I had a conversation on a topic here that I am interested in a lot but have not get a response yet to my question about it, so I have decided to address the question to the community on this site for assistance. It concerns matters when a definite article precedes a plural noun modified by 'of' noun phrase, with my impression being that a set of the things specified by a definite article invokes the meaning 'all of them' regarding the things being specified. Why I think perhaps it should be so, I would specify on the following example.

Consider the phrase the mountains of Austria, indicating the mountains that are in Austria not elsewhere, which thus are specified. It seems to me that here the connotation of all mountains (of Austria) is present in the sense of all of them that are in Austria (or at least in the sense of each of them); for otherwise, it would mean that some of them are excluded from the list of the mountains of Austria, seeming illogical.

Does such 'logic' and meaning, even at a level of connotation, are present in the phrase and in this sort of phrases generally?

I do understand that perhaps this question can be tagged a 'duplicate', but I would like, in that case, to read comments about the proposed logic-- why, for example, it could be that it does not matter at all in the phrase concerned.

  • 1
    If you have some awareness that the question could be a duplicate, please link to a couple of the ones you've read so you can say why you're still unsure. It may legitimately be a new question, but it's hard to tell without reference. In any case, yes, "the mountains of Austria" would be assumed to refer to "all the mountains of Austria". – Luke Sawczak Aug 5 '17 at 15:50
  • @ Luke Sawczak Perhaps it may be count as a duplicate of this post ell.stackexchange.com/questions/106799/… But I would emphasize the proposed logic as being of a primary interest to this post. – Giorgi Aug 5 '17 at 16:06

Unfortunately your actual question is itself ungrammatical and hard to understand. I think you're asking if you're interpreting the phrase correctly as referring to all mountains in Austria.

If so, then yes, this is the meaning I give the phrase as a native speaker. It refers to all mountains in Austria. The mountains in Austria is a noun phrase, you can consider these four words as standing in for a single noun.

I cannot think of an example where this logic does not hold, I believe it is absolutely correct.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.