0

The indians are genetically incapable of being good or outstanding sportsman.

Here i think it should be only indians. If i want to use the then use as the indian not the indians.

Am i right? If 'no' then give the correct explanation.

1

In a sentence like the example "The Indians" means "Indians as a group, and is perfectly grammatical. "The Indian" means a single, specific Indian. Saying "Indians are incapable" has much the same meaning as "The Indians are incapable" but does not emphasize the group as much.

Many people now consider such statements which assign properties, particularly negative properties, to entire groups, to be impolite or even racist. But such statements have been common in English through much of its history, and some still make them.

  • What about the lower case of 'indian' and the singular 'sportsman'? – Michael Harvey Apr 26 at 6:52
  • It should be capitalised Indians, and pluralised sportsmen. Either "The Indians are genetically incapable of being good or outstanding sportsmen." or "Indians are genetically incapable of being good or outstanding sportsmen." It's also a bit tautological - if they already can't be good, there's no need to say they can't be outstanding; that would be a given. And it's also clearly wrong - India has some brilliant sportsmen. Look at their cricketers! – Showsni Apr 26 at 8:50
  • @Showsni I'm sorry to have missed the missing capitol and the lack of number agreement. You are right there. As to "good" vs "outstanding" I do not think the latter included the former. In this usage, to be a "good sportsman" means to be particularly ethical, while to be an "outstanding sportsman" means to be a high-quality athlete. – David Siegel Apr 26 at 15:02

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.