(1) Man cannot live by bread alone. — (idiom) (saying) (used to say that people need not just food, but also art, music, literature, ideas, etc. to live happily)
Is there any logical explanation why this idiom doesn't have an article before the noun "man"?
my variants:
(2) The man cannot live by bread alone.
(3) Men cannot live by bread alone.
As far as I understand, (2) and (3) are correct.
Man (without any article) and mankind used to be used to refer to human beings in general; hence the word people in the Cambridge definition. In recent years this usage has fallen out of favour (as supposedly implying that women don't count).
The phrase actually comes from Matthew 4:4 in the King James Bible. Some more recent translations say people or humans.
Man cannot live by bread alone.
The OP asks if man can be changed:
The man cannot live by bread alone.
Men cannot live by bread alone.
The question is understandable and reasonable, because there are other contexts in which a noun plus definite article is used to describe that item in general.
In the last fifty years the computer has changed the world.
In the last fifty years computers have changed the world.
These two sentences are both OK and they both mean the same thing.
(Note that the computer can also refer to a single particular object: The computer in my home office is old and needs to be replaced. Whether the noun has a general or particular reference can only be determined by context.)
So with these notes in mind, let's return to the original sentence. I would say that the proposed changes are not suitable here, and it's because of the special background to this particular sentence.
As noted, man cannot live by bread alone has a history. It is a sentence from the Bible:
Matthew 4:3-4 (KJV)
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
You will notice that the language overall feels old fashioned because of course it is. It is the language of Shakespeare, the language of the sixteenth century. But because this sentence is from the Bible, and even more so because it is a well known story from the life of Jesus, it has taken on a proverbial element. We can see that from the interpretation in the OP. There the saying is applied to social themes such as art or music; in the Bible it is applied specifically to the spiritual food that we receive from God's word.
So can you change it? Technically yes, but you need to understand that you are changing a proverb, not just a sentence. When I read this...
The man cannot live by bread alone
...I immediately think of this...
Man cannot live by bread alone
...and I think that the writer must mean something different, because he is intentionally changing a well known saying.
This is why modern translations either retain the proverbial flavour of the King James Version (see the New International Version [NIV]) or create a completely new style of gender neutral translation (see for example the New Living Translation [NLT]).
The man hunted, gathered wild berries, and fended for himself.
This refers to a nameless male individual.
So God created man in his own image, […] male and female created he them.
King James Version (1611), Genesis 1:27-29
In this excerpt from the Bible, man represents humanity, both men and women.
In more recent revisions, the term man has either been replaced by mankind or humankind
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
New International Version (1973)
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition 1989 (NRSVCE)
Note the absence of the definite article in these more recent versions. In English it is rare to speak or hear about the mankind or the humankind– I'm sure there are exceptions–but generally speaking, we don't use any article.
The quote comes from the Bible, specifically the section of the Bible commonly known as the 'New Testament' which was mainly written in ancient Greek and subsequently translated into modern languages. Although you are asking about the grammar of the English translation, I think it is worth considering the original language as a little aside because it is a good example of how other languages use articles differently to English before we see why the English translation does not require one.
The Greek word translated as "man" is actually ánthropos, which literally translates as person. It's the root word from which we get modern words such as anthropology, the study of human society and culture.
Ancient Greek had a definite article (equivalent to English 'the'), but not an indefinite article. The absence of an indefinite article in the language meant the definite article was used more frequently than we would in English, and for different reasons. For example, in English, we know that "a man" is any particular man, "the man" would be a specific man, and "man" without an article is the generic man, or all mankind. In this text, from Matthew 4:4, the original language uses a definite article and effectively says "the person", but this does not mean a specific person like it would in modern English - it is there to indicate that this is not a single man, like "a man" would indicate.
Translation is about conveying the overall meaning rather than making a word-for-word translation. The correct rendering is therefore any word that expresses the generic man or mankind. There is no need for an article in the English translation for these words as they are generic, uncountable nouns. Plural nouns like people or humans convey the same meaning but in a way that is not as close to the original language.
Certainly not "the man", because it applies to all mankind. (3) is almost true to the intent, but limits the subject to "men", whereas it likely was understood that "man" meant "mankind".
English has become more concerned with gender equality in recent years (e.g., "actress" and "comedienne" are no longer P.C.). However, as Neil Armstrong said, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." He thought he had said, "That's one small step for a man..."
Leaving out the article before "man" is just for style and flavor. It's a personal choice. 2 and 3 are correct. 2 has a slightly different meaning, though.
"Man cannot live by bread alone." "A man cannot live by bread alone." These refer to all humans. Not one specific human, not specifically the male sex or the female sex. Humans, in general.
"The man cannot live by bread alone" (2) This makes the sentence sound like you are referring to one specific human, who is male. It is similar to saying "My boyfriend, Steve, cannot live by bread alone."
"Men cannot live by bread alone." (3) This refer to all humans again. Humans, in general. Does this refer to specifically the male sex or the female sex? The answer depends on the personal opinion of who you ask. Personally, I think this sounds like specifically the male sex. But other people probably think this doesn't.
I have just pulled out Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, Second Edition, Volume I, A through Microspectroscope. It gives 15 different meanings for the noun "Man":
...
"Lion", however has only 5 different meanings. The first is the animal, Panthera leo; the second is a person of great courage, etc. There appears to be no usage of "lion" to mean "lionkind". (Maybe if lions had a language they would have 15 definitions of "lion"? Perhaps this is the essence of your question: I conjecture that all human languages treat humans differently from lions, horses, and tardigrades.)
@Loviii, I see from your profile that you are in Moscow, so you must have access to a great public library. Can you find a copy of the 12 volume Oxford English Dictionary ("Big Oxford")?
The explanation may not be logical, but poetic. As a proverb it sounds more powerful through its triple-iambic metre.
