A funny quirk of English I never noticed until I started learning Spanish:
In Spanish, to say for example, "he is a doctor," you would say "él es médico." Which more literally translates to "he is doctor," which feels unintuitive coming from English. Spanish DOES have an equivalent for "a" - "un/una", so the natural thing for an English speaker to say would be "él es UN médico", but I understand that to be awkward/unnatural.
But then I realized, when you say the same sentence in plural - "they are doctors" - you don't have an article. You don't say "they are some doctors" (I had to Google, apparently "some" isn't an article anyway?)
So Spanish ends up more consistent - Singular: "Él es médico." Plural: "Ellos son medicos."
Unlike English - Singular: "He is a doctor." Plural: "They are doctors."
I always thought that "some" was technically an article (the plural form of "a"/"an") but I hadn't considered how plurals weren't used in phrases like that.
One thing I did notice about strangeness in English articles is how British English seems to use definite articles in places where American English uses indefinite ones. Back when reading Murder on the Orient Express in school, I remember finding it amusing how one character mentioned that he had "the toothache", which as an American to me sounded like he was saying there's only one toothache in the world that just travels around to me or something.
Articles are weird. My very inexperienced impression is that maybe the only weirder thing is how inconsistently prepositions map to each other between languages, which never seems to be 1:1. Sometimes there's even variation within a language; I always grew up saying "by accident", so it sounds wrong to me when I hear someone say "on accident" but I also realize there's no objectively more correct phrasing.
As a native of England, “he had the toothache” sounds odd to too. I would say “he had a toothache” or just “he had toothache”. Though we aren't entirely consistent: “he had flu”, “he had the flu”, are both fine. “he had a flu” would normally sound wrong (though is technically correct, there are many flu viruses) but “he had a cold” is always fine. “he had the cold” only works in a context where it would be understood as a shorthand for something like “he had the cold that was going around”.
> I always grew up saying "by accident", so it sounds wrong to me when I hear someone say "on accident" but I also realize there's no objectively more correct phrasing.
If speaking actual English rather than a North American variant, “by accident” is objectively the correct phrasing. I'm not aware of any common accent from England in which “on accident” is used.
"He has toothache" or "he has a toothache" are both correct (and mean exactly the same thing), but "he has the toothache" is just wrong, at least in modern English (in the sense that no native speaker would say that)
hbn · · focus · HN ↗
In Spanish, to say for example, "he is a doctor," you would say "él es médico." Which more literally translates to "he is doctor," which feels unintuitive coming from English. Spanish DOES have an equivalent for "a" - "un/una", so the natural thing for an English speaker to say would be "él es UN médico", but I understand that to be awkward/unnatural.
But then I realized, when you say the same sentence in plural - "they are doctors" - you don't have an article. You don't say "they are some doctors" (I had to Google, apparently "some" isn't an article anyway?)
So Spanish ends up more consistent - Singular: "Él es médico." Plural: "Ellos son medicos."
Unlike English - Singular: "He is a doctor." Plural: "They are doctors."
saghm · · focus · HN ↗
One thing I did notice about strangeness in English articles is how British English seems to use definite articles in places where American English uses indefinite ones. Back when reading Murder on the Orient Express in school, I remember finding it amusing how one character mentioned that he had "the toothache", which as an American to me sounded like he was saying there's only one toothache in the world that just travels around to me or something.
Articles are weird. My very inexperienced impression is that maybe the only weirder thing is how inconsistently prepositions map to each other between languages, which never seems to be 1:1. Sometimes there's even variation within a language; I always grew up saying "by accident", so it sounds wrong to me when I hear someone say "on accident" but I also realize there's no objectively more correct phrasing.
dspillett · · focus · HN ↗
As a native of England, “he had the toothache” sounds odd to too. I would say “he had a toothache” or just “he had toothache”. Though we aren't entirely consistent: “he had flu”, “he had the flu”, are both fine. “he had a flu” would normally sound wrong (though is technically correct, there are many flu viruses) but “he had a cold” is always fine. “he had the cold” only works in a context where it would be understood as a shorthand for something like “he had the cold that was going around”.
> I always grew up saying "by accident", so it sounds wrong to me when I hear someone say "on accident" but I also realize there's no objectively more correct phrasing.
If speaking actual English rather than a North American variant, “by accident” is objectively the correct phrasing. I'm not aware of any common accent from England in which “on accident” is used.
ifwinterco · · focus · HN ↗