articles , dlaczego

wlasnie w glebiam sie w regulki dotcyzace articles (mam z tym najwiekszy rpoblem, mysle ze nie ja jedna)

I w dwoch roznych ksiazkach natknelam sie na przyklady

The giraffe is the tallest of all animals.
The bicycle is an excellent means of transport
..

i wytulmaczenie ze nie chodzi tutaj o konkrtene rzeczy ale odnosi sie to do tych rzeczy in general.

W drugiej ksiazke mam przyklad

A child needs a mother - i wytulmaczenie podobne, ze nie jakies konkretne dziecko ale chodzi o dzieci ogolnie.

No to w koncu pogubilam sie i nie rozumiem. Ktos pomoze?

I przy okazji mozecie polecic jakas dobra ksiazke do gramatyki zaawansowanej (poziom advance) Advanced Learner's Grammar Mark Foley/Diane Hall jest OK? czy lepiej Adbanced Grammar in Use Hewings czy jeszcze cos innego

aha i jak jest z dniami tygodnia? Powiemy it was Monday czy a Monday?

A bicycle (in genaral) = The bicycle (generic use)

to jest tak zwane uzycie generyczne okreslonego rzeczownika; najczesciej uzywane w przypadku 'inanimate objests', a juz na pewno w przypadku zwierzat i roslin

I saw her on Monday.
Widzialem ja w poniedzialek (ten najblizszy w przeszlosci)

I saw her on a Monday.
Widzialem ja w jakis poniedzialek (nie pamietam, ktory)

I was born on a Monday.
Urodzilem sie w poniedzialek.

nie widze roznicy miedzy in general a generic use. Moglbys wyjasnic troche bardziej lopatologicznie i opisowo kiedy jak sie stosuje? Z gory dzieki

no przeciez tam sie 'rowna', a nie 'rozni'

znacza to samo
;)

Tzn ze mozna uzyc albo a albo the? i nie ma roznicy? dziwne, czemu w zadnej ksiazce nie znalazlam czegos takiego

nie znajdziesz takiej ksiazki, w ktorej pisza o tym wszystkim

tutaj chodzi bardziej o to, co pisalem wczesniej - w przypadku osob stosuje sie raczej przedimek nieokreslony

musisz wiedziec, ze jest to tez kwestia stylistyczna i sytuacyjna; uzycie:
The child needs the mother.
wyrazac moze jakies konkretne dziecko i konkretna matke.

Engee,

W tym momencie powstal metlik w glowie askrea.
Rzeczywiscie masz problemy z sprecyzowaniem wypowiedzi, dostosowaniem jej do uzytkownika.

>Rzeczywiscie masz problemy z sprecyzowaniem wypowiedzi, dostosowaniem
>jej do uzytkownika

couldn't agree more, I'm afraid :/

A ja tam zrozumialem.

>The giraffe is the tallest of all animals.
>The bicycle is an excellent means of transport
>A child needs a mother...

There are three ways of using generic countable nouns:
(1)The+singular noun
(2)A+singular noun
(3)(No article) plural noun

Each has its own special meaning and therefore functions differently in a generic sentence; at times, they are fully interchangeable; at times, they are not.

(1)The+singular noun (e.g. the giraffe)
The giraffe represents all the typical qualities, features, and characteristics of a class of animals known as giraffes. In other words, "the giraffe" encompasses (is a bag of) all the properties that something must have and that we deem necessary to call the something a giraffe.

For example, we know that all the animals known to us as giraffes are tall when mature, but baby giraffes are also relatively tall; this gives us the right to call all giraffe species tall.
The giraffe is tall.

We know that all the things that we call "giraffe" are mammals. That’s why we can say "the giraffe" is a mammal.
The giraffe a mammal.

We also know that the species of giraffe didn't died out. That's why we can say that the giraffe are not extinct.
The giraffe is not extinct.

All of this means that "the giraffe" = [being tall, and being an animal, and being a mammal, plus many other characteristics that you think are attributable to the class of species known as "the giraffe."]
Actually, "the giraffe" doesn't exist as an embodiment. It's just the name of the set of its features.

(1)A+singular noun (e.g. a giraffe)
"A giraffe" refers to the property or properties that are indispensable for us to name something a giraffe. The word "indispensable" is the key: the property must be a defining property. Consequently, when the generic "a giraffe" is used, the feature referred to must be definitional.

"A giraffe is a mammal" is fine.
"A giraffe is tall" is fine.
"A giraffe is not extinct" is not fine, because not being extinct isn't a defining feature of giraffehood.

I have to run now.

o smieszny lulek sie pojawil, jak ten cos wyjaśni to olaboga

I like thegab's and buncombe's explanations best :P

zastanawiam się, na ile pomocne będzie takie przeciwstawienie
the giraffe = żyrafa jako taka
a giraffe = każda/typowa żyrafa

the Gab dobrze napisał.

>a giraffe = każda/typowa żyrafa

A istnieją nietypowe żyrafy?

A, może okapi...

A giraffe has four legs, but that one had only three. - i była nietypowa

Już się zresztą sprawy komplikują:
'a giraffe' może też oczywiście znaczyć 'pewna żyrafa'

A giraffe lives in our zoo.

Nie powiemy jednak
A giraffe lives in Africa (choć to jest typowe dla żyraf)
tylko
the giraffe lives in Africa

>"A giraffe is not extinct" is not fine, because not being extinct
>isn't a defining feature of giraffehood.

Whether the giraffe is extinct or not does not change the definition of the/a giraffe. Even if the (not a) giraffe were extinct today, you would define it the same way using the same defining features as you see them.
But when you use a giraffe's defining property, the property is most certainly true for any member of the group. If you build a sentence that way, it will be a generic statement. If the meaning of the sentence does not apply to every giraffe imaginable, it is not a generic statement.

"A giraffe has four legs and a short tail" is a true generic statements because it is true of every giraffe you have ever seen; its having four legs and a tail can be used as its properties to define the creature.
"A giraffe lives in our zoo" is not a generic statements about giraffes; some of them live in Africa.
"A giraffe lives in Africa" is not a generic statement either. It would be a true generic statement if every giraffe known to man lived in Africa; a child might say that though. Adults usually know better.

(3)(No article) plural noun (e.g. giraffes)

When the speaker believes that, on the average, things are so and so, or when he wants to convey his perceptions about things in a generic statement (read generalize) the plural generic "giraffes" establishes the norm that, in his view, holds.
That's the safest, most forgiving generic statements.

"Giraffes are tall" doesn't mean all giraffes are tall. It means that any giraffe is likely to be tall, or that giraffes are, on the average, tall.
That's his conclusion drawn after seeing a few individuals of the giraffe family.

It's one statement, two statements, three statements...