rivers etc. but not lakes?

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

9 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Jun 28, 2012 at 15:40	comment	added	Brad		It seems rubra has defined "rule". I think This is an example of bein g a Rule of Usage while being an exception to the Rule of Grammar. Grammar would like all of these to have an article but it seems the rule heirarchy is that idiomatic usage supersedes all others
Jun 28, 2012 at 13:30	comment	added	FumbleFingers		@rudra: I think we must just agree to differ on this one. Your understanding of "rules of grammar" is different to mine. Established idiomatic usage doesn't count for me.
Jun 28, 2012 at 12:38	comment	added	user20934		@FumbleFingers Why not? `Rule: one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere`
Jun 28, 2012 at 12:17	comment	added	FumbleFingers		-1 It's not a "rule of grammar". As implied by Nathan, it's simply a reflection of what we actually say - historical accident, idiomatically established.
Jun 28, 2012 at 12:00	comment	added	Brad		@NathanLong That's seeming like what it is. I was hoping for a little bit more logic. Although, in the link above, the example about the United States kind of makes sense because there are multiple United States but (Mexico) but when people say the US they really mean of America. I don't know the root of the others as well to say the same logic holds: Phillipines, Netherlands, (Dominican must be a religious thing, the Dominicans could have have more than one republic and that's the most popular one?)
Jun 28, 2012 at 10:29	comment	added	Nathan Long		Unfortunately, like many correct answers about English, this amounts to "because that's how people do it."
Jun 28, 2012 at 8:34	history	edited	user20934	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 4 characters in body
Jun 28, 2012 at 6:41	history	edited	user20934	CC BY-SA 3.0	added 15 characters in body; added 125 characters in body
Jun 28, 2012 at 6:26	history	answered	user20934	CC BY-SA 3.0