For example, there are two large bodies of water near my town. Sebago Lake and Casco Bay. They are linked by The Presumpscot River. In fact it seems like most bays and ponds/lakes does not have a definite article, but all rivers do. What is the history behind this?
wow, I never noticed that’s the convention before
good observation
Lord knows it may be totally grammatically wrong or just meaningless, but just grew out of colloquial speech
The only exception I can think of is the Chesapeake Bay. Often, though, when “the” is included the word “Bay” isn’t.
I don’t think one can ever definitively answer this kind of question. The conventions of articles for any given language are often by nature simply idiosyncratic. But if I had to wager a guess, I’d say that bodies of water that are used for travelling long distances by people from distant places get an article. (The Pacific Ocean. The Mississippi.) Very large lakes (e.g., Lake Superior), of course are exceptions, but that’s just because they’re exceptionally large.
Oceans, seas, canals, and channels also generally take the definite article: the Atlantic Ocean, the Red Sea, the Suez Canal, the English Channel. Here’s a brief article on the topic.
The Strait of Something or Other.
At least in the U.S., it’s likely due to the fact that rivers cross multiple states. The rivers are labeled as to where the mouth is; the Mississippi, Ohio and Arkansas, for instance, do this. A colorado river means any river in the State of Colorado; The Colorado River is a specific stream.
It could be because rivers, seas, etc. over a considerable area, where lakes and ponds are more local (of course with the exception of the largest lakes). As the article mentions, mountain ranges take the article (The Rocky Mountains) but not a single peak (Mt. McKinley). Also archipelagos vs islands (the West Indies vs Cuba) and peninsulas (the Baja Peninsula, the Malay Peninsula) vs capes (Cape Cod, Cape Horn).
The Puget Sound begs to differ.
It’s also often just called “Puget Sound,” without the article. Most soundslisted here would not take the article.
Really? I don’t think I’ve ever heard it used without the article, and I live in Seattle (well, the Eastside). Sometimes just “the Sound” without Puget.
Regional usage differences?
Let us don’t even get started on how numbered freeways are spoken of in California! (Definite articles in Southern Ca., no definite articles in Northern Ca.)
No way; English speakers’ encounters with these rivers long predated the states. The practice of using the definite article for rivers was already well established in English.
A Map of Maine will show just “Presumscot River”, without “The”, and local vernacular is what supplies The to the reference. I think the reason is largely due to the fact that local residents will always include the word “Lake” in the reference to Lake Casco, but will just talk about “The Prsumscot”, without saying the word River.
“The” is normally not a part of the official name of a geographical feature, and local usage supplies it, just as they would for any other noun. This is an evolved feature of the English Language, which, lika all languages, is a writhing mass, and changes according to how its users find it practical to use it.
A similar phenomenon occurs with Seas. Generally, English speakers refer to “The Baltic Sea” or “The North Sea”, but lesser marine features often without “The”, like Long Island Sound or Chesapeake Bay. Maybe Rivers are tantamount to Seas in importance, and the article is retained in deference to that.
Jtur88, the set of features which usually include the article when spoken aloud (oceans, most rivers, mountain ranges…) DON’T include them (usually) when labeled on a map.
ETA: I see you know this…sorry, I thought you were using this fact to justify something or other. My bad.
After many years Ukraine seems to be dropping its “the,” and I’m happy for Ukraine.
I’ve always wished that Canada and Mexico would get a nice big “the” tacked onto the front of their names.
No particular reason, I just think it would be fun to ask people, “Have you ever been to the Mexico?”
Boy! That Rob Ford looks like he loves poutine, eh? The Canada must be proud.
Complete WAG - lakes have the word ‘lake’ at the front of the name; e.g. Lake Superior. Rivers, on the other hand, have the word ‘river’ at the end of the name; e.g. The Hudson River. It almost makes the ‘name’ part of the river follow the normal adjective modifying the word flow (the word being modified being river), and so including the definite article seems appropriate. With the name following the word lake, it doesn’t quite follow - it seems more like a proper noun.
As a thought, The Great Salt Lake usually (when I hear it) includes the ‘the’, and it has the name prior to the word lake, rather than after it.
This is a useless discussion. The plain fact is that there is no reason. Why do we say, “He’s away at college”, but “he’s away at the university”? Why do we say, “he’s in the hospital” while Canadians (and Brits, I think) say, “he’s in hospital” (and “he’s away at University”)? There are some features of language that just are.
“He’s away at the university” sounds weird to me, unless unambiguously referring to a specific local university that is “the university” to you as much as the local river is “the river”.
Until fairly recently, the BBC was still saying “The Lebanon”. Several countries have The as a part of their official name, such as The Gambia. In El Salvador, the “El” means “The”. In English, we still say The Philippipnes, but Filipinos don’t. Same for The Netherlands.
Mexico, by the way, already is “The United Mexican States”, but Americans call it what they please. A lot of older Americans still call it “Old Mexico”, ever since Americans decided there was a New Mexico to distinguish it from.
There are historical reasons why some things are called what they are, and history is not a bad thing to retain some acquaintance with.