Article. The word “Respect”
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
Why is there an article in the first example and not in the second?
Oxfordlearnersdictionaries says that:
[countable] a particular aspect or detail of something
He felt a grudging respect for her talents as an organizer.
and
He treats his grandparents with (a) great respect.
etc.
articles zero-article
asked Feb 25 at 13:51
BoyepBoyep
471213
add a comment |
Why is there an article in the first example and not in the second?
Oxfordlearnersdictionaries says that:
[countable] a particular aspect or detail of something
He felt a grudging respect for her talents as an organizer.
and
He treats his grandparents with (a) great respect.
etc.
articles zero-article
asked Feb 25 at 13:51
BoyepBoyep
471213
add a comment |
Why is there an article in the first example and not in the second?
Oxfordlearnersdictionaries says that:
[countable] a particular aspect or detail of something
He felt a grudging respect for her talents as an organizer.
and
He treats his grandparents with (a) great respect.
etc.
articles zero-article
asked Feb 25 at 13:51
BoyepBoyep
471213
Why is there an article in the first example and not in the second?
Oxfordlearnersdictionaries says that:
[countable] a particular aspect or detail of something
He felt a grudging respect for her talents as an organizer.
and
He treats his grandparents with (a) great respect.
etc.
articles zero-article
articles zero-article
asked Feb 25 at 13:51
BoyepBoyep
471213
asked Feb 25 at 13:51
BoyepBoyep
471213
asked Feb 25 at 13:51
BoyepBoyep
471213
asked Feb 25 at 13:51
BoyepBoyep
471213
asked Feb 25 at 13:51
BoyepBoyep
471213
471213
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
This is one case where usage has changed a bit over time, but with or without the article are both fine...
It's obviously ridiculous to suppose that what people mean by the article/no article choice has somehow changed - it's entirely a stylistic choice. But if you want to swim with the tide of linguistic history, you can reasonably forget about including the article in your own utterances. Just don't go thinking that anyone who chooses otherwise is somehow "wrong".
Note that individual "abstract nouns" are different in this respect. For example, nobody would be likely to say I have fear of flying, and you'd very rarely encounter anything like The boss had an undue power over his secretary. But respect is more a two-way thing (not just if it's [a] mutual respect :)
answered Feb 25 at 14:47
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
46.1k155123
I think you're right in general, but grudging respect still seems to be quite a bit more common with the article than without, which accords with my "ear" for the phrase. I'm not sure there's a good explanation why other than idiomatic tradition.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:20
1
@1006a: It seems that both you and Steve below still think there's some kind of semantic distinction involved - which I think is unlikely. As your chart clearly shows, there weren't even enough written instances of grudging respect to chart until about a century ago. By which time the article-less form had become dominant even with great respect, so with great (not grudging, I hope! :) respect I suggest the preferred version with grudging was simply following the "by-then-established" convention (whereas great actually had more "historical baggage" to overcome).
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 18:39
I agree with you—there's no semantic distinction involved. I haven't yet been convinced that there's always a logical way to determine which article, if any, is preferred in English with a given noun. (I recently read a book where the American characters kept talking about getting into the Juilliard, which was a strong tip-off that the author wasn't American—they're Australian—as we drop the article in the short form of the name even though it's in the full name). There's just "what sounds right", which as you've pointed out can shift. To my ear it's different for grudging vs great respect.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:56
1
I may be mistaken, but I think the general tendency is for constructions to be simplified over time, which to my mind automatically sets the stage for a to be discarded in the present context. I further think that (particularly, post-WW2) AmE has tended to become more conservative (at least among "competent" speakers), whereas BrE has become more willing to accept change (which we have to do more and more anyway, simply because of increased AmE dominance across all Anglophone societies). This I think accounts for many things I now often just call "stylistic choice".
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:06
1
...it may also be that AmE prefers to include certain "noise words" (optional prepositions, etc.) even if they were never particularly historically favoured anyway. That's the impression I get by comparing AmE and BrE corpuses for spent all of his money.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:14
|
show 2 more comments
Why there is an article in the first sentence is as FumbleFingers states; also:
Left by itself, respect is a noncount noun and cannot form a plural. This means respect can't be counted, just like weather is a noncount noun. Example: We don't say, "I have 13 respects for my Uncle an 93 for my Dad," or, "26 weathers will be arriving tomorrow." You either have respect for someone, or you don't. You can't count respect. You have weather. No article needed.
Confusion comes when respect has been made into a compound subject, like "grudging respect." For reasons Fumblefingers state, speakers of English treat respect as no longer general, but has become a specific kind of respect; a grudging respect. Like, some today say "We're in for a bad weather today," the article is not necessary, but people do it anyway today.
Rules for count nouns that can form a plural (like orange/oranges - an orange/the oranges) an article is required. "a" for consonants [a hotel; a car] and "an" for vowels [an elephant; an electric typewriter, etc., include those that sound like vowels an L sounds like "el" when spoken.]
Cheers!
Hope this helps.
1
Well, it's certainly true that the article is far less likely to be included in have [a] grudging respect - but that's at least partly because that particular adjective has become much more common recently (so it would tend to follow the modern "no article" form anyway). But you could just as easily contrast a great respect with a grudging respect, in that they're both adjectivally-modified. In which context I must just say that I don't think I've ever encountered have a scant respect for [someone/something].
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 15:39
I think its regional (States). Quite common for us on this side of the pond to state "I have a scant respect for you, you no good, mumble fumbling buffoon," and no one stops to retort: "Excuse me, I may resemble that remark; but please, by all means, drop the article." Nice post, BTW.
– user90322
Feb 25 at 15:44
1
Well, that's 36 times I've seen the "articled" form in the past minute (1 from your comment, and 35 more in Google Books! :) But it's still small beer compared to GB's estimated 2,520 results for article-less have scant respect for.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:01
1
Interestingly, the preference is far less marked (though still present) with have [a] scant regard for... I'm thinking that's partly because that particular usage (with regard) has become much less common over the past century or two, so it's more skewed towards including the article because that was the general tendency in Victorian and earlier English.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:09
1
I'm not, and you are correct once again! Cheers!
– user90322
Feb 25 at 18:23
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "481"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f198198%2farticle-the-word-respect%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is one case where usage has changed a bit over time, but with or without the article are both fine...
It's obviously ridiculous to suppose that what people mean by the article/no article choice has somehow changed - it's entirely a stylistic choice. But if you want to swim with the tide of linguistic history, you can reasonably forget about including the article in your own utterances. Just don't go thinking that anyone who chooses otherwise is somehow "wrong".
Note that individual "abstract nouns" are different in this respect. For example, nobody would be likely to say I have fear of flying, and you'd very rarely encounter anything like The boss had an undue power over his secretary. But respect is more a two-way thing (not just if it's [a] mutual respect :)
answered Feb 25 at 14:47
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
46.1k155123
I think you're right in general, but grudging respect still seems to be quite a bit more common with the article than without, which accords with my "ear" for the phrase. I'm not sure there's a good explanation why other than idiomatic tradition.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:20
1
@1006a: It seems that both you and Steve below still think there's some kind of semantic distinction involved - which I think is unlikely. As your chart clearly shows, there weren't even enough written instances of grudging respect to chart until about a century ago. By which time the article-less form had become dominant even with great respect, so with great (not grudging, I hope! :) respect I suggest the preferred version with grudging was simply following the "by-then-established" convention (whereas great actually had more "historical baggage" to overcome).
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 18:39
I agree with you—there's no semantic distinction involved. I haven't yet been convinced that there's always a logical way to determine which article, if any, is preferred in English with a given noun. (I recently read a book where the American characters kept talking about getting into the Juilliard, which was a strong tip-off that the author wasn't American—they're Australian—as we drop the article in the short form of the name even though it's in the full name). There's just "what sounds right", which as you've pointed out can shift. To my ear it's different for grudging vs great respect.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:56
1
I may be mistaken, but I think the general tendency is for constructions to be simplified over time, which to my mind automatically sets the stage for a to be discarded in the present context. I further think that (particularly, post-WW2) AmE has tended to become more conservative (at least among "competent" speakers), whereas BrE has become more willing to accept change (which we have to do more and more anyway, simply because of increased AmE dominance across all Anglophone societies). This I think accounts for many things I now often just call "stylistic choice".
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:06
1
...it may also be that AmE prefers to include certain "noise words" (optional prepositions, etc.) even if they were never particularly historically favoured anyway. That's the impression I get by comparing AmE and BrE corpuses for spent all of his money.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:14
|
show 2 more comments
This is one case where usage has changed a bit over time, but with or without the article are both fine...
It's obviously ridiculous to suppose that what people mean by the article/no article choice has somehow changed - it's entirely a stylistic choice. But if you want to swim with the tide of linguistic history, you can reasonably forget about including the article in your own utterances. Just don't go thinking that anyone who chooses otherwise is somehow "wrong".
Note that individual "abstract nouns" are different in this respect. For example, nobody would be likely to say I have fear of flying, and you'd very rarely encounter anything like The boss had an undue power over his secretary. But respect is more a two-way thing (not just if it's [a] mutual respect :)
answered Feb 25 at 14:47
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
46.1k155123
I think you're right in general, but grudging respect still seems to be quite a bit more common with the article than without, which accords with my "ear" for the phrase. I'm not sure there's a good explanation why other than idiomatic tradition.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:20
1
@1006a: It seems that both you and Steve below still think there's some kind of semantic distinction involved - which I think is unlikely. As your chart clearly shows, there weren't even enough written instances of grudging respect to chart until about a century ago. By which time the article-less form had become dominant even with great respect, so with great (not grudging, I hope! :) respect I suggest the preferred version with grudging was simply following the "by-then-established" convention (whereas great actually had more "historical baggage" to overcome).
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 18:39
I agree with you—there's no semantic distinction involved. I haven't yet been convinced that there's always a logical way to determine which article, if any, is preferred in English with a given noun. (I recently read a book where the American characters kept talking about getting into the Juilliard, which was a strong tip-off that the author wasn't American—they're Australian—as we drop the article in the short form of the name even though it's in the full name). There's just "what sounds right", which as you've pointed out can shift. To my ear it's different for grudging vs great respect.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:56
1
I may be mistaken, but I think the general tendency is for constructions to be simplified over time, which to my mind automatically sets the stage for a to be discarded in the present context. I further think that (particularly, post-WW2) AmE has tended to become more conservative (at least among "competent" speakers), whereas BrE has become more willing to accept change (which we have to do more and more anyway, simply because of increased AmE dominance across all Anglophone societies). This I think accounts for many things I now often just call "stylistic choice".
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:06
1
...it may also be that AmE prefers to include certain "noise words" (optional prepositions, etc.) even if they were never particularly historically favoured anyway. That's the impression I get by comparing AmE and BrE corpuses for spent all of his money.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:14
|
show 2 more comments
This is one case where usage has changed a bit over time, but with or without the article are both fine...
It's obviously ridiculous to suppose that what people mean by the article/no article choice has somehow changed - it's entirely a stylistic choice. But if you want to swim with the tide of linguistic history, you can reasonably forget about including the article in your own utterances. Just don't go thinking that anyone who chooses otherwise is somehow "wrong".
Note that individual "abstract nouns" are different in this respect. For example, nobody would be likely to say I have fear of flying, and you'd very rarely encounter anything like The boss had an undue power over his secretary. But respect is more a two-way thing (not just if it's [a] mutual respect :)
answered Feb 25 at 14:47
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
46.1k155123
This is one case where usage has changed a bit over time, but with or without the article are both fine...
It's obviously ridiculous to suppose that what people mean by the article/no article choice has somehow changed - it's entirely a stylistic choice. But if you want to swim with the tide of linguistic history, you can reasonably forget about including the article in your own utterances. Just don't go thinking that anyone who chooses otherwise is somehow "wrong".
Note that individual "abstract nouns" are different in this respect. For example, nobody would be likely to say I have fear of flying, and you'd very rarely encounter anything like The boss had an undue power over his secretary. But respect is more a two-way thing (not just if it's [a] mutual respect :)
answered Feb 25 at 14:47
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
46.1k155123
edited Feb 25 at 18:42
answered Feb 25 at 14:47
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
46.1k155123
answered Feb 25 at 14:47
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
46.1k155123
answered Feb 25 at 14:47
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
46.1k155123
46.1k155123
I think you're right in general, but grudging respect still seems to be quite a bit more common with the article than without, which accords with my "ear" for the phrase. I'm not sure there's a good explanation why other than idiomatic tradition.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:20
1
@1006a: It seems that both you and Steve below still think there's some kind of semantic distinction involved - which I think is unlikely. As your chart clearly shows, there weren't even enough written instances of grudging respect to chart until about a century ago. By which time the article-less form had become dominant even with great respect, so with great (not grudging, I hope! :) respect I suggest the preferred version with grudging was simply following the "by-then-established" convention (whereas great actually had more "historical baggage" to overcome).
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 18:39
I agree with you—there's no semantic distinction involved. I haven't yet been convinced that there's always a logical way to determine which article, if any, is preferred in English with a given noun. (I recently read a book where the American characters kept talking about getting into the Juilliard, which was a strong tip-off that the author wasn't American—they're Australian—as we drop the article in the short form of the name even though it's in the full name). There's just "what sounds right", which as you've pointed out can shift. To my ear it's different for grudging vs great respect.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:56
1
I may be mistaken, but I think the general tendency is for constructions to be simplified over time, which to my mind automatically sets the stage for a to be discarded in the present context. I further think that (particularly, post-WW2) AmE has tended to become more conservative (at least among "competent" speakers), whereas BrE has become more willing to accept change (which we have to do more and more anyway, simply because of increased AmE dominance across all Anglophone societies). This I think accounts for many things I now often just call "stylistic choice".
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:06
1
...it may also be that AmE prefers to include certain "noise words" (optional prepositions, etc.) even if they were never particularly historically favoured anyway. That's the impression I get by comparing AmE and BrE corpuses for spent all of his money.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:14
|
show 2 more comments
I think you're right in general, but grudging respect still seems to be quite a bit more common with the article than without, which accords with my "ear" for the phrase. I'm not sure there's a good explanation why other than idiomatic tradition.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:20
1
@1006a: It seems that both you and Steve below still think there's some kind of semantic distinction involved - which I think is unlikely. As your chart clearly shows, there weren't even enough written instances of grudging respect to chart until about a century ago. By which time the article-less form had become dominant even with great respect, so with great (not grudging, I hope! :) respect I suggest the preferred version with grudging was simply following the "by-then-established" convention (whereas great actually had more "historical baggage" to overcome).
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 18:39
I agree with you—there's no semantic distinction involved. I haven't yet been convinced that there's always a logical way to determine which article, if any, is preferred in English with a given noun. (I recently read a book where the American characters kept talking about getting into the Juilliard, which was a strong tip-off that the author wasn't American—they're Australian—as we drop the article in the short form of the name even though it's in the full name). There's just "what sounds right", which as you've pointed out can shift. To my ear it's different for grudging vs great respect.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:56
1
I may be mistaken, but I think the general tendency is for constructions to be simplified over time, which to my mind automatically sets the stage for a to be discarded in the present context. I further think that (particularly, post-WW2) AmE has tended to become more conservative (at least among "competent" speakers), whereas BrE has become more willing to accept change (which we have to do more and more anyway, simply because of increased AmE dominance across all Anglophone societies). This I think accounts for many things I now often just call "stylistic choice".
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:06
1
...it may also be that AmE prefers to include certain "noise words" (optional prepositions, etc.) even if they were never particularly historically favoured anyway. That's the impression I get by comparing AmE and BrE corpuses for spent all of his money.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:14
I think you're right in general, but grudging respect still seems to be quite a bit more common with the article than without, which accords with my "ear" for the phrase. I'm not sure there's a good explanation why other than idiomatic tradition.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:20
I think you're right in general, but grudging respect still seems to be quite a bit more common with the article than without, which accords with my "ear" for the phrase. I'm not sure there's a good explanation why other than idiomatic tradition.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:20
1
1
@1006a: It seems that both you and Steve below still think there's some kind of semantic distinction involved - which I think is unlikely. As your chart clearly shows, there weren't even enough written instances of grudging respect to chart until about a century ago. By which time the article-less form had become dominant even with great respect, so with great (not grudging, I hope! :) respect I suggest the preferred version with grudging was simply following the "by-then-established" convention (whereas great actually had more "historical baggage" to overcome).
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 18:39
@1006a: It seems that both you and Steve below still think there's some kind of semantic distinction involved - which I think is unlikely. As your chart clearly shows, there weren't even enough written instances of grudging respect to chart until about a century ago. By which time the article-less form had become dominant even with great respect, so with great (not grudging, I hope! :) respect I suggest the preferred version with grudging was simply following the "by-then-established" convention (whereas great actually had more "historical baggage" to overcome).
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 18:39
I agree with you—there's no semantic distinction involved. I haven't yet been convinced that there's always a logical way to determine which article, if any, is preferred in English with a given noun. (I recently read a book where the American characters kept talking about getting into the Juilliard, which was a strong tip-off that the author wasn't American—they're Australian—as we drop the article in the short form of the name even though it's in the full name). There's just "what sounds right", which as you've pointed out can shift. To my ear it's different for grudging vs great respect.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:56
I agree with you—there's no semantic distinction involved. I haven't yet been convinced that there's always a logical way to determine which article, if any, is preferred in English with a given noun. (I recently read a book where the American characters kept talking about getting into the Juilliard, which was a strong tip-off that the author wasn't American—they're Australian—as we drop the article in the short form of the name even though it's in the full name). There's just "what sounds right", which as you've pointed out can shift. To my ear it's different for grudging vs great respect.
– 1006a
Feb 25 at 18:56
1
1
I may be mistaken, but I think the general tendency is for constructions to be simplified over time, which to my mind automatically sets the stage for a to be discarded in the present context. I further think that (particularly, post-WW2) AmE has tended to become more conservative (at least among "competent" speakers), whereas BrE has become more willing to accept change (which we have to do more and more anyway, simply because of increased AmE dominance across all Anglophone societies). This I think accounts for many things I now often just call "stylistic choice".
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:06
I may be mistaken, but I think the general tendency is for constructions to be simplified over time, which to my mind automatically sets the stage for a to be discarded in the present context. I further think that (particularly, post-WW2) AmE has tended to become more conservative (at least among "competent" speakers), whereas BrE has become more willing to accept change (which we have to do more and more anyway, simply because of increased AmE dominance across all Anglophone societies). This I think accounts for many things I now often just call "stylistic choice".
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:06
1
1
...it may also be that AmE prefers to include certain "noise words" (optional prepositions, etc.) even if they were never particularly historically favoured anyway. That's the impression I get by comparing AmE and BrE corpuses for spent all of his money.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:14
...it may also be that AmE prefers to include certain "noise words" (optional prepositions, etc.) even if they were never particularly historically favoured anyway. That's the impression I get by comparing AmE and BrE corpuses for spent all of his money.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 19:14
|
show 2 more comments
Why there is an article in the first sentence is as FumbleFingers states; also:
Left by itself, respect is a noncount noun and cannot form a plural. This means respect can't be counted, just like weather is a noncount noun. Example: We don't say, "I have 13 respects for my Uncle an 93 for my Dad," or, "26 weathers will be arriving tomorrow." You either have respect for someone, or you don't. You can't count respect. You have weather. No article needed.
Confusion comes when respect has been made into a compound subject, like "grudging respect." For reasons Fumblefingers state, speakers of English treat respect as no longer general, but has become a specific kind of respect; a grudging respect. Like, some today say "We're in for a bad weather today," the article is not necessary, but people do it anyway today.
Rules for count nouns that can form a plural (like orange/oranges - an orange/the oranges) an article is required. "a" for consonants [a hotel; a car] and "an" for vowels [an elephant; an electric typewriter, etc., include those that sound like vowels an L sounds like "el" when spoken.]
Cheers!
Hope this helps.
1
Well, it's certainly true that the article is far less likely to be included in have [a] grudging respect - but that's at least partly because that particular adjective has become much more common recently (so it would tend to follow the modern "no article" form anyway). But you could just as easily contrast a great respect with a grudging respect, in that they're both adjectivally-modified. In which context I must just say that I don't think I've ever encountered have a scant respect for [someone/something].
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 15:39
I think its regional (States). Quite common for us on this side of the pond to state "I have a scant respect for you, you no good, mumble fumbling buffoon," and no one stops to retort: "Excuse me, I may resemble that remark; but please, by all means, drop the article." Nice post, BTW.
– user90322
Feb 25 at 15:44
1
Well, that's 36 times I've seen the "articled" form in the past minute (1 from your comment, and 35 more in Google Books! :) But it's still small beer compared to GB's estimated 2,520 results for article-less have scant respect for.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:01
1
Interestingly, the preference is far less marked (though still present) with have [a] scant regard for... I'm thinking that's partly because that particular usage (with regard) has become much less common over the past century or two, so it's more skewed towards including the article because that was the general tendency in Victorian and earlier English.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:09
1
I'm not, and you are correct once again! Cheers!
– user90322
Feb 25 at 18:23
|
show 2 more comments
Why there is an article in the first sentence is as FumbleFingers states; also:
Left by itself, respect is a noncount noun and cannot form a plural. This means respect can't be counted, just like weather is a noncount noun. Example: We don't say, "I have 13 respects for my Uncle an 93 for my Dad," or, "26 weathers will be arriving tomorrow." You either have respect for someone, or you don't. You can't count respect. You have weather. No article needed.
Confusion comes when respect has been made into a compound subject, like "grudging respect." For reasons Fumblefingers state, speakers of English treat respect as no longer general, but has become a specific kind of respect; a grudging respect. Like, some today say "We're in for a bad weather today," the article is not necessary, but people do it anyway today.
Rules for count nouns that can form a plural (like orange/oranges - an orange/the oranges) an article is required. "a" for consonants [a hotel; a car] and "an" for vowels [an elephant; an electric typewriter, etc., include those that sound like vowels an L sounds like "el" when spoken.]
Cheers!
Hope this helps.
1
Well, it's certainly true that the article is far less likely to be included in have [a] grudging respect - but that's at least partly because that particular adjective has become much more common recently (so it would tend to follow the modern "no article" form anyway). But you could just as easily contrast a great respect with a grudging respect, in that they're both adjectivally-modified. In which context I must just say that I don't think I've ever encountered have a scant respect for [someone/something].
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 15:39
I think its regional (States). Quite common for us on this side of the pond to state "I have a scant respect for you, you no good, mumble fumbling buffoon," and no one stops to retort: "Excuse me, I may resemble that remark; but please, by all means, drop the article." Nice post, BTW.
– user90322
Feb 25 at 15:44
1
Well, that's 36 times I've seen the "articled" form in the past minute (1 from your comment, and 35 more in Google Books! :) But it's still small beer compared to GB's estimated 2,520 results for article-less have scant respect for.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:01
1
Interestingly, the preference is far less marked (though still present) with have [a] scant regard for... I'm thinking that's partly because that particular usage (with regard) has become much less common over the past century or two, so it's more skewed towards including the article because that was the general tendency in Victorian and earlier English.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:09
1
I'm not, and you are correct once again! Cheers!
– user90322
Feb 25 at 18:23
|
show 2 more comments
Why there is an article in the first sentence is as FumbleFingers states; also:
Left by itself, respect is a noncount noun and cannot form a plural. This means respect can't be counted, just like weather is a noncount noun. Example: We don't say, "I have 13 respects for my Uncle an 93 for my Dad," or, "26 weathers will be arriving tomorrow." You either have respect for someone, or you don't. You can't count respect. You have weather. No article needed.
Confusion comes when respect has been made into a compound subject, like "grudging respect." For reasons Fumblefingers state, speakers of English treat respect as no longer general, but has become a specific kind of respect; a grudging respect. Like, some today say "We're in for a bad weather today," the article is not necessary, but people do it anyway today.
Rules for count nouns that can form a plural (like orange/oranges - an orange/the oranges) an article is required. "a" for consonants [a hotel; a car] and "an" for vowels [an elephant; an electric typewriter, etc., include those that sound like vowels an L sounds like "el" when spoken.]
Cheers!
Hope this helps.
Why there is an article in the first sentence is as FumbleFingers states; also:
Left by itself, respect is a noncount noun and cannot form a plural. This means respect can't be counted, just like weather is a noncount noun. Example: We don't say, "I have 13 respects for my Uncle an 93 for my Dad," or, "26 weathers will be arriving tomorrow." You either have respect for someone, or you don't. You can't count respect. You have weather. No article needed.
Confusion comes when respect has been made into a compound subject, like "grudging respect." For reasons Fumblefingers state, speakers of English treat respect as no longer general, but has become a specific kind of respect; a grudging respect. Like, some today say "We're in for a bad weather today," the article is not necessary, but people do it anyway today.
Rules for count nouns that can form a plural (like orange/oranges - an orange/the oranges) an article is required. "a" for consonants [a hotel; a car] and "an" for vowels [an elephant; an electric typewriter, etc., include those that sound like vowels an L sounds like "el" when spoken.]
Cheers!
Hope this helps.
edited Feb 25 at 15:31
answered Feb 25 at 15:24
user90322
1
Well, it's certainly true that the article is far less likely to be included in have [a] grudging respect - but that's at least partly because that particular adjective has become much more common recently (so it would tend to follow the modern "no article" form anyway). But you could just as easily contrast a great respect with a grudging respect, in that they're both adjectivally-modified. In which context I must just say that I don't think I've ever encountered have a scant respect for [someone/something].
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 15:39
I think its regional (States). Quite common for us on this side of the pond to state "I have a scant respect for you, you no good, mumble fumbling buffoon," and no one stops to retort: "Excuse me, I may resemble that remark; but please, by all means, drop the article." Nice post, BTW.
– user90322
Feb 25 at 15:44
1
Well, that's 36 times I've seen the "articled" form in the past minute (1 from your comment, and 35 more in Google Books! :) But it's still small beer compared to GB's estimated 2,520 results for article-less have scant respect for.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:01
1
Interestingly, the preference is far less marked (though still present) with have [a] scant regard for... I'm thinking that's partly because that particular usage (with regard) has become much less common over the past century or two, so it's more skewed towards including the article because that was the general tendency in Victorian and earlier English.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:09
1
I'm not, and you are correct once again! Cheers!
– user90322
Feb 25 at 18:23
|
show 2 more comments
1
Well, it's certainly true that the article is far less likely to be included in have [a] grudging respect - but that's at least partly because that particular adjective has become much more common recently (so it would tend to follow the modern "no article" form anyway). But you could just as easily contrast a great respect with a grudging respect, in that they're both adjectivally-modified. In which context I must just say that I don't think I've ever encountered have a scant respect for [someone/something].
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 15:39
I think its regional (States). Quite common for us on this side of the pond to state "I have a scant respect for you, you no good, mumble fumbling buffoon," and no one stops to retort: "Excuse me, I may resemble that remark; but please, by all means, drop the article." Nice post, BTW.
– user90322
Feb 25 at 15:44
1
Well, that's 36 times I've seen the "articled" form in the past minute (1 from your comment, and 35 more in Google Books! :) But it's still small beer compared to GB's estimated 2,520 results for article-less have scant respect for.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:01
1
Interestingly, the preference is far less marked (though still present) with have [a] scant regard for... I'm thinking that's partly because that particular usage (with regard) has become much less common over the past century or two, so it's more skewed towards including the article because that was the general tendency in Victorian and earlier English.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:09
1
I'm not, and you are correct once again! Cheers!
– user90322
Feb 25 at 18:23
1
1
Well, it's certainly true that the article is far less likely to be included in have [a] grudging respect - but that's at least partly because that particular adjective has become much more common recently (so it would tend to follow the modern "no article" form anyway). But you could just as easily contrast a great respect with a grudging respect, in that they're both adjectivally-modified. In which context I must just say that I don't think I've ever encountered have a scant respect for [someone/something].
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 15:39
Well, it's certainly true that the article is far less likely to be included in have [a] grudging respect - but that's at least partly because that particular adjective has become much more common recently (so it would tend to follow the modern "no article" form anyway). But you could just as easily contrast a great respect with a grudging respect, in that they're both adjectivally-modified. In which context I must just say that I don't think I've ever encountered have a scant respect for [someone/something].
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 15:39
I think its regional (States). Quite common for us on this side of the pond to state "I have a scant respect for you, you no good, mumble fumbling buffoon," and no one stops to retort: "Excuse me, I may resemble that remark; but please, by all means, drop the article." Nice post, BTW.
– user90322
Feb 25 at 15:44
I think its regional (States). Quite common for us on this side of the pond to state "I have a scant respect for you, you no good, mumble fumbling buffoon," and no one stops to retort: "Excuse me, I may resemble that remark; but please, by all means, drop the article." Nice post, BTW.
– user90322
Feb 25 at 15:44
1
1
Well, that's 36 times I've seen the "articled" form in the past minute (1 from your comment, and 35 more in Google Books! :) But it's still small beer compared to GB's estimated 2,520 results for article-less have scant respect for.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:01
Well, that's 36 times I've seen the "articled" form in the past minute (1 from your comment, and 35 more in Google Books! :) But it's still small beer compared to GB's estimated 2,520 results for article-less have scant respect for.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:01
1
1
Interestingly, the preference is far less marked (though still present) with have [a] scant regard for... I'm thinking that's partly because that particular usage (with regard) has become much less common over the past century or two, so it's more skewed towards including the article because that was the general tendency in Victorian and earlier English.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:09
Interestingly, the preference is far less marked (though still present) with have [a] scant regard for... I'm thinking that's partly because that particular usage (with regard) has become much less common over the past century or two, so it's more skewed towards including the article because that was the general tendency in Victorian and earlier English.
– FumbleFingers
Feb 25 at 16:09
1
1
I'm not, and you are correct once again! Cheers!
– user90322
Feb 25 at 18:23
I'm not, and you are correct once again! Cheers!
– user90322
Feb 25 at 18:23
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f198198%2farticle-the-word-respect%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
