Comments on: Liz Wager on the definite article

By: John Beadle

John Beadle — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:00:03 +0000

Thank you Liz, this is interesting. Never mind acronyms, a simple abbreviation can have a similar effect:
Mary has the flu or Mary has influenza.

John

By: Liz Wager

Liz Wager — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:32:24 +0000

I think perhaps there’s a transatlantic difference at work here, as ‘FDA asked’ (without a definite article) sounds odd to my English ears. I’m pretty sure I’d use a definite article for abbreviations such as the BBC. But here’s an interesting one — acronyms (where the initials are pronounced as a single word) can lose their articles, so it sounds fine to talk about UNESCO, and it wouldn’t seem right to write ‘the UNESCO’. So it might depend on whether you called it the W.H.O. (i.e. naming the three letters) or, as some people do Who (as a single word). The more I think about this subject, the more complex it becomes and the more appreciation I have for people who can learn English as a second language!

By: Elizabeth Loder

Elizabeth Loder — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:42:17 +0000

I thought of your blog when I read a paper today with a sentence that begins “FDA asked eight companies…” That sounds fine to my ear but I’d be equally happy with “The FDA asked eight companies…” Yet if published we’ll ask the authors of the paper to remove abbreviations, in which case it wouldn’t seem fine (to me, anyway) to write “Food and Drug Administration asked eight companies…” What’s the explanation for why use of an article is okay with the abbreviation but doesn’t seem right when the phrase is written out in full?

By: Sergio Stagnaro

Sergio Stagnaro — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:17:51 +0000

Regarding sceintific (not literature) papers, I think that beside grammar perfection, more important should be the argument originality, importance, usefulness, author shows…even he is an autodidact one!

By: Matiram Pun

Matiram Pun — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:05:06 +0000

Waoooooooooooo!!!

This is fantastic point! I’m really impressed to read the point that many get stuck with while preparing manuscript by non-native English speaking countries. The mistakes/uses must be irritating for the editors from the great English journals with such uses which seem usual for others who are from another end.
Many a time, the English of scientific article from English speaking countries are too tough for the people from non-English speaking countries like me.
Thank you!
Best wishes,
mati

By: Hazel Thornton

Hazel Thornton — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:49:58 +0000

Lovely! I guessed who might have written this even before I `clicked`.

The one that gets me going is `the patient` - whoever s/he may be……. (Sometimes unavoidable, I grant.)

By: Trish Groves

Trish Groves — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:57:13 +0000

Thanks, Liz.
Reminds me of the debate we have here sometimes about the BMJ. Well, that’s what we editors call it - “the” BMJ - and that’s our style when citing the journal in articles and when speaking.
But the BMJ marketing team, very reasonably, say the “the” is unnecessary and old fashioned, and that simply “BMJ” is stronger.
(Competing interest - I was BMJ duty editor today, and approved Liz’s blog)