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

The homework is as following

As it stands, our rule allows just one determiner in an NP.

NP → (D) (AdjP+) N (PP+) (CP) (PP+)

How can we revise this rule to account for the following data:

b. the many faces

Now people in #english on freenode argued that the many is rather forced, on the edge of acceptability. Does this hold?

share|improve this question

closed as too localized by FumbleFingers, MετάEd, Matt E. Эллен, Kris, Cameron Oct 3 '12 at 20:00

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

They would be well-advised to stop reading freenode and start reading books. "The many faces" is unexceptionable. – RegDwigнt Oct 1 '12 at 21:26
The question and answer have been useful to me, shame it is closed. – JJM Driessen Oct 14 '15 at 9:45
up vote 6 down vote accepted

Yes, the many faces is fine; so are the various faces, the few faces, the several faces, both the faces, etc. Your Freenode people are on the edge of wrong. See this Google Books search on “the many”, to discover the many sorts of the-many examples that exist out there.

  • The many costs of racism
  • The many faces of shame
  • The many voices of
  • The many legalities of
  • The many voices of history

And many more. But “many voices” seems the most common.

The problem is that you are assuming many can only be a determiner. I think you should consider that it could also be of another, more liberal class. Then you wouldn’t have to fix your rule.

Otherwise you would have to change the rule to

NP → (D+) (AdjP+) N (PP+) (CP) (PP+)

But that would admit many invalid parses, so I don’t really suggest it.

You may have to subdivide your determiners.

share|improve this answer
And, lest we forget, The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis – StoneyB Oct 1 '12 at 21:32
Or the seven faces of Dr. Lao – J.R. Oct 1 '12 at 21:45
"Because the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many." – MετάEd Oct 1 '12 at 22:12
@MετάEd Isn't that D N ? – StoneyB Oct 1 '12 at 23:52

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