[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Mike S. scripsit:
Names of places are just as much names as names of persons.
> Hmm, maybe I should have said that Portuguese and ancient Greek
> generally require the definite article with *names*?
I think the answer is no in both cases. Names are definite; that is,
> Would it be accurate to say that ancient Greek and Portuguese generally
> treat names as common nouns needing the definite article, and English
> treat names as proper (names/nouns) inherently definite and not needing
> an article?
the hearer of a name is presupposed to know the referent. The fact
that they don't all bear definite articles in certain languages is
a historical accident. In English, lakes have no article (Superior,
Windermere), but rivers do (the Thames, the Missisippi). The Bronx
and the Gambia have articles because they are named after their rivers.
A certain border region of Russia was once "the Ukraine"; the country
occupying it, since it became independent, insists on "Ukraine", though
neither Russian nor Ukrainian have definite articles. The formal name
of the U.S. is "United States of America" without an article, though
it generally named with an article in less than fully formal contexts.
In French, all place names have articles except the names of islands,
thus France is "la France" but Mauritius is "Maurice" (short for "l'isle
Maurice"). In German, personal names without articles are neutral,
whereas with articles they are endearments. I could go on ....