What are "a, an and the"?

[Alice]

We just started with MCT and I noticed they classify a, and and the as adjectives because they modify nouns. Is this a new idea? I've always been taught that they are articles although I can see the logic in MCT's approach.

 

I tried doing an Internet search but couldn't find anything definitive so I thought I'd see what the hive had to say. ;)

[Alte Veste Academy]

Color me confused because in Grammar Island, they are defined as adjectives, the being the definite article and a and an being indefinite articles.

 

ETA: Did you edit? I swear you said pronouns!

[Alte Veste Academy]

Does this help?

[Sahamamama]

Articles?

[ABQmom]

I remember learning in school that they are adjectives, but more specifically articles--they do modify.... I don't think this is new idea.

[Alice]

Color me confused because in Grammar Island, they are defined as adjectives, the being the definite article and a and an being indefinite articles.

 

ETA: Did you edit? I swear you said pronouns!

 

Does this help?

 

I did edit, but I guess not fast enough. :tongue_smilie:

 

My dh who was reading over my shoulder caught my mistake and told me to go to bed. In my defense I'm also trying to type up notes for the anatomy class I teach at co-op so my brain is a little overworked. :)

 

The link did help. I guess I've just never heard the idea that articles are adjectives. Thanks!

[MrsMe]

BJU calls them adjectives, but they're called articles under the adjective heading. Adjectives tell how many or which one and the articles "a" tells how many and "the" tells which one.

[happyhomemaker]

Shirley English calls them article adjectives. I also learned this in school so it's definitely not new. They answer the adjective question "which one?" if that helps any.

[Mommyof4ks]

In CC they are called article adjectives, so that is the way my kids have learned them.

[TracyR]

If its any consolation I didn't know they were considered adjectives until a few days ago when I was working on adjectives with my 13 yr old in her CLE La workbook. LOL I was always taught they were articles but don't remember them being classified as adjectives. Oh well, something I'm sure my childish brain didn't comprehend then. LOL

[Crimson Wife]

This is one of those things that different grammar programs teach differently, like how to make a noun ending in -s possessive. I teach articles as their own part of speech because they have differences in function from adjectives. For example, articles always come prior to the noun they modify, whereas adjectives can come after.

[AngieW in Texas]

Most of the programs I've used listed them as "article adjectives." They are adjectives. The special type of adjectives is articles.

[cathmom]

Articles are adjectives like squares are rectangles.

[Momling]

They are articles... a type of determiner.

They are not adjectives. I know we had a long discussion on this topic last spring. :glare:

[chepyl]

We always just called them articles. I can see how they could br classified as a special adjective, that makes sense to me; but I never learned it that way.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Articles are adjectives like squares are rectangles.

Yep. Also, articles are diagrammed in the same way as other adjectives are diagrammed.

[NanceXToo]

I've never heard them referred to as adjectives that I can recall. We call them articles.

[Alice]

Articles are adjectives like squares are rectangles.

 

I like that analogy.

 

When I was going over it with my son I told him that some people call them articles but that they do the same job as adjectives in that they modify a noun.

 

I have to admit that I had embarrassingly little grammar in school. I think I must have come along in the "let's just let them be creative and write" years as opposed to the "let's actually teach them something" years.

[boscopup]

FLL calls them article adjectives. I don't know if I learned them as adjectives in school or not. I know we called them articles. I don't recall ever calling them adjectives. We diagrammed them the same way as adjectives though.

[papillon]

I've seen them referred to as 'articles' in some texts and 'limiting adjectives' in others.

[Violet Crown]

A big, fat hen squawked.

A big, red hen squawked.

*A big, the hen squawked.

*A big, a hen squawked.

 

He ate greedily.

He ate messily.

*He ate thely.

*He ate anly.

 

I see an old, brown, Italian shoe.

I see a brown, Italian, old shoe.

I see an Italian, old, brown shoe.

*I see old, Italian, a, brown shoe.

 

Eat a red apple.

Eat a redder apple.

Eat the reddest apple.

Go have a fun time.

Go have a more fun time.

Go have the most fun time.

Don't pet the cat.

*Don't pet theer cat.

*Don't pet theest cat.

*Don't pet more the cat.

*Don't pet most the cat.

 

Articles are adjectives the way triangles are rectangles.

[Momling]

A big, fat hen squawked.

A big, red hen squawked.

*A big, the hen squawked.

*A big, a hen squawked.

 

He ate greedily.

He ate messily.

*He ate thely.

*He ate anly.

 

I see an old, brown, Italian shoe.

I see a brown, Italian, old shoe.

I see an Italian, old, brown shoe.

*I see old, Italian, a, brown shoe.

 

Eat a red apple.

Eat a redder apple.

Eat the reddest apple.

Go have a fun time.

Go have a more fun time.

Go have the most fun time.

Don't pet the cat.

*Don't pet theer cat.

*Don't pet theest cat.

*Don't pet more the cat.

*Don't pet most the cat.

 

Articles are adjectives the way triangles are rectangles.

:iagree: Thank you, Sharon-in-Austin :)

[Crimson Wife]

A big, fat hen squawked.

A big, red hen squawked.

*A big, the hen squawked.

*A big, a hen squawked.

 

He ate greedily.

He ate messily.

*He ate thely.

*He ate anly.

 

I see an old, brown, Italian shoe.

I see a brown, Italian, old shoe.

I see an Italian, old, brown shoe.

*I see old, Italian, a, brown shoe.

 

Eat a red apple.

Eat a redder apple.

Eat the reddest apple.

Go have a fun time.

Go have a more fun time.

Go have the most fun time.

Don't pet the cat.

*Don't pet theer cat.

*Don't pet theest cat.

*Don't pet more the cat.

*Don't pet most the cat.

 

Articles are adjectives the way triangles are rectangles.

 

I :001_wub: this. :D

[Matryoshka]

Articles are adjectives the way triangles are rectangles.

 

There are two different types of adjectives - just like there are two different types of verbs - active and linking (or being, or verbs of state). And two different types of active verbs, for that matter - transitive and intransitive.

 

The two types of adjectives are limiting and descriptive. In German, there are two whole classes of adjective endings that you have to use, depending on whether the adjective is limiting or descriptive. But they're all adjective endings.

 

The articles are limiting adjectives. No, you cannot place them in the sentence the same way as descriptive adjectives. No, you cannot make adverbs out of them by adding -ly. They have to come before any descriptive adjectives, and there can only be one per word they describe. Other limiting adjectives include: this, that, possessive adjectives (my, her, his, etc.) and numbers.

 

I'm not sure why we have to come up with a whole 'nother part of speech for them (when they clearly describe nouns, just like all other adjectives), when we're fine with having all different kinds of verbs. I don't say, "to be doesn't take a direct object and doesn't show any action, therefore it's not a verb." No, it just isn't an active verb.

 

And if articles aren't adjectives, what are the other limiting adjectives (which can't do any of the tricks in the previous example, but also aren't articles)? Is there another part of speech reserved for them?

 

Triangles and rectangles are both polygons. That may be a better analogy.

Edited September 18, 2011 by matroyshka

[Alte Veste Academy]

A big, fat hen squawked.

A big, red hen squawked.

*A big, the hen squawked.

*A big, a hen squawked.

 

He ate greedily.

He ate messily.

*He ate thely.

*He ate anly.

 

I see an old, brown, Italian shoe.

I see a brown, Italian, old shoe.

I see an Italian, old, brown shoe.

*I see old, Italian, a, brown shoe.

 

Eat a red apple.

Eat a redder apple.

Eat the reddest apple.

Go have a fun time.

Go have a more fun time.

Go have the most fun time.

Don't pet the cat.

*Don't pet theer cat.

*Don't pet theest cat.

*Don't pet more the cat.

*Don't pet most the cat.

 

Articles are adjectives the way triangles are rectangles.

 

I agree this is cute. Unfortunately, it still doesn't tell me what they are, if not adjectives. I would love to hear what grammar term you use for these three words if you truly do not consider them articles or adjectives.

 

For me, it's not too much of a stretch to say they are in a special subset of adjectives called articles and that they differ from other adjectives in that they must always precede the noun they modify.

 

So, if they're not adjectives, what do you think they are? Just articles? Something else? An enigma? :tongue_smilie:

[Alte Veste Academy]

There are two different types of adjectives - just like there are two different types of verbs - active and linking (or being, or verbs of state). And two different types of active verbs, for that matter - transitive and intransitive.

 

The two types of adjectives are limiting and descriptive. In German, there are two whole classes of adjective endings that you have to use, depending on whether the adjective is limiting or descriptive. But they're all adjective endings.

 

The articles are limiting adjectives. No, you cannot place them in the sentence the same way as descriptive adjectives. No, you cannot make adverbs out of them by adding -ly. They have to come before any descriptive adjectives, and there can only be one per word they describe. Other limiting adjectives include: this, that, possessive adjectives (my, her, his, etc.) and numbers.

 

I'm not sure why we have to come up with a whole 'nother part of speech for them (when they clearly describe nouns, just like all other adjectives), when we're fine with have all different kinds of verbs. I don't say, "to be doesn't take a direct object and doesn't show any action, therefore it's not a verb." No, it just isn't an active verb.

 

And if articles aren't adjectives, what are the other limiting adjectives (which can't do any of the tricks in the previous example, but also aren't articles)? Is there another part of speech reserved for them?

 

Triangles and rectangles are both polygons. That maybe be a better analogy.

 

Thanks for this. Very informative. :)

[Crimson Wife]

I agree this is cute. Unfortunately, it still doesn't tell me what they are, if not adjectives. I would love to hear what grammar term you use for these three words if you truly do not consider them articles or adjectives.

 

For me, it's not too much of a stretch to say they are in a special subset of adjectives called articles and that they differ from other adjectives in that they must always precede the noun they modify.

 

So, if they're not adjectives, what do you think they are? Just articles? Something else? An enigma? :tongue_smilie:

 

From a Structural Grammar POV, they are a type of determiner.

[Matryoshka]

From a Structural Grammar POV, they are a type of determiner.

 

The definition is exactly the same as the one for a limiting adjective I gave. Seems like they're synonyms to me. PoTAYto, PoTAHto. :D They're just narrowing the definition of "adjective" to that of a descriptive adjective - I'm not sure why that's necessary.

 

Or should I start using "determiner" endings instead of "strong adjective" endings in German? (And you'll be horrified to learn that in German, the limiting adjectives are called by the even less formal terms der-words and ein-words :ohmy:)

[Violet Crown]

There are two different types of adjectives - just like there are two different types of verbs - active and linking (or being, or verbs of state). And two different types of active verbs, for that matter - transitive and intransitive.

 

I think you are making an astute point here. We often find that a word that we want to categorize as one part of speech doesn't do the exact same thing that most examples of that part of speech do.

 

Here's one example. The bolded words, I think we would all agree, are adjectives:

 

Bob is afraid.

She is well today.

Those girls look alike.

 

But these differ from most adjectives in English in that they can only be used in the predicate. You can't talk about "afraid Bob" or "the well cat."

 

Still, those words meet most of the tests that we want to apply to adjectives. We can make them into comparatives or superlatives; they can go in any order with other predicate adjectives (Bob is drunk, stoned, and afraid, or perhaps he is stoned, afraid, and drunk); and they modify nouns. So we're okay with calling them adjectives, because they are so much like adjectives that it seems pointless to give them their own category.

 

But articles (or determiners, I'd rather call them) don't seem to do any of the things that adjectives do. Sure, they modify nouns; but we see that they fail all the other tests for adjectives. Combining that with the fact that there are other non-adjective parts of speech that can modify nouns, it seems odd to put them into the "adjective" category. What's wrong with putting them in the "determiner" category? "A" and "the" are more similar to words in that category than they are to adjectives.

 

 

So rather than say that there are two types of adjectives, which can't fit into each other's "slots" in the sentence, and don't inflect the same way, linguists recognize these as two different parts of speech.

 

Linking verbs and active verbs, on the other hand, do nearly all the same things. You can mark them for different persons, for different tenses, and for different moods. They have infinitive forms. They can take auxiliary and modal verbs. They even--and I'm about to make myself even more unpopular on the subject of grammar--both take an object in the objective case. Hey honey, it's me!

 

Thus where we find there is one small difference--the ability to link to an adjective in the predicate--linguists don't feel the need to call it an entirely different part of speech.

 

(I will have to defer to you regarding adjective use in German. I'm only addressing English grammar here.)

 

No, you cannot place them in the sentence the same way as descriptive adjectives. No, you cannot make adverbs out of them by adding -ly. They have to come before any descriptive adjectives, and there can only be one per word they describe. Other limiting adjectives include: this, that, possessive adjectives (my, her, his, etc.) and numbers.

 

Yes. At this point, we've conceded that, saving "modify a noun," these words you're calling "limiting adjectives" do nothing that adjectives do (except it's incorrect to say that there can only be one per noun: the six cats; her many faces), and that, on the other hand, they seem to be part of an identifiable class of words that all do pretty much the same things as each other. This is the point at which linguists say "these are different parts of speech."

 

I should add that we don't have to come up with a whole new part of speech for them. They have been called "determiners" and distinguished from adjectives for a long, long time. Except, to my continual amazement, among homeschoolers.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Sharon in Austin
jaw-dropping grammatical and stylistic failures

[texasmama]

SWB defines them as articles in FLL.

[TXBeth]

I should add that we don't have to come up with a whole new part of speech for them. They have been called "determiners" and distinguished from adjectives for a long, long time. Except, to my continual amazement, among homeschoolers.

 

And the rest of the non-linguists in the country. Yes, they are different, but if you are going to separate out articles, you need to pull out the other determiners as well. It doesn't make sense to call this and that adjectives, but say that an and the are some other part of speech.

[Violet Crown]

And the rest of the non-linguists in the country. Yes, they are different, but if you are going to separate out articles, you need to pull out the other determiners as well. It doesn't make sense to call this and that adjectives, but say that an and the are some other part of speech.

I don't recall claiming that this and that were adjectives. If I did, feel free to slap me. Of course they're determiners.

 

I would guess that if you did a poll of the non-linguists in the country, the vast majority would have no opinion whatsoever and probably be confused by the question. The rest would separate into those who had an introductory class in grammar at a college or a good high school, and those who had learned grammar from traditional grammar texts, whom I would guess to be mostly homeschoolers, with the latter saying "adjectives" and the former "determiners." But your guess is as good as mine.

 

As a single data point, I never studied linguistics. I attended a good high school where I was taught in English class that "a" and "the" are determiners.

[TXBeth]

I don't recall claiming that this and that were adjectives. If I did, feel free to slap me. Of course they're determiners.

 

I would guess that if you did a poll of the non-linguists in the country, the vast majority would have no opinion whatsoever and probably be confused by the question. The rest would separate into those who had an introductory class in grammar at a college or a good high school, and those who had learned grammar from traditional grammar texts, whom I would guess to be mostly homeschoolers, with the latter saying "adjectives" and the former "determiners." But your guess is as good as mine.

 

As a single data point, I never studied linguistics. I attended a good high school where I was taught in English class that "a" and "the" are determiners.

 

Sorry, I failed to separate two parts to my post. First was that I think most non-linguists would not have a separate category for determiners. But I could be wrong. I did not learn about determiners until my graduate linguistics classes, but I was homeschooled (with Abeka). We learned that articles are a subset of Adjectives. But most of my primarily public-schooled classmates had also never heard of determiners (although, come to think of it, many of them had only a vague idea about adjectives and nouns, so...).

 

My second point was that I agree with you that articles, demonstratives, and numbers belong in a class together. So it's silly to pull out articles for special treatment (as some advocate) while lumping the others in with adjectives. :)

[Matryoshka]

Yes. At this point, we've conceded that, saving "modify a noun," these words you're calling "limiting adjectives" do nothing that adjectives do (except it's incorrect to say that there can only be one per noun: the six cats; her many faces), and that, on the other hand, they seem to be part of an identifiable class of words that all do pretty much the same things as each other. This is the point at which linguists say "these are different parts of speech."

 

Well, in German, they take adjective endings. They do take another class of adjective endings than descriptive adjectives, but descriptive adjectives take limiting adjective endings when a limiting adjective is not present (in your lingo, I guess the limiting adjective endings act as the determiner in absence of one actually being there...)

 

I'll admit that I learned most of my English grammar backwards through foreign grammar (German and Spanish), so I have a hard time not using them as comparisons to clarify confusing points to myself... :tongue_smilie:

 

I should add that we don't have to come up with a whole new part of speech for them. They have been called "determiners" and distinguished from adjectives for a long, long time. Except, to my continual amazement, among homeschoolers.

I have never seen the term "determiner" in a grammar text aimed at the general public rather than a PhD candidate in linguistics. In any language.

 

Here's an article on adjectives in Spanish. Limiting adjectives are clearly included. Here's the most relevant bit:

 

Limiting adjectives (adjetivos determinativos) are normally are placed in front of the noun. These include adjectives which indicate quantity [e.g., mucho(s), poco(s), cuanto(s), todo(s), dos, etc.], articles (el, la, un, una, etc.), unstressed possessives (mi, tu, su, etc.), demonstratives (este, ese, aquel, etc.),

 

Here's one on adjectives in German. It clearly defines limiting adjectives.

A relevant bit:

 

1. Two different kinds of adjectives a. Limiting adjectives (the der-words)

All of the der-words are limiting words; that is to say, they place a specific limit on the nouns they modify:

der Tisch - the or that table (not any old table)

dieser Tisch - this table (not that one or any other)

welcher Tisch - which table (which particular one)

jeder Tisch - every table (each individual one)

 

 

And here's a nice English definition of the term limiting adjective, which is not just used by homeschooled moms and other weak-minded folk:

 

limiting adjective

noun

1. an adjective that limits a noun; they include definite articles, indefinite articles, possessive adjectives, demonstrative adjectives, indefinite adjectives, interrogative adjectives, cardinal adjectives, ordinal adjectives, proper adjectives and nouns used as adjectives
   

 

And yet more proof that "determiner" is a term used by academic linguists but not traditional grammarians (not just us silly homeschooling moms!) - this is from a website defining determiner:

 

Traditional English grammar does not include determiners and calls most determiners adjectives

 

I'm not saying linguists don't use this term. But it is completely the same definition as "limiting adjective" and relies for comparison on a much narrower definition of the word "adjective" than is used in traditional grammar.

[Violet Crown]

Sorry, I failed to separate two parts to my post. First was that I think most non-linguists would not have a separate category for determiners. But I could be wrong. I did not learn about determiners until my graduate linguistics classes, but I was homeschooled (with Abeka). We learned that articles are a subset of Adjectives. But most of my primarily public-schooled classmates had also never heard of determiners (although, come to think of it, many of them had only a vague idea about adjectives and nouns, so...).

 

My second point was that I agree with you that articles, demonstratives, and numbers belong in a class together. So it's silly to pull out articles for special treatment (as some advocate) while lumping the others in with adjectives. :)

Oh. Well I agree with you wholeheartedly, then. :)

[Violet Crown]

And here's a nice English definition of the term limiting adjective, which is not just used by homeschooled moms and other weak-minded folk:

 

And yet more proof that "determiner" is a term used by academic linguists but not traditional grammarians (not just us silly homeschooling moms!) -

 

Matroyshka, I can see I've upset you. It was not my intention, and I apologize for having done so. I think I had better just let what I've said stand and not continue this conversation.

[Matryoshka]

Matroyshka, I can see I've upset you. It was not my intention, and I apologize for having done so. I think I had better just let what I've said stand and not continue this conversation.

 

Aw, heck no, you haven't upset me in the slightest. I love to talk grammar, and I couldn't even have a conversation about any of this with anyone I know in real life. I think you're completely correct about the determiner thing, if we're using the linguistic definition. But limiting adjective is equally correct. Just because you're right doesn't mean I'm wrong. ;)

 

I just see this argument trotted out all the time here, and those who don't have a strong grammar background just roll over to seemingly authoritative statements like this:

They have been called "determiners" and distinguished from adjectives for a long, long time. Except, to my continual amazement, among homeschoolers.

I didn't react to this so much on a personal level than a mama bear level on behalf of those homeschool moms with less strong grammar backgrounds who might think that the materials they were using were backward or outdated or inadequate because they called articles a type of adjective. It's all good. Those materials aren't wrong. They are using the standard, traditional definition which has not been supplanted or rendered obsolete by the one academic linguists used. What you said above implies otherwise, and that homeschoolers are the only ones still using this dark-ages term, and there are those that might believe it, and I do take umbrage at that comment on their behalf. (and heck, I try my darndest to stay away from those political threads - if I can't have me a good knock-down grammar argument every now and then, where would I get my fun? ;))

 

If I were taking a university linguistics class, I'd be happy to call them determiners. I'm sure the term has been around a long, long time. I do not argue that point at all - just that calling them limiting adjectives is equally valid. Skull/cranium, mole/nevus - both terms correct, one is just a more academic term used by specialists.

[Alice]

I think I started my first controversial thread. And who knew it would be about grammar?

 

Thanks for the good discussion ladies. I'm now even more confused than I was before. :) More confused but enjoying the conversation.