Subj : A rule needed :)
To   : Ardith Hinton
From : Alexander Koryagin
Date : Mon Dec 02 2019 11:43:02

Hi, Ardith Hinton! -> Alexander Koryagin
I read your message from 01.12.2019 00:35

 AK>> I also don't see any evidence indicating Annabel had been employed
 AK>> in the same capacity, but IMHO also there is no ground to suggest
 AK>> that a stenographer is as unique position in a firm as its
 AK>> President.

 AH>                      |is in as unique a position

Maybe it is better to remove "position"?:
"...but, IMHO, also there is no ground to suggest that a stenographer is as 
unique in a firm as its President."

 AH> The title of "president" certainly sounds more formal, and is often
 AH> capitalized. With other job titles, however, the situation may be
 AH> less clear. "Secretary of State" is an official role which is held
 AH> by only one person at a time... yet the word "secretary" may be
 AH> used to describe any of four employees in a large high school. The
 AH> question in my mind is whether or not the article can correctly be
 AH> omitted if I'm referring to the secretary, teacher-librarian, etc.
 AH> at a much smaller school... or to the proprietor of Giovanni's
 AH> Bistro. I must say I found the omission of the article in your
 AH> example surprising, but I can see justfication for it if it's
 AH> optional there & the novelist wants to get on with the show ASAP
 AH> after filling in a bit of the background....

 AH>        Four centuries ago, other writers left out "the" in:

 AH>              Where is he that is born King of the Jews?
 AH>                                        --  Matt. 2:2, KJV

 AH>              The Tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
 AH>                                        --  Wm. Shakespeare

 AH> We could have a great time discussing why Herod saw Jesus as a
 AH> potential rival and whether or not Hamlet was the last of his line,
 AH> but my point is that AFAIK native speakers of English have been
 AH> leaving out "the" in situations where the rationale is not
 AH> immediately obvious for quite awhile now. The rule you cited
 AH> mentions two important factors... the uniqueness of the job & the
 AH> formality of the job description. In everyday life things may not
 AH> be quite so simple. But as long as you know rules have exceptions I
 AH> can't think of a better one. :-))

As one Murphy law says, "For every human problem, there is a neat, simple 
solution; and it is always wrong." ;-)

Bye, Ardith!
Alexander Koryagin
english_tutor 2019

---
 * Origin: nntps://fidonews.mine.nu - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)

.