein (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup-merge templates

@Beland: I can't figure out why you added those templates. Could you please clarify? I find them unhelpful because I don't see what exactly needs to be cleaned up and what has been merged from where. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: I think those are left over from an earlier usage (or maybe I used the wrong template by mistake) and the meaning is that the tagged sections should be merged with other sections in this article. -- Beland (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see now, thanks. Yeah, that makes sense, but the purpose of {{cleanup-merge}} is different. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Rules on use of articles should be more detailed

For example, the phrase "He is a person" should be not be written this way as the rule says that "a" article, that is short of "any", should be used when specificity is not indicated. However, as it can be seen, the phrase clearly indicates specific person, "he". And yet "a" article is used anyway, because there is an exception to the rule.

Another example: "He is a good person" should not be written as such because there is already qualifier "good" in the front of "person", you have defined specific type of a person, so there should not be an "a" before "good". However, the use of "a" is correct in this case, since there is a way to be even more specific within "good person" category. So there are nuances in the rules on for how long it can go before an article can be dropped, and why in some cases it has to be omitted right from the moment of using of the very first qualifier in the front of a noun, and in others you can add more and more qualifiers and yet "a" is still necessary.

Should those rules be explained in the article, at least concisely? 95.27.77.158 (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Further adjectival functions

[3] i such a nuisance   so serious a problem      [predeterminer]

[....]

Predeterminer AdjPs occur as external modifier in NP structure, preceding the definite article a [emphasis added]. This construction is subject to highly restrictive structural conditions described in ¶3.3. All adjectives that can head a predeterminer AdjP can also be used attributively - cf. such tools, a serious problem.

¶3.3 refers to "the article a", but doesn't say that it is a definite article. The extensive discussion of a as an article does not refer to any use as a definite article.

I have yet to find anything else that analyzes a as a definite article. Could this be true? DCDuring (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a typo. See The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language: Errata et Corrigenda.

--Boson (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I know. I emailed Pullum. He made the correction yesterday. DCDuring (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Translation of an article from the Polish Wikipedia

Hello, I plan to translate the Polish version of this article, improve it a little, and use it here. I believe it to be a good idea since I know a lot about the subject myself, and the Polish article is a very-detailed featured article.

The current progress can be found here. It'll probably be finished within a week.

If you have any objections, please let me know as soon as possible as the Polish article is very long, and I don't want someone to revert my change. Thanks Sxruvendrajer (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

This looks like a serious attempt to improve the explanation of articles, Sxruvendrajer. For this, you should be commended. However....

First, have you read and digested Mathglot's comment? See in particular the item that starts If there is already an English article on the topic, you should not just throw it out and replace it with your translation, unless the current English version egregiously violates Wikipedia policies. (And the current English version does not do so.)

And now some smaller points from me:

English has two indefinite articles (a and an): I believe that they're usually considered two allomorphs of the same one indefinite article.

An article precedes a noun or a noun phrase (e.g., an adjective + noun). There's no mention, in this draft-in-the-making, of "DP analysis", "determiner phrase", "determinative phrase", or "Abney", so I don't suppose the draft adopts the DP analysis. And therefore in what follows I'll put that analysis aside. (And I'll use small caps to indicate the NP I'm commenting on.)

In "All the guests had left", the article doesn't start the NP, let alone precede it.

Omitting an article altogether renders an expression ungrammatical: Perhaps "Simply omitting the appropriate article renders an expression ungrammatical". Because examples such as "The reserves of water were adequate" and "I'm taking you to that hotel" are fine.

... but it's my bed-time. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 11:48, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. For the sake of clarity, Hoary is quoting from this comment at the Teahouse. The existing article currently has sixteen references, and has evolved over a period of fifteen years through the actions of 739 editors. It would be highly unusual and questionable to replace the existing article with a draft created by one editor, translation or not, without first seeking consensus for it on the Talk page. (At this writing, your translation has 17 sfn's, but zero resolved references; I expect you will attend to that in due course.) You should consider modifying the content of the existing article, rather than replacing it.

In addition, as mentioned at the Teahouse, please pay close attention to Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-English sources. Given the vast literature in English about English grammar, it seems highly unlikely to me that aspects of the topic are better covered in the Polish sources you chose to include than in any English source, but as I cannot see your sources just from the sfn's, I am unable to look into that further. If, as I suspect, there are plenty of English sources equivalent to the Polish ones, then you must find and use English sources instead and drop the Polish ones. Please add the full citations underlying all the sfn's, and please use citation param |language=pl to tag any citation linking a source that is in Polish. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

An additional comment on the example Hoary already commented on:

Omitting an article altogether renders an expression ungrammatical

That is false in the case of plural nouns, which do not take an indefinite article in English, regardless whether they are countable (e.g., 'books') or not ('sand'). Unlike, say, French, English has no indefinite plural article. (Note in particular that some is not one, though it sometimes behaves that way.) Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Sxruvendrajer though I pointed you to Mathglot's warning that "you should not just throw [the existing text of an article] out and replace it with your translation, unless the current English version egregiously violates Wikipedia policies", I don't fully agree with it. An article can abide by Wikipedia policies and nevertheless be feeble or mistaken; and if it's feeble or mistaken (according to a consensus of informed Wikipedia editors) then replacing with what (according to this consensus) is sound and squares with current mainstream understanding (here meaning current mainstream linguistics understanding) is a Good Thing. As I read the start of the current article, I see problematic material; for example, In most cases, the article is the first word of its noun phrase, preceding all other adjectives and modifiers. This seems to suggest that an article is an adjective or some other kind of modifier (or even somehow both an adjective and some other kind of modifier), which is poppycock. I see other, discrete gaffes as well. In your view, does the current (English) version have major problems, inadequacies, solecisms that would be fixed in a translation of the Polish version? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The more I look at the current article, the more of a mess it seems. But I confess that I'm not eager to work on improving it, one reason being the confusion of grammatical category and syntactic function, compounded by the way en:Wikipedia's articles on English grammar like to follow Quirk et al and so, when they do distinguish between determiner and determinative (function and category respectively, as argued in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language), get them the wrong way around. Anyway, a few minutes ago I made a tiny start by deleting most of the items listed under "External links". -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)