Why does “money” take “the” in “all the money in the world”?
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
"All the money in the world " , in this sentence we talk about money in general , right ? I've read a book that says if we're talking about things in general we do not use "the".
So why "the money" ?
grammar articles definite-article
edited Nov 26 at 19:18
Laurel
4,61211127
asked Nov 26 at 14:33
isac
9015
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
"All the money in the world " , in this sentence we talk about money in general , right ? I've read a book that says if we're talking about things in general we do not use "the".
So why "the money" ?
grammar articles definite-article
edited Nov 26 at 19:18
Laurel
4,61211127
asked Nov 26 at 14:33
isac
9015
add a comment |
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
"All the money in the world " , in this sentence we talk about money in general , right ? I've read a book that says if we're talking about things in general we do not use "the".
So why "the money" ?
grammar articles definite-article
edited Nov 26 at 19:18
Laurel
4,61211127
asked Nov 26 at 14:33
isac
9015
"All the money in the world " , in this sentence we talk about money in general , right ? I've read a book that says if we're talking about things in general we do not use "the".
So why "the money" ?
grammar articles definite-article
grammar articles definite-article
edited Nov 26 at 19:18
Laurel
4,61211127
asked Nov 26 at 14:33
isac
9015
edited Nov 26 at 19:18
Laurel
4,61211127
asked Nov 26 at 14:33
isac
9015
edited Nov 26 at 19:18
Laurel
4,61211127
edited Nov 26 at 19:18
Laurel
4,61211127
edited Nov 26 at 19:18
Laurel
4,61211127
4,61211127
asked Nov 26 at 14:33
isac
9015
asked Nov 26 at 14:33
isac
9015
asked Nov 26 at 14:33
isac
9015
9015
add a comment |
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
up vote
23
down vote
accepted
This sentence is not talking about money in general. It is talking about a specific set: "all the money in the world", as if it was a specific quantity you could receive:
Suppose I gave you a box with all the money in the world. How would you choose to distribute it?
Other examples talking about a specific set of money:
Do you still have the money I gave you for your birthday?
The money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms, if you want to take the deduction.
It is possible to talk about money as a concept, in which case you would not use the definite article. Examples of this:
I don't care too much for money, and money can't buy me love -- John Lennon / Paul McCartney
A wise person should have money in their head, but not in their heart. --Jonathan Swift
Money is a terrible master but an excellent servant. --P.T. Barnum
It is possible to say "all money in the world" to reference the global concept of money, rather than a specific quantity.
All money in the world, in whatever form, relies on the collective agreement that it is worth something. Even a brick of gold has no value to a starving man, unless he can exchange it for food.
[Edit] With regard to FumbleFinger's objection: I would claim "money donated to charities" is either a kind of ellipsis, or else refers to a conceptual subset of the concept of money. In my example, it makes little difference whether I'm talking in general about the practice of donating money, or of a specific instance of some quantity donated. The second half of the sentence applies either way.
Conceptual example: Money (which has been generally) donated to charities should be declared.
Ellipsis example: (The specific quantity of) Money (which you have) donated to charities should be declared.
I think a more in-depth exploration is out of the scope of the question, as OP asks only what the definite article means in this context, and not whether the definite article is required.
answered Nov 26 at 15:14
Andrew
64k673142
All [the] water on earth originally came from comets. That may not be a true statement, but it's syntactically fine with or without the article - or with all of the water, come to that. So I don't really see how your talking about a specific set point really "explains" anything here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:42
@FumbleFingers I've edited to try and explain the distinction.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
2
@isac please take note of my edits. It is possible to omit the definite article, but this changes the meaning.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
I've cancelled earlier downvote, but still can't see sufficient reason to upvote. I couldn't bring myself to accept article-less Suppose I gave you a box with all money in the world, but there's nothing wrong with Money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms. And in a context such as I still have [the] money [that] I earned when I last had a job, I can't really see that including the article or not makes any difference at all to the meaning - it certainly doesn't seem to be a matter of whether or not "money" represents a "concept".
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:37
@FumbleFingers edited again. I think we're starting to get well above the scope of this question (and out of my depth), and it might be better posed to ELU to get a truly complete answer.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 19:28
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
5
down vote
You have misunderstood what was meant in that book by "in general".
In this sentence, we are speaking of money and water in general terms:
Money is an alternative to barter.
Water is necessary for life.
But here, even though we are speaking of "all", we're still speaking of the thing in particular:
All the water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season.
All the money in the world couldn't get me to do that.
answered Nov 26 at 15:50
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
Per comment to @Andrew's answer, and noting that even All water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season is "more or less" okay without the article, it's not obvious to me that there's a "complete" explanation here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:47
@FumbleFingers: You wouldn't say "I drank all water in the glass." But you might say "I siphoned all water from the tank" and "All water in the beaker evaporates when you place it over the bunsen burner". Since you bring it up, care to explain why?
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 17:55
I don't think I know how to explain why - but I kinda assumed you would, if you could be so motivated.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:24
1
@FumbleFingers: I lack (the) motivation. :) But all is a shape-shifter.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 19:01
1
@Alexander Kosubek: And you would be wrong to use the article. The money is an alternative to the barter is not grammatical in English.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 27 at 10:55
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
I don't know what book told you that, but it's not the truth.1
Fact is, there are several reasons we might use the definite article. Macmillan (definition 1b) says:
used when you are referring to familiar things that people deal with regularly
I looked up at the ceiling; suddenly all the lights went out
Many familiar adages and expressions use the definite article even though they talk about things in general. Consider:
- The lion is king of the jungle.
- Top of the morning to you!
- It hit me right between the eyes.
- Religion is the opiate of the masses.
- All the news that's fit to print.
1See what I did there?
answered Nov 26 at 15:10
J.R.♦
97.2k8126242
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Ditto Andrew's excellent answer, let me just add:
Don't get confused by the difference between how something is in the real world, and how it is grammatically.
Yes, in real life, "all the money in the world" is, well, all the money that exists. Logically, you might say that it's the same as "money" as a general concept. But GRAMMATICALLY, "all the money in the world" is NOT all money that exists, it's a specific set of money, namely, the money that is "in the world". While in real life that may be all money, grammatically it is not.
answered Nov 26 at 18:31
Jay
45.5k14091
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The big, fancy language scholar term for this particular use of the definite article, "the", is "modadic"—the as in the one and only.
From your example, rephrased:
There is only one collection of all money in the one and only world.
Reference:
8. Monadic
("One of a Kind" or "Unique")
The Article
answered Nov 26 at 17:38
Jesse Steele
1215
I'm gonna upvote this one purely because you didn't include the "optional" article in There is only one collection of all the money in the one and only world, even though you didn't specifically draw attention to that yourself!
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:54
1
I'm so glad you noticed that! I was mindful of not wanting to use a circular definition with the first "one", with the one and only "the" being qualified enough not to be. ;-)
– Jesse Steele
Nov 26 at 17:58
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
All the money in the world would not make you happy.
We only have one specific world, and all the money in it is very specific.
Having money in the bank is a good thing, if its yours. [non-specific]
And: The money I have in the bank is none of your business. [specific]
Please note: for certain expressions such as money in the bank, a the is used with bank.
answered Nov 26 at 14:57
Lambie
14.3k1331
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
There is a word elided which will make parsing the phrase easier:
All of the money in the world
"Of money" is wrong for different reasons -- the preposition requires more than just a bare noun.
answered Nov 27 at 0:29
arp
35617
This is the point I was hoping to see. As with most English, we've munged it up so it doesn't follow our own quidelines by omitting a word.
– Scott Baker
Nov 28 at 16:10
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
23
down vote
accepted
This sentence is not talking about money in general. It is talking about a specific set: "all the money in the world", as if it was a specific quantity you could receive:
Suppose I gave you a box with all the money in the world. How would you choose to distribute it?
Other examples talking about a specific set of money:
Do you still have the money I gave you for your birthday?
The money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms, if you want to take the deduction.
It is possible to talk about money as a concept, in which case you would not use the definite article. Examples of this:
I don't care too much for money, and money can't buy me love -- John Lennon / Paul McCartney
A wise person should have money in their head, but not in their heart. --Jonathan Swift
Money is a terrible master but an excellent servant. --P.T. Barnum
It is possible to say "all money in the world" to reference the global concept of money, rather than a specific quantity.
All money in the world, in whatever form, relies on the collective agreement that it is worth something. Even a brick of gold has no value to a starving man, unless he can exchange it for food.
[Edit] With regard to FumbleFinger's objection: I would claim "money donated to charities" is either a kind of ellipsis, or else refers to a conceptual subset of the concept of money. In my example, it makes little difference whether I'm talking in general about the practice of donating money, or of a specific instance of some quantity donated. The second half of the sentence applies either way.
Conceptual example: Money (which has been generally) donated to charities should be declared.
Ellipsis example: (The specific quantity of) Money (which you have) donated to charities should be declared.
I think a more in-depth exploration is out of the scope of the question, as OP asks only what the definite article means in this context, and not whether the definite article is required.
answered Nov 26 at 15:14
Andrew
64k673142
All [the] water on earth originally came from comets. That may not be a true statement, but it's syntactically fine with or without the article - or with all of the water, come to that. So I don't really see how your talking about a specific set point really "explains" anything here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:42
@FumbleFingers I've edited to try and explain the distinction.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
2
@isac please take note of my edits. It is possible to omit the definite article, but this changes the meaning.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
I've cancelled earlier downvote, but still can't see sufficient reason to upvote. I couldn't bring myself to accept article-less Suppose I gave you a box with all money in the world, but there's nothing wrong with Money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms. And in a context such as I still have [the] money [that] I earned when I last had a job, I can't really see that including the article or not makes any difference at all to the meaning - it certainly doesn't seem to be a matter of whether or not "money" represents a "concept".
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:37
@FumbleFingers edited again. I think we're starting to get well above the scope of this question (and out of my depth), and it might be better posed to ELU to get a truly complete answer.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 19:28
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
23
down vote
accepted
This sentence is not talking about money in general. It is talking about a specific set: "all the money in the world", as if it was a specific quantity you could receive:
Suppose I gave you a box with all the money in the world. How would you choose to distribute it?
Other examples talking about a specific set of money:
Do you still have the money I gave you for your birthday?
The money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms, if you want to take the deduction.
It is possible to talk about money as a concept, in which case you would not use the definite article. Examples of this:
I don't care too much for money, and money can't buy me love -- John Lennon / Paul McCartney
A wise person should have money in their head, but not in their heart. --Jonathan Swift
Money is a terrible master but an excellent servant. --P.T. Barnum
It is possible to say "all money in the world" to reference the global concept of money, rather than a specific quantity.
All money in the world, in whatever form, relies on the collective agreement that it is worth something. Even a brick of gold has no value to a starving man, unless he can exchange it for food.
[Edit] With regard to FumbleFinger's objection: I would claim "money donated to charities" is either a kind of ellipsis, or else refers to a conceptual subset of the concept of money. In my example, it makes little difference whether I'm talking in general about the practice of donating money, or of a specific instance of some quantity donated. The second half of the sentence applies either way.
Conceptual example: Money (which has been generally) donated to charities should be declared.
Ellipsis example: (The specific quantity of) Money (which you have) donated to charities should be declared.
I think a more in-depth exploration is out of the scope of the question, as OP asks only what the definite article means in this context, and not whether the definite article is required.
answered Nov 26 at 15:14
Andrew
64k673142
All [the] water on earth originally came from comets. That may not be a true statement, but it's syntactically fine with or without the article - or with all of the water, come to that. So I don't really see how your talking about a specific set point really "explains" anything here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:42
@FumbleFingers I've edited to try and explain the distinction.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
2
@isac please take note of my edits. It is possible to omit the definite article, but this changes the meaning.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
I've cancelled earlier downvote, but still can't see sufficient reason to upvote. I couldn't bring myself to accept article-less Suppose I gave you a box with all money in the world, but there's nothing wrong with Money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms. And in a context such as I still have [the] money [that] I earned when I last had a job, I can't really see that including the article or not makes any difference at all to the meaning - it certainly doesn't seem to be a matter of whether or not "money" represents a "concept".
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:37
@FumbleFingers edited again. I think we're starting to get well above the scope of this question (and out of my depth), and it might be better posed to ELU to get a truly complete answer.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 19:28
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
23
down vote
accepted
up vote
23
down vote
accepted
This sentence is not talking about money in general. It is talking about a specific set: "all the money in the world", as if it was a specific quantity you could receive:
Suppose I gave you a box with all the money in the world. How would you choose to distribute it?
Other examples talking about a specific set of money:
Do you still have the money I gave you for your birthday?
The money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms, if you want to take the deduction.
It is possible to talk about money as a concept, in which case you would not use the definite article. Examples of this:
I don't care too much for money, and money can't buy me love -- John Lennon / Paul McCartney
A wise person should have money in their head, but not in their heart. --Jonathan Swift
Money is a terrible master but an excellent servant. --P.T. Barnum
It is possible to say "all money in the world" to reference the global concept of money, rather than a specific quantity.
All money in the world, in whatever form, relies on the collective agreement that it is worth something. Even a brick of gold has no value to a starving man, unless he can exchange it for food.
[Edit] With regard to FumbleFinger's objection: I would claim "money donated to charities" is either a kind of ellipsis, or else refers to a conceptual subset of the concept of money. In my example, it makes little difference whether I'm talking in general about the practice of donating money, or of a specific instance of some quantity donated. The second half of the sentence applies either way.
Conceptual example: Money (which has been generally) donated to charities should be declared.
Ellipsis example: (The specific quantity of) Money (which you have) donated to charities should be declared.
I think a more in-depth exploration is out of the scope of the question, as OP asks only what the definite article means in this context, and not whether the definite article is required.
answered Nov 26 at 15:14
Andrew
64k673142
This sentence is not talking about money in general. It is talking about a specific set: "all the money in the world", as if it was a specific quantity you could receive:
Suppose I gave you a box with all the money in the world. How would you choose to distribute it?
Other examples talking about a specific set of money:
Do you still have the money I gave you for your birthday?
The money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms, if you want to take the deduction.
It is possible to talk about money as a concept, in which case you would not use the definite article. Examples of this:
I don't care too much for money, and money can't buy me love -- John Lennon / Paul McCartney
A wise person should have money in their head, but not in their heart. --Jonathan Swift
Money is a terrible master but an excellent servant. --P.T. Barnum
It is possible to say "all money in the world" to reference the global concept of money, rather than a specific quantity.
All money in the world, in whatever form, relies on the collective agreement that it is worth something. Even a brick of gold has no value to a starving man, unless he can exchange it for food.
[Edit] With regard to FumbleFinger's objection: I would claim "money donated to charities" is either a kind of ellipsis, or else refers to a conceptual subset of the concept of money. In my example, it makes little difference whether I'm talking in general about the practice of donating money, or of a specific instance of some quantity donated. The second half of the sentence applies either way.
Conceptual example: Money (which has been generally) donated to charities should be declared.
Ellipsis example: (The specific quantity of) Money (which you have) donated to charities should be declared.
I think a more in-depth exploration is out of the scope of the question, as OP asks only what the definite article means in this context, and not whether the definite article is required.
answered Nov 26 at 15:14
Andrew
64k673142
edited Nov 27 at 17:05
answered Nov 26 at 15:14
Andrew
64k673142
answered Nov 26 at 15:14
Andrew
64k673142
answered Nov 26 at 15:14
Andrew
64k673142
64k673142
All [the] water on earth originally came from comets. That may not be a true statement, but it's syntactically fine with or without the article - or with all of the water, come to that. So I don't really see how your talking about a specific set point really "explains" anything here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:42
@FumbleFingers I've edited to try and explain the distinction.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
2
@isac please take note of my edits. It is possible to omit the definite article, but this changes the meaning.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
I've cancelled earlier downvote, but still can't see sufficient reason to upvote. I couldn't bring myself to accept article-less Suppose I gave you a box with all money in the world, but there's nothing wrong with Money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms. And in a context such as I still have [the] money [that] I earned when I last had a job, I can't really see that including the article or not makes any difference at all to the meaning - it certainly doesn't seem to be a matter of whether or not "money" represents a "concept".
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:37
@FumbleFingers edited again. I think we're starting to get well above the scope of this question (and out of my depth), and it might be better posed to ELU to get a truly complete answer.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 19:28
|
show 1 more comment
All [the] water on earth originally came from comets. That may not be a true statement, but it's syntactically fine with or without the article - or with all of the water, come to that. So I don't really see how your talking about a specific set point really "explains" anything here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:42
@FumbleFingers I've edited to try and explain the distinction.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
2
@isac please take note of my edits. It is possible to omit the definite article, but this changes the meaning.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
I've cancelled earlier downvote, but still can't see sufficient reason to upvote. I couldn't bring myself to accept article-less Suppose I gave you a box with all money in the world, but there's nothing wrong with Money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms. And in a context such as I still have [the] money [that] I earned when I last had a job, I can't really see that including the article or not makes any difference at all to the meaning - it certainly doesn't seem to be a matter of whether or not "money" represents a "concept".
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:37
@FumbleFingers edited again. I think we're starting to get well above the scope of this question (and out of my depth), and it might be better posed to ELU to get a truly complete answer.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 19:28
All [the] water on earth originally came from comets. That may not be a true statement, but it's syntactically fine with or without the article - or with all of the water, come to that. So I don't really see how your talking about a specific set point really "explains" anything here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:42
All [the] water on earth originally came from comets. That may not be a true statement, but it's syntactically fine with or without the article - or with all of the water, come to that. So I don't really see how your talking about a specific set point really "explains" anything here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:42
@FumbleFingers I've edited to try and explain the distinction.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
@FumbleFingers I've edited to try and explain the distinction.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
2
2
@isac please take note of my edits. It is possible to omit the definite article, but this changes the meaning.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
@isac please take note of my edits. It is possible to omit the definite article, but this changes the meaning.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 18:18
I've cancelled earlier downvote, but still can't see sufficient reason to upvote. I couldn't bring myself to accept article-less Suppose I gave you a box with all money in the world, but there's nothing wrong with Money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms. And in a context such as I still have [the] money [that] I earned when I last had a job, I can't really see that including the article or not makes any difference at all to the meaning - it certainly doesn't seem to be a matter of whether or not "money" represents a "concept".
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:37
I've cancelled earlier downvote, but still can't see sufficient reason to upvote. I couldn't bring myself to accept article-less Suppose I gave you a box with all money in the world, but there's nothing wrong with Money donated to charities should be included on your tax forms. And in a context such as I still have [the] money [that] I earned when I last had a job, I can't really see that including the article or not makes any difference at all to the meaning - it certainly doesn't seem to be a matter of whether or not "money" represents a "concept".
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:37
@FumbleFingers edited again. I think we're starting to get well above the scope of this question (and out of my depth), and it might be better posed to ELU to get a truly complete answer.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 19:28
@FumbleFingers edited again. I think we're starting to get well above the scope of this question (and out of my depth), and it might be better posed to ELU to get a truly complete answer.
– Andrew
Nov 26 at 19:28
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
5
down vote
You have misunderstood what was meant in that book by "in general".
In this sentence, we are speaking of money and water in general terms:
Money is an alternative to barter.
Water is necessary for life.
But here, even though we are speaking of "all", we're still speaking of the thing in particular:
All the water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season.
All the money in the world couldn't get me to do that.
answered Nov 26 at 15:50
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
Per comment to @Andrew's answer, and noting that even All water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season is "more or less" okay without the article, it's not obvious to me that there's a "complete" explanation here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:47
@FumbleFingers: You wouldn't say "I drank all water in the glass." But you might say "I siphoned all water from the tank" and "All water in the beaker evaporates when you place it over the bunsen burner". Since you bring it up, care to explain why?
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 17:55
I don't think I know how to explain why - but I kinda assumed you would, if you could be so motivated.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:24
1
@FumbleFingers: I lack (the) motivation. :) But all is a shape-shifter.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 19:01
1
@Alexander Kosubek: And you would be wrong to use the article. The money is an alternative to the barter is not grammatical in English.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 27 at 10:55
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
You have misunderstood what was meant in that book by "in general".
In this sentence, we are speaking of money and water in general terms:
Money is an alternative to barter.
Water is necessary for life.
But here, even though we are speaking of "all", we're still speaking of the thing in particular:
All the water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season.
All the money in the world couldn't get me to do that.
answered Nov 26 at 15:50
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
Per comment to @Andrew's answer, and noting that even All water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season is "more or less" okay without the article, it's not obvious to me that there's a "complete" explanation here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:47
@FumbleFingers: You wouldn't say "I drank all water in the glass." But you might say "I siphoned all water from the tank" and "All water in the beaker evaporates when you place it over the bunsen burner". Since you bring it up, care to explain why?
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 17:55
I don't think I know how to explain why - but I kinda assumed you would, if you could be so motivated.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:24
1
@FumbleFingers: I lack (the) motivation. :) But all is a shape-shifter.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 19:01
1
@Alexander Kosubek: And you would be wrong to use the article. The money is an alternative to the barter is not grammatical in English.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 27 at 10:55
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
You have misunderstood what was meant in that book by "in general".
In this sentence, we are speaking of money and water in general terms:
Money is an alternative to barter.
Water is necessary for life.
But here, even though we are speaking of "all", we're still speaking of the thing in particular:
All the water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season.
All the money in the world couldn't get me to do that.
answered Nov 26 at 15:50
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
You have misunderstood what was meant in that book by "in general".
In this sentence, we are speaking of money and water in general terms:
Money is an alternative to barter.
Water is necessary for life.
But here, even though we are speaking of "all", we're still speaking of the thing in particular:
All the water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season.
All the money in the world couldn't get me to do that.
answered Nov 26 at 15:50
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
answered Nov 26 at 15:50
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
answered Nov 26 at 15:50
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
answered Nov 26 at 15:50
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
105k677169
Per comment to @Andrew's answer, and noting that even All water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season is "more or less" okay without the article, it's not obvious to me that there's a "complete" explanation here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:47
@FumbleFingers: You wouldn't say "I drank all water in the glass." But you might say "I siphoned all water from the tank" and "All water in the beaker evaporates when you place it over the bunsen burner". Since you bring it up, care to explain why?
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 17:55
I don't think I know how to explain why - but I kinda assumed you would, if you could be so motivated.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:24
1
@FumbleFingers: I lack (the) motivation. :) But all is a shape-shifter.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 19:01
1
@Alexander Kosubek: And you would be wrong to use the article. The money is an alternative to the barter is not grammatical in English.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 27 at 10:55
|
show 5 more comments
Per comment to @Andrew's answer, and noting that even All water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season is "more or less" okay without the article, it's not obvious to me that there's a "complete" explanation here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:47
@FumbleFingers: You wouldn't say "I drank all water in the glass." But you might say "I siphoned all water from the tank" and "All water in the beaker evaporates when you place it over the bunsen burner". Since you bring it up, care to explain why?
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 17:55
I don't think I know how to explain why - but I kinda assumed you would, if you could be so motivated.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:24
1
@FumbleFingers: I lack (the) motivation. :) But all is a shape-shifter.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 19:01
1
@Alexander Kosubek: And you would be wrong to use the article. The money is an alternative to the barter is not grammatical in English.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 27 at 10:55
Per comment to @Andrew's answer, and noting that even All water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season is "more or less" okay without the article, it's not obvious to me that there's a "complete" explanation here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:47
Per comment to @Andrew's answer, and noting that even All water in the watering hole dries up during the summer dry season is "more or less" okay without the article, it's not obvious to me that there's a "complete" explanation here.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:47
@FumbleFingers: You wouldn't say "I drank all water in the glass." But you might say "I siphoned all water from the tank" and "All water in the beaker evaporates when you place it over the bunsen burner". Since you bring it up, care to explain why?
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 17:55
@FumbleFingers: You wouldn't say "I drank all water in the glass." But you might say "I siphoned all water from the tank" and "All water in the beaker evaporates when you place it over the bunsen burner". Since you bring it up, care to explain why?
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 17:55
I don't think I know how to explain why - but I kinda assumed you would, if you could be so motivated.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:24
I don't think I know how to explain why - but I kinda assumed you would, if you could be so motivated.
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 18:24
1
1
@FumbleFingers: I lack (the) motivation. :) But all is a shape-shifter.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 19:01
@FumbleFingers: I lack (the) motivation. :) But all is a shape-shifter.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 26 at 19:01
1
1
@Alexander Kosubek: And you would be wrong to use the article. The money is an alternative to the barter is not grammatical in English.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 27 at 10:55
@Alexander Kosubek: And you would be wrong to use the article. The money is an alternative to the barter is not grammatical in English.
– Tᴚoɯɐuo
Nov 27 at 10:55
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
I don't know what book told you that, but it's not the truth.1
Fact is, there are several reasons we might use the definite article. Macmillan (definition 1b) says:
used when you are referring to familiar things that people deal with regularly
I looked up at the ceiling; suddenly all the lights went out
Many familiar adages and expressions use the definite article even though they talk about things in general. Consider:
- The lion is king of the jungle.
- Top of the morning to you!
- It hit me right between the eyes.
- Religion is the opiate of the masses.
- All the news that's fit to print.
1See what I did there?
answered Nov 26 at 15:10
J.R.♦
97.2k8126242
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
I don't know what book told you that, but it's not the truth.1
Fact is, there are several reasons we might use the definite article. Macmillan (definition 1b) says:
used when you are referring to familiar things that people deal with regularly
I looked up at the ceiling; suddenly all the lights went out
Many familiar adages and expressions use the definite article even though they talk about things in general. Consider:
- The lion is king of the jungle.
- Top of the morning to you!
- It hit me right between the eyes.
- Religion is the opiate of the masses.
- All the news that's fit to print.
1See what I did there?
answered Nov 26 at 15:10
J.R.♦
97.2k8126242
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
I don't know what book told you that, but it's not the truth.1
Fact is, there are several reasons we might use the definite article. Macmillan (definition 1b) says:
used when you are referring to familiar things that people deal with regularly
I looked up at the ceiling; suddenly all the lights went out
Many familiar adages and expressions use the definite article even though they talk about things in general. Consider:
- The lion is king of the jungle.
- Top of the morning to you!
- It hit me right between the eyes.
- Religion is the opiate of the masses.
- All the news that's fit to print.
1See what I did there?
answered Nov 26 at 15:10
J.R.♦
97.2k8126242
I don't know what book told you that, but it's not the truth.1
Fact is, there are several reasons we might use the definite article. Macmillan (definition 1b) says:
used when you are referring to familiar things that people deal with regularly
I looked up at the ceiling; suddenly all the lights went out
Many familiar adages and expressions use the definite article even though they talk about things in general. Consider:
- The lion is king of the jungle.
- Top of the morning to you!
- It hit me right between the eyes.
- Religion is the opiate of the masses.
- All the news that's fit to print.
1See what I did there?
answered Nov 26 at 15:10
J.R.♦
97.2k8126242
answered Nov 26 at 15:10
J.R.♦
97.2k8126242
answered Nov 26 at 15:10
J.R.♦
97.2k8126242
answered Nov 26 at 15:10
J.R.♦
97.2k8126242
97.2k8126242
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Ditto Andrew's excellent answer, let me just add:
Don't get confused by the difference between how something is in the real world, and how it is grammatically.
Yes, in real life, "all the money in the world" is, well, all the money that exists. Logically, you might say that it's the same as "money" as a general concept. But GRAMMATICALLY, "all the money in the world" is NOT all money that exists, it's a specific set of money, namely, the money that is "in the world". While in real life that may be all money, grammatically it is not.
answered Nov 26 at 18:31
Jay
45.5k14091
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Ditto Andrew's excellent answer, let me just add:
Don't get confused by the difference between how something is in the real world, and how it is grammatically.
Yes, in real life, "all the money in the world" is, well, all the money that exists. Logically, you might say that it's the same as "money" as a general concept. But GRAMMATICALLY, "all the money in the world" is NOT all money that exists, it's a specific set of money, namely, the money that is "in the world". While in real life that may be all money, grammatically it is not.
answered Nov 26 at 18:31
Jay
45.5k14091
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Ditto Andrew's excellent answer, let me just add:
Don't get confused by the difference between how something is in the real world, and how it is grammatically.
Yes, in real life, "all the money in the world" is, well, all the money that exists. Logically, you might say that it's the same as "money" as a general concept. But GRAMMATICALLY, "all the money in the world" is NOT all money that exists, it's a specific set of money, namely, the money that is "in the world". While in real life that may be all money, grammatically it is not.
answered Nov 26 at 18:31
Jay
45.5k14091
Ditto Andrew's excellent answer, let me just add:
Don't get confused by the difference between how something is in the real world, and how it is grammatically.
Yes, in real life, "all the money in the world" is, well, all the money that exists. Logically, you might say that it's the same as "money" as a general concept. But GRAMMATICALLY, "all the money in the world" is NOT all money that exists, it's a specific set of money, namely, the money that is "in the world". While in real life that may be all money, grammatically it is not.
answered Nov 26 at 18:31
Jay
45.5k14091
answered Nov 26 at 18:31
Jay
45.5k14091
answered Nov 26 at 18:31
Jay
45.5k14091
answered Nov 26 at 18:31
Jay
45.5k14091
45.5k14091
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The big, fancy language scholar term for this particular use of the definite article, "the", is "modadic"—the as in the one and only.
From your example, rephrased:
There is only one collection of all money in the one and only world.
Reference:
8. Monadic
("One of a Kind" or "Unique")
The Article
answered Nov 26 at 17:38
Jesse Steele
1215
I'm gonna upvote this one purely because you didn't include the "optional" article in There is only one collection of all the money in the one and only world, even though you didn't specifically draw attention to that yourself!
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:54
1
I'm so glad you noticed that! I was mindful of not wanting to use a circular definition with the first "one", with the one and only "the" being qualified enough not to be. ;-)
– Jesse Steele
Nov 26 at 17:58
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The big, fancy language scholar term for this particular use of the definite article, "the", is "modadic"—the as in the one and only.
From your example, rephrased:
There is only one collection of all money in the one and only world.
Reference:
8. Monadic
("One of a Kind" or "Unique")
The Article
answered Nov 26 at 17:38
Jesse Steele
1215
I'm gonna upvote this one purely because you didn't include the "optional" article in There is only one collection of all the money in the one and only world, even though you didn't specifically draw attention to that yourself!
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:54
1
I'm so glad you noticed that! I was mindful of not wanting to use a circular definition with the first "one", with the one and only "the" being qualified enough not to be. ;-)
– Jesse Steele
Nov 26 at 17:58
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The big, fancy language scholar term for this particular use of the definite article, "the", is "modadic"—the as in the one and only.
From your example, rephrased:
There is only one collection of all money in the one and only world.
Reference:
8. Monadic
("One of a Kind" or "Unique")
The Article
answered Nov 26 at 17:38
Jesse Steele
1215
The big, fancy language scholar term for this particular use of the definite article, "the", is "modadic"—the as in the one and only.
From your example, rephrased:
There is only one collection of all money in the one and only world.
Reference:
8. Monadic
("One of a Kind" or "Unique")
The Article
answered Nov 26 at 17:38
Jesse Steele
1215
edited Nov 26 at 18:01
answered Nov 26 at 17:38
Jesse Steele
1215
answered Nov 26 at 17:38
Jesse Steele
1215
answered Nov 26 at 17:38
Jesse Steele
1215
1215
I'm gonna upvote this one purely because you didn't include the "optional" article in There is only one collection of all the money in the one and only world, even though you didn't specifically draw attention to that yourself!
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:54
1
I'm so glad you noticed that! I was mindful of not wanting to use a circular definition with the first "one", with the one and only "the" being qualified enough not to be. ;-)
– Jesse Steele
Nov 26 at 17:58
add a comment |
I'm gonna upvote this one purely because you didn't include the "optional" article in There is only one collection of all the money in the one and only world, even though you didn't specifically draw attention to that yourself!
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:54
1
I'm so glad you noticed that! I was mindful of not wanting to use a circular definition with the first "one", with the one and only "the" being qualified enough not to be. ;-)
– Jesse Steele
Nov 26 at 17:58
I'm gonna upvote this one purely because you didn't include the "optional" article in There is only one collection of all the money in the one and only world, even though you didn't specifically draw attention to that yourself!
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:54
I'm gonna upvote this one purely because you didn't include the "optional" article in There is only one collection of all the money in the one and only world, even though you didn't specifically draw attention to that yourself!
– FumbleFingers
Nov 26 at 17:54
1
1
I'm so glad you noticed that! I was mindful of not wanting to use a circular definition with the first "one", with the one and only "the" being qualified enough not to be. ;-)
– Jesse Steele
Nov 26 at 17:58
I'm so glad you noticed that! I was mindful of not wanting to use a circular definition with the first "one", with the one and only "the" being qualified enough not to be. ;-)
– Jesse Steele
Nov 26 at 17:58
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
All the money in the world would not make you happy.
We only have one specific world, and all the money in it is very specific.
Having money in the bank is a good thing, if its yours. [non-specific]
And: The money I have in the bank is none of your business. [specific]
Please note: for certain expressions such as money in the bank, a the is used with bank.
answered Nov 26 at 14:57
Lambie
14.3k1331
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
All the money in the world would not make you happy.
We only have one specific world, and all the money in it is very specific.
Having money in the bank is a good thing, if its yours. [non-specific]
And: The money I have in the bank is none of your business. [specific]
Please note: for certain expressions such as money in the bank, a the is used with bank.
answered Nov 26 at 14:57
Lambie
14.3k1331
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
All the money in the world would not make you happy.
We only have one specific world, and all the money in it is very specific.
Having money in the bank is a good thing, if its yours. [non-specific]
And: The money I have in the bank is none of your business. [specific]
Please note: for certain expressions such as money in the bank, a the is used with bank.
answered Nov 26 at 14:57
Lambie
14.3k1331
All the money in the world would not make you happy.
We only have one specific world, and all the money in it is very specific.
Having money in the bank is a good thing, if its yours. [non-specific]
And: The money I have in the bank is none of your business. [specific]
Please note: for certain expressions such as money in the bank, a the is used with bank.
answered Nov 26 at 14:57
Lambie
14.3k1331
answered Nov 26 at 14:57
Lambie
14.3k1331
answered Nov 26 at 14:57
Lambie
14.3k1331
answered Nov 26 at 14:57
Lambie
14.3k1331
14.3k1331
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
There is a word elided which will make parsing the phrase easier:
All of the money in the world
"Of money" is wrong for different reasons -- the preposition requires more than just a bare noun.
answered Nov 27 at 0:29
arp
35617
This is the point I was hoping to see. As with most English, we've munged it up so it doesn't follow our own quidelines by omitting a word.
– Scott Baker
Nov 28 at 16:10
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
There is a word elided which will make parsing the phrase easier:
All of the money in the world
"Of money" is wrong for different reasons -- the preposition requires more than just a bare noun.
answered Nov 27 at 0:29
arp
35617
This is the point I was hoping to see. As with most English, we've munged it up so it doesn't follow our own quidelines by omitting a word.
– Scott Baker
Nov 28 at 16:10
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
There is a word elided which will make parsing the phrase easier:
All of the money in the world
"Of money" is wrong for different reasons -- the preposition requires more than just a bare noun.
answered Nov 27 at 0:29
arp
35617
There is a word elided which will make parsing the phrase easier:
All of the money in the world
"Of money" is wrong for different reasons -- the preposition requires more than just a bare noun.
answered Nov 27 at 0:29
arp
35617
answered Nov 27 at 0:29
arp
35617
answered Nov 27 at 0:29
arp
35617
answered Nov 27 at 0:29
arp
35617
35617
This is the point I was hoping to see. As with most English, we've munged it up so it doesn't follow our own quidelines by omitting a word.
– Scott Baker
Nov 28 at 16:10
add a comment |
This is the point I was hoping to see. As with most English, we've munged it up so it doesn't follow our own quidelines by omitting a word.
– Scott Baker
Nov 28 at 16:10
This is the point I was hoping to see. As with most English, we've munged it up so it doesn't follow our own quidelines by omitting a word.
– Scott Baker
Nov 28 at 16:10
This is the point I was hoping to see. As with most English, we've munged it up so it doesn't follow our own quidelines by omitting a word.
– Scott Baker
Nov 28 at 16:10
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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%2f186691%2fwhy-does-money-take-the-in-all-the-money-in-the-world%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
