Sunday, August 31, 2014

Definite or indefinite article when describing a historical person



According to this question:
Definite and indefinite articles when introducing a person
one can use a definite, indefinite or no article at all when introducing a particular person. Which option is the most natural in case of a historical figure, like





ruins of a medieval castle built by the Polish king Casimir the Great




or




ruins of a medieval castle built by a Polish king Casimir the Great




and generally, are both definite and indefinite articles correct here? It will be used as a one-off sentence describing a picture on a stock photography site. Thanks in advance.



Answer



They are all grammatically correct but they have slightly different meanings. This is inevitably a bit subjective but I would say the difference is in which bit is the main information and which bit is the additional information:




ruins of a medieval castle built by the Polish king Casimir the Great
ruins of a medieval castle built by Casimir the Great (who was a Polish King)




We see this structure whenever we want to add extra information to a particular person





the famous George Washington
George Washington (who was famous)




This would not make sense if we said




a famous George Washington




as that would make George Washington and Casimir indefinite.





ruins of a medieval castle built by Polish king Casimir the Great




is a slightly clunkier way of saying the same thing.



On the other hand,





ruins of a medieval castle built by a Polish king Casimir the Great
ruins of a medieval castle built by a Polish King (whose name was Casimir the Great)




Here it is clear that the emphasis is on the fact that the builder was a Polish king (hence the indefinite article), to which we have added his name as an afterthought.


No comments:

Post a Comment