Could someone articulate the rules for when an article is mandatory and when it is optional? Not when to use the definite or indefinite article (unless it makes a difference), but the general inclusion. Since clients request writing in both styles, I am interested in British and American usage.
In hopes of warding off some of the sidetracks that plague grammar questions:[ul]
[li]This is a question about formal, professional writing: [/li][li]Consider the publication to be an annual report or policy paper for an international aid agency. [/li][li]Feel free to sidetrack to other writing styles, of course, but I’m initially asking about the strictest use. [/li][li]There is no style manual mandated, though most of my clients prefer Chicago. [/li][li]There doesn’t need to be any rational basis for a rule, just an articulable guide.[/li][li]If no bright line rule exists, that’s fine; a generally accepted convention is suitable.[/li][/ul]
Bonus question:
When is ‘to’ necessary/correct in the following sentences and why:[ol][li]The agency is assisting countries (to) develop programmes. [/li][li]The agency assists countries (to) develop programmes. [/li][li]The agency is helping countries (to) develop programmes. [/li][li]The agency helps countries (to) develop programmes.[/li][/ol]
I am not aware of any overall rule about the use of articles – they’re helper words that depend on the noun, so you have to tackle them on a noun-by-noun basis. (I may be misunderstanding your question here, of course.)
For your bonus question – no “to” needed in any of those, in American usage, *Chicago *style.
help + object +infinitive can be with “to” or without “to”. machs nix
so 1 and 2 YES
3 and 4 optional
the use of the articles would require pages to list all the possible configurations, as in: “You use the definite article with the name of a river.” or "You do not use the definite article with the name of a mountain."There are pages of data like this.
With regard to your bonus question, the inclusion of ‘to’ indicates - to me at least - that the involvement is at an earlier stage. For instance, advising on the process of setting up the team vs working with the team.
Do you know of a source collecting all those rules? The ambiguity (see Twickster’s answer) may be why I’m not finding it easily, or they could be dispersed among various sections.
The question about ‘to’ primarily relates to the word ‘help’. It’s been asserted (but not cited) that with ‘help’, ‘to’ is optional, but mandatory in all other cases.
Everywhere, really. Consider variations on my last post:
Do you know of **a **source collecting all **the **rules? __ [A]mbiguity (see Twickster’s answer) may be why I’m not finding it easily, or they could be dispersed among the various sections.
It would seem wrong to say “Do you know of source collecting…” but I can’t articulate why.
Is ‘the’ before ‘rules’ optional? What about the ‘the’ before “various sections”?
Dropping the first ‘the’ in the second sentence seems to make it much more general and reads funny (almost fortune cookie-like), but not quite as wrong as the previous example.
as to source, i would browse a bookstore which sells books for students of English. maybe not too easy to find in the USA, if that is where you are. Any decent grammar book will have some chapter dedicated to the articles.
Isn’t the OP asking about why you drop the article in a lot of sentences when Americans don’t? We say “the hospital” or “a university” but in an otherwise identical sentence you seem inclined to say “hospital” or “university” instead. You will probably never hear an American say something like “Betty is at hospital” or “Jack wants to study law at university,” but these seem to be very common constructions in the UK.
i didn’t get that was the angle, but perhaps you are correct.
UK usage: “she’s in hospital” means she is being operated on or receiving some form of treatment.
“she’s at the hospital” may mean she is visiting someone or selling paper towels or antibiotics for a pharma corporation.
it has to do with “primary function” of the building which is where the definite article gets dropped. “in church” = praying or attending mass. “at the church” means someone went to perhaps photograph it as an historical site.
“in school” = studying “at the school” perhaps a parent went to talk with a teacher.
–The Brits got it right. It’s the Yanks who are inconsistent.
Americans say “Tomorrow I have to go to school, to church, to jail, to court,etc…
But they don’t say” I have to go to hospital".
These were the examples which occurred to me when I saw OP.
You don’t have to cross the Atlantic to see such article variations. Northern California freeways named “Interstate 5” and “101” change names to “The 5” and “The 101” as one nears Los Angeles.
But it is the American usage of “the hospital” to mean “hospitals in general” that is unusual, not the British usage, which follows the normal pattern of requiring “the” only when you are referring to a particular hospital. Brits do say “Betty is at the hospital” when they mean the hospital nearby, or a partciular hospital than can be inferred from context.
It’s the same as “she went to college” (meaning that she entered higher education) versus “she went to the college” (meaning that she visited a particular college).
Here’s the closest I’ve been able to find to a guide on using articles:
I don’t think that there’s any difference in the use of articles in American and British English except just before “school,” “university,” “hospital,” and “prison.” You might want to buy a copy of British English A to Zed, revised and updated edition, by Norman W. Schur and Eugene Ehrlich and read it and consult it occasionally. It’s intended as a guide for Americans who are reading British materials. It might also be useful for Britons who are editing American materials. I presume that you’re British since you spelled the word as “programme” in your OP.
With the sentence “Do you know of a source collecting all the rules?”, everybody keeps the “a” and “the.” I don’t even know why you would ask about that sentence. Are you a native English speaker? Then just go with your own intuition. The same is true for those four sentences you list in your OP. If you’re not an English speaker, get one to edit your work. If you don’t have enough native intuition to do it yourself, you shouldn’t have been hired to do that work.
The use of articles in English seems to be one of the hardest aspects of English to master, for speakers of languages (like Japanese and Lithuanian) that don’t use articles. I regularly deal with texts in otherwise good English, prepared by [X-language] speakers who have professional qualifications to translate into English, where the majority of mistakes consist of incorrect use of articles.
This suggests to me that the “rules” must be so complex, subtle or difficult to codify that they can’t be summarised in a way that is easy for a non-native learner to internalise.
As others have said, if you are a native speaker, just use your native-speaker intuition (what sounds right to you). It is a very reliable guide - how often have you heard native speakers use articles incorrectly?
I think all of those sentences read better with the to. It is not actually wrong to leave it out, just a bit informal. In formal writing I would keep it in each case, in both countries. I am British, but I have lived in the United States for 20 years.