English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there any difference between these sentences apart from structure?

The tiger is a ferocious animal.
Tigers are ferocious animals.
share|improve this question
up vote 5 down vote accepted

When you say "The tiger", it is a stand-in for "all tigers"; apart from having to make the subject and verb agree, the two sentences are the same.

You can use the same equivalence in other cases that don't look exactly the same:

"Man is mortal." / "All men are mortal." (Note that in this usage, "men" is gender-neutral.)

"Humankind is fallible." / "All humans are fallible."

"Art nurtures the soul." / "The arts nurture the soul."

share|improve this answer
Good examples, except that the arts has a broader meaning than art: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_arts – z7sg Ѫ Jun 6 '11 at 1:22
@z7sg - Just because Wikipedia sez it, don't make it so. I do agree that "art" generally refers to "the visual arts", but "Art" refers to all arts - the fact that it's the first word of the sentence did obscure the capitalization, it's true. The epigram "Ars longa, vita brevis" (Art is long, but life is short) is ascribed to Hippocrates, and I never heard of him picking up a brush. – MT_Head Jun 6 '11 at 1:26
I didn't mention painting. Here two clearly distinct meanings 1, 2 oxforddictionaries.com/definition/art#m_en_gb0041510.004 – z7sg Ѫ Jun 6 '11 at 1:29
@z7sg - Also, amusingly, where the Wiki entry says "It is a broader term than 'art'"... if you click the word "art", the first paragraph begins: <<Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. >> So pffft to the logical consistency of Wikipedia. – MT_Head Jun 6 '11 at 1:30
Put more simply, "art" can refer to the "products of creativity" whereas "the arts" can't. So it isn't equivalent in the same way as "the tiger"/"all tigers". Maybe I am being pedantic, but that's half my motivation here. – z7sg Ѫ Jun 6 '11 at 1:37

There is no difference.
Both refer to the fact that the tiger is an animal, and a ferocious one.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.