>Poster:       "M. Gaidos" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      A Question about the generic use of articles
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>   Hello to all of you. I have recently read in a 'Communicative Grammar
>of English' book that one can say:
>    1. The tiger is in danger of becoming extinct.
>    2. Tigers are in danger of becoming extinct.
>  BUT ONE CANNOT--Or Should NOT--SAY:
>    3. A tiger is in danger of becoming extinct.
> This deals with the generic use of articles and with differences between
>definite and indefinite, singular and plural objects. I just cannot seem
>to perceive the ungrammaticality of the third sentence. Why is it
>ungrammatical--really? Can anyone help me with this one?
 
Because 'a tiger' refers to a single individual -- like Tigger of the Pooh
books, or to your favorite particular tiger in the zoo in your home town.
No single individual can become extinct, only species (clusters) can.
Indivduals can die, species become extinct. Hence "a tiger died" but not "a
tiger went extinct."
 
On the other hand, unline 'a', 'the' can refer EITHER to a particular
individual, or to the general set of such individuals. Thus, (4) is very
different from (1).
 
        (4) *The tiger over there, under the tree, is becoming extinct.
        (5)  The tiger over there, under the tree, is dying.
 
So, when 'the' picks out a collection, you can use predicators (becoming
extinct) that speak of groups, but when it picks out a single individual as
in (4), you can not.
 
 
Hope that helps a bit.
 
ciao,
 
 
rebecca wheeler
 
 
>    Thank You in advance.
>    Monica.
 
 
 
********************************
 
Rebecca S. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Department of English
Weber State University
Ogden, UTah 84408-1201
 
Office phone: 801-626-6257
Office fax:   801-626-7760
Home phone:   801-563-0533
 
(Ogden is some 30 miles north of Salt Lake City)