Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am reading a military history text that repeatedly refers to "the Sun Tzu" but does not give similar treatment to other authors (an example is "Clausewitz and the Sun Tzu disagree on ..."). I have never seen this usage of the definite article with the author's name, and it seems incorrect to me.

share|improve this question
3  
This seems very odd to me, as I have never seen Sun Tzu referred to with the definite article elsewhere. What's the name of the book? –  JSBձոգչ Apr 26 '12 at 2:48
    
Some nouns get "the" and some don't in English. It totally defies any attempt to find a general rule, all you can do is keep creating more and more small rules and claim that explains it. The Washington Monument but Faneuil Hall. The River Styx but Lake Ontario. Nine Inch Nails but the Moody Blues. NBC but the BBC. –  David Schwartz Apr 26 '12 at 13:02
    
@DavidSchwartz: What makes this unusual is that it is a person's given name, unlike the examples you give. The only other "legitimate" English case I can think of is "The Donald" Trump, but that's basically a nickname. –  Paul Richter Apr 27 '12 at 23:38
    
There are other examples where the thing is implied. For example, the Royal Albert Pub is frequently just called the Royal Albert. –  David Schwartz Apr 28 '12 at 6:40
add comment

5 Answers

up vote 7 down vote accepted

The work (or collection of works) known as "The Art of War" is usually referred to as "by Sun Tzu" — but scholars have long thought that there were multiple authors, or that the work was actually written by someone else entirely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu#Historicity.

Given so much scholarly ambiguity, the author of your text may simply not have wanted to commit to a definite opinion about the work's authorship. (In a similar quandary, I would have referred to "the Art of War" throughout, but your author might have found that unwieldy.)

share|improve this answer
add comment

I concur with MT_Head's explanation, and have voted it up.

I did some research on this last night, and found examples of both uses. First, a work that refers to the work as if it has a single author:

enter image description here

Next, a work that uses a definite article when referring to the work:

enter image description here

Lastly, a work with a footnote that delves into some of the authorship ambiguity that MT_Head so concisely described:

enter image description here

The three sources (in order of their appearance):
(1) Sun Tzu's Art of War: The Modern Chinese Interpretation by Tao Hanzhang & Yuan Shibing
(2) The Rules of Victory: How to Transform Chaos and Conflict–Strategies from The Art of War by James Gimian & Barry Boyce
(3) The Art of Rulership: A Study of Ancient Chinese Political Thought by Roger T. Ames

Incidentally, the first quote comes from the authors' introduction the The Art of War, where they assert: "It is indeed Sun Tzu who wrote the book and not, as some have suggested, the writings of someone else in his name." I'm not going to weigh in on the authorship debate, however. Someone much wiser than me once advised long ago,

Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness.

That seems like sound advice, especially when stepping into the minefield as a scholarly battle.

share|improve this answer
1  
But all those instances with the definite article are referring not to an author but to a title, because they are italicised: "the Sun Tzu by Sun Wu...", "the Sun Tzu was edited...", "the recent unearting of the Sun Tzu Art of Warfare (Sun Tzu ping-fa) fragments..." and "portions of the Sun Tzu Art of Warefare..." –  Hugo Apr 26 '12 at 18:19
2  
@Hugo: Exactly! Apparently, those who ascribe to the theory that The Art of War was written by Sun Tzu don't use that convention, but those who believe the work had more of a conglomerate authorship sometimes refer to the work as a whole as The Sun Tzu. Since no such ambiguity exists with Clausewitz, you don't see the two conventions used. I think this might be caused, in part, by the translation from ancient Chinese to English. –  J.R. Apr 27 '12 at 0:34
add comment

It is common practice to refer to a work by the author's last name.

Imagine a band was playing a number of pieces by different authors. When starting rehearsal, the director could say

Pull out the Holst.

And would be referring to whichever piece of Holst's the band is playing, such as First Suite in Eb. So long as they are only playing one piece by each author, it isn't confusing.

In your case, I would imagine that the author is talking about Sun Tzu's The Art of War when he refers to "the Sun Tzu," given the context. My only other thought is that the author doesn't think of Sun Tzu as a person, but I don't see how or why he would do that.

share|improve this answer
    
Similar to thinking about Nicholas Bourbaki perhaps? (Not a perfect analogy, admittedly) –  Andrew Leach Apr 26 '12 at 11:26
1  
This does happen when referring to a work, but in this case it seems it's referring to the person: "Clausewitz and the Sun Tzu disagree on ..." –  Hugo Apr 26 '12 at 18:24
add comment

"the Sun Tzu" would refer to "the BOOK by Sun Tzu," or Sun Tzu's book ("The Art of War"), as opposed to Sun Tzu, the PERSON.

At least that's the sense I get when the source is a book that is itself about military history.

share|improve this answer
    
This does happen when referring to a work, but in this case it seems it's referring to the person: "Clausewitz and the Sun Tzu disagree on ..." –  Hugo Apr 26 '12 at 18:24
2  
@Hugo: May be the writer thought that Sun Tzu was a "title," e.g., "the Count of Monte Cristo. –  Tom Au Apr 26 '12 at 18:26
add comment

The Tzu/Tze/Tse (子) in Sun Tzu, as well as in Lao Tze, Kong Tze (Confucius), etc. is not part of the person's given name, but more a title, meaning "teacher" or "master". So Sun Tzu means "Master Sun".

Perhaps the writer attached the "the" to indicate this (though it comes across as an affectation), similar to "The Emperor Haile Selassie" or "The Goddess Isis".

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.