Johanna, you’re the linguist, so either I’m being honored or mocked. I don’t know which.
Where can I confirm this fact? You may be perfectly correct but the argument begs the question.
Your points are noted, and I don’t dispute that this is very common usage, probably common enough to have become a de facto rule. I’m not disputing that such a rule may have evolved but rather asserting that this is illogical and technically sloppy usage. Johanna is of course absolutely right that we’d never say something like “a The New York Times article” even though “The New York Times” is really the proper name, and therein we have a clue as to how this sloppy usage came about: sometimes language has to conform to structural or aesthetic necessities. To wit:
I might say “I attended Harvard” but I would also say “I attended the University of Southern California”. The constructs of certain proper names demand the definite article even though it’s not really part of the name, and such definite articles would not, of course, be capitalized. Those constructs appear in general to be the use of the plural form, the presence of an adjective, or the presence of the word “of” in the name. The grand trifecta of all three is probably the most famous example in the world, “the United States of America”, where “the” is not formally part of the name but you’d never use it in a sentence without the preceding definite article in either its full or its shortened form.
This has led – regrettably, it seems to me – to the identical usage even when “the” really is part of the formal name. I have to admit that the idea does have one somewhat shaky element of supporting logic. If one is allowed to – indeed, must – tack on the definite article in a sentence even when it’s not part of the name, then one can argue that one is equally allowed to consider the definite article separable even when it is formally part of the name. All this means to me is that the English language has rules except when it doesn’t. 
In these sorts of instances, which I would consider as different than the instance laid out in the OP, often the speaker is intimating that they are engaged in a canonical or prototypical use of the noun. “I’m going to Prom.” means I’ve a date and a corsage. I’ve rented a tux and we’re going out to eat beforehand and I’m a junior or senior in high school. “I’m going to the prom.” could be the same thing but it might also be that I’m chaperoning or helping decorate or crashing it. Same with school or university or college. “I’m going to college” means I’ve matriculated and on my way to earning a degree. “I’m going to the college.” means I’ve an errand to run.
There’s some peculiarity by region within the US, also. Around Chicago, to grocery shop, you go to “the Jewel.” And everything in Ohio seems to have the The as a vital component, such as “The Ohio State University.” (That’s the primary example which comes to mind.)
But in ads, I get the impression that the addition of “The” is selling the object as an experience. You never hear this for brands of diapers or toothpaste. It connotes luxury.
I have to keep saying this every time it’s mentioned. Except for the public relations department at OSU, no one cares about the “the.” Normal Ohioans say “Ohio State University” without the “the” and so do most local journalists. These “official” thes are not important to ordinary usage.
More like “da Jewel’s.” Gotta have the Chicago “s” in there.
Oh, for the love of. I was sincere in my praise of you. I don’t mock that way, and I think it’s sad that no one can pay a simple compliment on the internet any more.
I wasn’t rejecting your compliment. I just wasn’t sure. As you say it’s hard to discern sincerity from sarcasm online. It’s happened to me in the past week as well.
So make no mistake, I respect your expertise on these matters and now that any ambiguity is cleared up, I’m truly flattered.
wrong thread
The river and the land get their name from him. The usage of calling it “the Bronx” comes from having to cross “the” Bronx River to get to that city/borough (in the era before there were multiple bridges connecting to the mainland).
I made a mistake; :smack: “The Prom” = “The Promenade”, fully spelled out. “Promenade” is a noun, and can keep its article.
The long form of “Homecoming” is “Homecoming -Ball, - Game, - Weekend, -etc.” “Homecoming” is an adjective, and giving it an article would sound wrong (same for “Prom -Season, -Date,…”)
Thanks! I thought the explanation you gave was better than I would have done. Although I do have some “expertise” on the subject in that I moonlight as a (simple garden-variety) copy editor, I have no special learning in this matter, because it isn’t really linguistics. I mean, if this is a linguistics topic, then the Chicago Manual of Style is a linguistics textbook. I have an affinity for the subject but I don’t put myself forward as an expert on writing style.
As an aside I’ve heard many an historian point out that before the (The?) Civil War the country was commonly referred to in the plural form, i.e. ***these ***United States are etc. because technically that’s what we were, a collection of multiple states. After the war it turned us into an ‘is’, The United States is…
I think I can speak for all Americans when I say that just speaking the line “he’s in hospital” out loud to ourselves sounds so completely wrong. It may be because unlike a college, school, theater etc. a hospital is a place that is always taken seriously, so we always say it more formally as 'the hospital". In fact the only time we’d say “a hospital” would only be because we were unsure as to the exact location, which makes it sound even more urgent (“Get him to a hospital!” or “My mom’s in a hospital!!”)
Reminds me of a really bad joke: What NYC borough begins with the letter ‘D’? Answer- Da’ Bronx!
When discussing ships of the Royal Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal New Zealand Navy, one should not append “the” to their names, since the ships are the monarch’s: HMS Insouciance, HMCS Inconsolable, HMAS Incontinent and HMNZS Intangible, for instance.
They’re simply Insouciance, Inconsolable, Incontinent and Intangible because the Her Majesty’s Ship Insouciance and the Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship Inconsolable, etc., sound silly.
Sure, when they’re expanded out, it sounds silly, but that’s not really a good linguistic rule. Acronyms often get treated as their own entities, separate from their fully spelled out meaning. For example, one can say “I was watching a TMC movie yesterday” whereas saying “I was watching a The Movie Channel movie yesterday” sounds silly. It’s quite usual, at least in American English, to say “the Pinafore” for “HMS Pinafore.” (See, for example, the song “I am the Captain of the Pinafore.”)
I finally found this after flailing about for something to cite since last night.
A 2011 Dope thread has this:
If I were to consider a theory, it would be something like when we talk about school or college, those are things we formally enroll in that have an extended duration of back and forth attendance. Whereas the hospital is a place we temporarily visit - even as a patient, we’re there until we leave, and not expected for a set duration of back and forth visits.
But that wouldn’t explain why we Americans never picked up the habit with university the way British speakers did. So I’m inclined to think there isn’t a simple answer, and it’s more just a pattern of “that’s the way we do it”.
“He’s at uni.” = “He’s at college.” Same function, different dialect.
Also these have different meanings—
–He’s in college
–He’s at college
–He’s at the college