I can’t really afford to do this but I may have dinner at Claridges Hotel.
However, if I wish to describe the venue more fully, I would say something like “I may have dinner at the famous Claridges Hotel”.
Similarly, I hope one day to see Madonna in concert. Yet if I rate the singer very highly I might say "I hope one day to see the legendary Madonna in concert.
Is the insertion of the before the adjective merely a device for emphasis or does the sentence construction follow a specific rule of grammar?
Since “I hope to see legendary Madonna someday” is not grammatical, it looks like the insertion of “the” is not “merely a device.” (Not sure what you mean by that phrase, though, TBH.) “The” needs to be there for the sentence to be a proper sentence.
I don’t see how this “the” is being used differently from the “the” in “the big dog” and “the red house” and so on. In those usages, “the” is not serving any emphatic function, and I don’t see that it is serving any such function in your examples either.
The correct comparison should be with the sentence “I hope to see Madonna.” Calling here “legendary” seems to require the speaker also add a “the”. It is somewhat different than, e.g. “I hope to see the dog”, where “the” is required whether or not “legendary” is added.
I agree “the” is not emphatic, but it does seem to be necessary when a proper noun is modified by an adjective (OTOH it is usually omitted when no adjective is present).
“The” is necessary when any noun is modified by an adjective in the manner we’ve been discussing.
Other than that, I agree with what you’re saying here. I don’t understand your first sentence, though. What do you mean by calling your comparison “correct?” Correct in what sense?
The “the” is required for grammatical correctness in the given examples, as you say. I withdraw my suggestion concerning a device for emphasis.
If I wish to describe Madonna simply as a pop singer I might say "I hope one day to see the pop singer Madonna in concert. I might also say “I hope one day to see pop singer Madonna in concert”.
Is the latter construction grammatically incorrect?
At a glance, it looks like the distinction is between individual’s names (Madonna - singer) and nouns (hotel). If you say ‘I’m going to see the Madonna’, we know you’re referring to a painting or somesuch. If you say ‘I’m going to see Madonna’, we know you’re referring to the entertainer.
Where it gets interesting, is that adding a modifier before the name requires an article - maybe because the modifier implies that the name doesn’t refer to a unique individual ?
‘The OP is by Chez Guevara’ (unique individual). vs ‘The OP is by the original Chez Guevara’ (there are many Chez Guevaras).
And yet it is often not present when the noun is unmodified; that is the point of the OP.
In the sense that the OP is asking a specific question about when “the” is included in a sentence like “I’m going to see X”. It appears that if X is a proper noun (=“individual names” in Theremin’s post), “the” is usually not included unless the noun is preceded by an adjective.
As you point out, “the” is commonly included with common nouns, e.g. “the dog”, “the house”, whether or not an adjective is present. However this is because we realize there are other dogs or houses in the world (not to mention the idea itself of what a dog or house is). When we wish to convey that we are speaking about one particular instance of “dog” of “house”, we’re always obliged to include “the”. But since there is only one Madonna (OK, one pop singer Madonna), it seems redundant to include “the”, a fact we acknowledge by omitting it in the sentence “I’m going to see Madonna.” But add an adjective like “legendary”, and “the” it seems to be required.
Regarding Che Guevara’s example “I hope one day to see the pop singer Madonna in concert.”, “pop singer” and “Madonna” are nouns in apposition, so it’s a slightly different animal (“the” is clearly modifying “pop singer” here, as we qould expect whether or not “Madonna” was included in the sentence). I’m not sure if, as Che concludes, that “I hope one day to see pop singer Madonna in concert.” is grammatical (sincerely; you read enough of these sentences for a while and it all begins to make sense). But if it is, it’s clearly because the noun “Madonna” is present in the sentence.
To summarize, “the” is not required with a proper noun that is in some sense unique unless the noun is modified by an adjective, e.g. “Congress is in session” vs. “The Republican/109th/idiot-filled Congress is in session”.
“The” can also be used for emphasis as in “Oh, you men the Duke of Wellington.” by which is meant Aurthur Wellesley, the general commanding British forces at Waterloo and none of the subsequent holders of the title.
A much more thorough explanation than mine !
A slight quibble though regarding proper nouns - this works fine for people and cities, but seems to pose a problem with regard to some other proper nouns.
I’m going to India to visit Delhi, the Taj Mahal and the Himalayas.
I’m going to Chelsea. (city)
I’m going to the Chelsea. (hotel / bar)
I’m not sure what the exact category that dispenses with articles is, but it appears to exclude rivers, mountain ranges etc as well as most named buildings. Some buildings don’t get an article - ‘a photograph of Big-Ben’, some buildings do get an article - a photograph of the Acropolis.
[QUOTE=Themenin]
Some buildings don’t get an article - ‘a photograph of Big-Ben’, QUOTE]Big Ben isn’t a building. It’s the clock (techincally it’s the bell of the clock) in the tower on the Houses of Parliament.
Good point, which may explain the lack of an article in this case. But contrast ‘London Bridge’ with ‘the Brooklyn Bridge’. I’m still not sure we have a full answer here.