4

When "false title" is allowed, is it idiomatic to use it with things? (I don't want to discuss whether or not the false title itself is allowed.)

For example, when I am allowed to omit the definite article in the phrase "the famed New Left philosopher Herbert Marcuse," can I omit one also in the following expression? Many of these expressions are what I made to ask this question.

  • the endoscope maker Olympus (I have seen many false titles with company names, so I think this is OK)

    Endoscope maker Olympus puts the dollar at ¥151 in the current financial year, and Mitsubishi Chemical Group Corp. assumes ¥150.

    (Japan Times)

  • the open-source programming language R

  • the animated sitcom South Park

  • the Italian satellite San Marco 1

  • the newly discovered species Moschiola kathygre

    Here we study the newly discovered species Moschiola kathygre.

    (Originally with a definite article: Glenn Paquette, 科学論文の英語用法百科 第2編 [Encyclopedia of English Usage in Scientific Papers No. 2 Use of Articles])

Improve this question
New contributor
ashamed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
6
  • 1
    Do you have any examples of whole sentences? I'd say it's not usually done (do you know what a title is in this context?), but no idea how to prove the negative. I guess it might occasionally be found in headlinese, advertisements, and similar contexts where space is at a premium. But I'd avoid it. All of which is just opinion.
    – Stuart F
    Commented yesterday
  • I'm not sure if this is coincidental, but Wikipedia does this below a picture of a rocket carrying [the] Italian satellite San Marco 1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_(rocket_family)
    – Řídící
    Commented yesterday
  • @Řídící Noun-phrases in photo captions have their own set of rules, different from noun-phrases in speech.
    – TimR
    Commented yesterday
  • 1
    Some of the omissions of article can be explained as the premodifier being construed as a role: philosopher Herbert Marcuse, endoscope maker Olympus. There the -er suffix marks it as such. If the premodifier can be understood as expressing what its noun does, the function it performs, the door is opened for the article to be omitted, although the semantics may differ from speaker to speaker. Someone who has no experience with computers might not understand programming language as stating what R does; their sense of that phrase might be more like what domain R belongs to.
    – TimR
    Commented yesterday
  • 2
    Master looks at this under the classification of the null (not zero) article, more definite than even the definite article. I seem to remember he analyses the distributions rather differently, going beyond personal titles/roles.. With your examples, I'd keep the definite article in the last three cases. Though I don't doubt counterexamples exist on the internet.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented 23 hours ago

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
7

This omission of the article, and particular apposition syntax, found in "famed New Left philosopher Herbert Marcuse" seems to have its origin in journalistic style. Here is a remark from Quirk et al in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, 1985.

(ACGEL § 17.70) Combinations of appositional types
[…]
(vii) PARTIAL, STRICT, RESTRICTIVE

  • Next Saturday, financial expert Tom Timber will begin writing a weekly column on the national economy. [typical of journalistic style]

("Partial" means that "Tom Timber" cannot be omitted, "strict" means that the two units, "financial expert" and "Tom Timber" are syntactic units of the same nature (NPs), and "restrictive" means that "financial expert" defines "Tom Timber" as what is the occupation of this person.)

Of course, "typical of journalistic style" does not mean that the practice of the omission of the article has not yet made an inroad into the standard language, but ultimately, a justification of this grammar will go back to journalese, and as such it is probably not recommendable, even in such titles as suggested in the OP, as toleration of this latter type (omission concerning functions, jobs, qualities, etc.) would license an obvious generalization or otherwise result in uselessly variegated usage.

Improve this answer
8
  • Your example is interesting, I think. Tom Timber is "a financial expert" or "financial expert", not "the" financial expert. "Tom Timber, financial expert" is not the same as "Tom Timber, a financial expert" is not the same as "Tom Timber, the financial expert". I don't know where I want to go with this thought. :)
    – Řídící
    Commented yesterday
  • 6
    @Řídící As a native English speaker, I don't read "the financial expert Tom Timber" or "Tom Timber, the financial expert" as expressing any uniqueness regarding Tom Timber with respect to the class of financial experts. (That is, there's no claim that he's "the" financial expert.) The definite article is merely indicating (assumed) pre-existing familiarity (e.g. "Tom Timber ... you know of him, right? The Tom Timber who is somewhat famous as a financial expert?"). -- "Tom Timber, a financial expert" would be used in contexts where the writer assumed you didn't already know about him.
    – R.M.
    Commented yesterday
  • 1
    @R.M. That's the kind of nuance that I was thinking of. Maybe "the" wasn't omitted. Maybe "a" wasn't omitted. Maybe "" can mean something else than either "the" or "a".
    – Řídící
    Commented yesterday
  • 1
    “probably not recommendable”? I’d say the “false title” is fully recommendable — I concur with usage writer William Safire when he states, “The article ‘the’ gives the title excessive emphasis and that it sounds strange to American speakers.”
    – Tinfoil Hat
    Commented 22 hours ago
  • The last paragraph of this answer has an extra negative and is very odd. Really the work of a human being?
    – Xanne
    Commented 21 hours ago
3

You are right to be dubious - it is not idiomatic to use what you're calling the "false title" with objects. And you are also right that it is sometimes done with company names. I believe the common thread is that companies, like people, have agency.

Even the term "false title" implies that it is not a construction used for inanimate objects. Titles, like "Emperor" or "Lord", are borne by people.

But I would actually suggest avoiding it entirely unless you are writing for a newspaper or newsmagazine. It is a very journalistic style.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .