the article "the" in front of musical instruments? why? (Eng lang question)

[dabear]

Ok, can someone answer this for me? Why do words such piano, flute, guitar require the article "the" when used in sentences such as:


Are you going to/gonna to learn how to play the piano?



"Do you know how to play the flute?"


If you replace the instrument with something like "ball", "the" shouldn't be used?


Do you know how to play the ball?


Seems strange to me that only instruments needs this extra article, why doesn't other nouns require it? In Norwegian, we would just have asked "do you know how to play piano?" or possibly also (but rather the first) "do you know how to play on the piano?"

[aysiu]

Like most things in the English language, it's arbitrary and makes no sense.

Just accept it. It may even vary, depending on region.

For example, in the UK, people say they're "in hospital." In the US, they say they're "in the hospital."

One time, when I was still an English teacher, my department head got angry because someone "corrected" her when she wrote "in future." She was quite insistent that that's correct, even though most Americans say, "in the future."

Don't try to make sense of it.

[Brunellus]

"to play THE ball" can be used, but in certain specific contexts: a discussion of technique of a ball game for instance: "After Roberto Carlos played THE ball into the area, Ronaldo scored a goal."

[aysiu]

I don't know if there's any hard-and-fast rule for it, but I'd imagine based on the examples you gave (ball vs. musical instrument), that it depends on whether the physical object you're referring to is also a skill.

For example, you don't learn to play "the ball." You learn how to kick the ball in football or how to throw the ball in basketball or how to hit the ball or catch the ball in baseball.

On the other hand, you do learn to play "the piano" or "the flute." You also learn "the computer" because that's considered a skill set as well.

When someone says, "I learned the piano," there's an implicit understanding that learning "the piano" doesn't mean taking a huge chainsaw and cutting the piano in half or using a pulley system to drag a piano up three flights of stairs. It means to put your fingers on the keys in a systematic and melodic fashion.

However, if you say I learned "the ball," that wouldn't mean anything to anyone. They wouldn't know whether that meant you learned how to make a ball or kick a ball or in what context you're using the ball (is it a ball of yarn or a ball in a sports game?).

[Tomosaur]

It makes perfect since: most people only have ONE of each instrument, therefore, saying 'are you going to play the piano?' is perfectly acceptable. If you had multiple pianos, then you would drop 'the', because you could choose to play any one of your collection.

[aysiu]

I have heard it said, actually:
I learned to play piano last summer Nothing awkward about that.

[Tomosaur]

That's because if you can play one piano, you can play most other pianos.

I am absolutely confident that this is based on the quantity of the item involved.

Also, here in the UK, we wouldn't say 'are you going to play ball?'. We'd probably either define the sport, or say 'are you going to play with the ball'. Maybe it's only America that has the confusion (no offence intended).

[aysiu]

We don't say "are you going to play ball?" in America unless the context is understood.

"Play ball" could mean "cooperate" in a business context. Otherwise, it could refer to baseball, basketball, football, or any number of sports.

[CronoDekar]

Your second one is wrong I think because "play ball," to me anyway, seems to mainly be a set phrase. Or in other words, "play ball" works because "play ball" is special.

Though aysiu is right, many times you can for instruments use it without "the". "I play guitar." doesn't sound awkward at all. "I play the guitar." sounds just fine too.

Another interesting example I've thought of for odd usage of the word "the" is with TV. You'd say you watch the play, watch the movie, watch the game, but at least in the US you'd say you "watch TV." In fact, usually I find when someone says they will "watch the TV", that person seems old and out of touch.

[aysiu]

You're right, CronoDekar.

The only context I've heard "watch the TV" is in a physical sense--as in, "direct your eyes to the space where the TV is" as opposed to "ingest the signals the TV is emitting."

"the TV" seems to be more physically in reference to the plastic object.

"TV" seems to be more abstract in terms of what the TV represents (visual/audio entertainment).

[weekend warrior]

No article = indefinite, abstract notion or concept.
Article = definite, concrete or specific object.

I like beer - in general, the idea of drinking beer.
I like the beer - the specific one I'm drinking right now. ;)

The children played ball outside - the notion of playing a game. *
Roberto Carlos played the ball to Ronaldo - a concrete, physical object.

Can you play piano?
Can you play the piano?

That's a tough one. The speaker could be thinking of the instrument specifically or simply the idea of playing. They're both acceptable and commonly heard.


HTH



* This isn't a very common phrase because (as already mentioned) to 'play ball' also has the meaning of 'to cooperate'.

[aysiu]

Definite... indefinite... well, in theory.

But, as we've seen with numerous examples in this thread, both seem to be equally acceptable, depending on the context.

For example, "She has a way with men" means pretty much the same as "She has a way with the men." The latter isn't any more specific about which men than the first is.

However, "Are you going to take down names?" is more generic than "Are you going to take down the names?"

[DoktorSeven]

It's English. Very little about it makes any sense.

I'm glad I am a native speaker, because I don't think I'd ever get it as a second language. And it's still hard. :/

[GuitarHero]

I usually say I play guitar not I play the guitar.

[weekend warrior]

Notice that those examples are in the plural aysiu. It doesn't work in the singular however.

- Are you going to take down name? not possible
- Are you going to take down the name? acceptable
- Are you going to take down names? acceptable
- Are you going to take down the names? acceptable

So plurals should be considered a bit differently.

Ok, so use of the article often (but not always) refers to a clause, referenced in the same sentence or not.

- Are you going to take down the name of the student who was cheating?

- Are you going to take down the names of students who were cheating? (note the possible omission of the articles for the plural here)

Whereas without the article it often stands on its own.

- Are you going to take down names?

In other words, we often expect more information to follow when an article is used - hence it's something definite or specific we're usually referencing.

In typical conversions:

- Do you like the laptop?
- Which one?
- The one over there on the table.

Or rephrased - Do you like the laptop over there on the table. - definite

Whereas:

- Do you like laptops? - indefinite
- I sure do!

With the article in the plural:

- Do you like the laptops?
- which ones?
- The ones with the glossy screens.
- No, not too much.

- Do you like the laptops with the glossy screens? - definite

But when we say this without articles in the plural:

- Do you like laptops with glossy screens?

Here we're normally speaking in general about all or any (indefinite) laptops with glossy screens, not specific units.


Now, what we hear and whether people actually follow these 'rules' or patterns is another question entirely. English isn't nearly as strict as say... French traditionally is/was. It's akin to comparing English law to Napoleonic Code. One follows precedent, common usage and covention (or context if you like), the other a hardfast set of rules that is expected to be followed.

As we well know in English - For every rule there is an exception.

[DoctorMO]

English has very nice logical rules about articles, nouns, pointers, tenses and lots of other things. I admit to not knowing what indefinite was (the word) but the idea I've known for a while. I discovered this when I was trying to teach a bit of english to my Thai friends. can you believe they don't even do their abc's they only do ABC's which is just silly IMHO.

[Titus A Duxass]

If you think English is difficult, try German where there are three articles and four clauses.

[weekend warrior]

I wouldn't go so far to say they're nice and logical ;) They're often based on situations.

In Michal Swan's 'Practical English Usage' (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/019431197X/026-2126575-0891617?v=glance&n=266239) for example he breaks it down into categories like "the='you know which one(s)', the='the only one(s) around', the difference, superlatives, the... of a.., the meaning 'the well-known' 'things in general' etc, etc.

It's a little messy, and quite difficult for many non-natives. Luckily, it doesn't matter too much in terms of comprehension.

(This is in 'Practical English Usage' - Second Edition, sections 62-69 by the way, if anyone's interested.) ;)

Here's what Swan says about musical instruments, section 69.11, which seem to follow their own unique conventions.


We often use the+singular when we talk about musical instruments in general, or about playing musical instruments.

- The violin is really difficult
- Who's that playing the piano?

But the is often dropped when talking about jazz or pop, and sometimes when talking about classical music.

- This recording was made with Miles Davis on trumpet.
- She studied oboe and saxophone at the Royal Academy of Music.