>    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.
>  I just cannot seem to perceive the ungrammaticality of the third
> sentence. Why is it ungrammatical--really? Can anyone help me with this one?
 
Any problems with the examples above results from the semantics of
"the", which actually has three meanings, two of which can be
invoked in the above example, and in the word "extinct":
 
 
1) "the" as the definite article, referring to one specific entity, as in "The
tiger over there is staring at me".  The use of the definite article
implies that the entity is known to both the speaker and the hearer.
It would therefore be possible to speak of one entity ceasing to
exist only if there is a semantic narrowing of "extinct".  There
problem here is with extinct, which does not allow for individuals as
a definite or indefinite article would indicate.
 
2) "the" referring to a general class, as in "The tiger typically roams at
night" (although admittedly this example could still be ambiguous).
"The Tiger" and "Tigers" would be synonomous in this reading.
 
3) one unique entity, as in "The Sun", meaning the one and only (not
alpplicable in the above examples since there is a plural of tiger).
 
The indefinite article, however, implies that the entity is once
again an individual, and would need some semantic narrowing of
extinct once again.
 
Paul Baltes
[log in to unmask]