Timeline for When does one drop the article after "with"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 15, 2017 at 15:19 | history | bounty ended | Andrew | ||
| Jan 13, 2017 at 7:35 | comment | added | laugh salutes Monica C | Thanks for providing the source. Thus sentence was quoted in the OP, so it is definitely not an exception. As I explained above, the puzzle can be solved by noting that the "weak apoplectic form" is unique for a Banach space. Therefore the sentence needs no article. It is similar to "a house with red roof", in that there is only one roof, so no use of stating "with a red roof". | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 16:35 | comment | added | Damkerng T. | Hmm... what do you think about this example: Let X be a Banach space with weak symplectic form ω. Is it an error or is it an exception to the rule in the book? | |
| Jan 12, 2017 at 15:50 | comment | added | laugh salutes Monica C | What I'm saying is that these are separate examples and there is no "rule for article after with". There are article "rules" for plural, unique nouns, etc., which you can find in grammar books. I don't think there is anything deeper that applies to "with". | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 20:56 | comment | added | Andrew | This seems a roundabout way to say "there doesn't seem to be any overarching set of rules", which I already told OP in my own answer. I'm looking for something deeper. | |
| Jan 9, 2017 at 15:58 | history | edited | laugh salutes Monica C | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 160 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2017 at 15:47 | history | answered | laugh salutes Monica C | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
