[WellSpyder]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-22, 08:43, said:

But to decide whether "I live in the Netherlands." or "I live in The Netherlands." is the correct spelling, I would rely on a source that understands English

I make no claims to be an authority on the language, but as a 51-year-old native of England I do claim generally to understand it. As others have suggested, it is not clear that there is a hard and fast rule on this, and indeed I think in the past I have sometimes tried to avoid sentence constructions that require me to make a decision on the answer to this. But seeing your examples spelt out like this, I am clear in my mind that the first looks more natural. Other natives may think differently, of course.

[Trinidad]

Several official sources that I consider reliable state that the first letter of the name is an "N". Wellspyder is an unofficial source that I consider reliable and he says the same. So, I will try to write "the Netherlands" from now on (as I have said above).

It seems the reason why the majority says we should write "the Netherlands" is that there is no reason: It just is like that. That itches me, but that is in large part due to my own character. I would like to understand the "why?" of things and find an argument in favor of the small "t". They are hard to find.

Rik

[mike777]

Kingdom of the Netherlands

Netherlands are a break away province of Spain ...I thought.

I assume most of the Dutch consider themselves under the Spanish KIng still
granted there are still some rebels.
I mean they are Kingdom

I mean USA love the brits except for the Irish for some reason.

[gwnn]

According to the national anthem, yes they do ("De koning van Hispanje heb ik altijd geëerd" - "The king of Hispania I have always honoured" but please read about when the anthem was written and why this line is there). According to the World Cup final in 2010...

[mike777]

I don't know all of the reasons the Netherlands rebel against spain.

My best guess is a thirst for freedom and economics...or economics and freedom......throw in religion freedom...but still freedom....but really economics in the broad sense...

Clearly Holland beat them at their game.....shipping and trade.....commerce.

fwiw spain tried inflation/spending to win...they lost........

now add in the whole british...uk orange fued....well...another story.

fwiw the irish hate orange.......really really hate it...

[Cyberyeti]

mike777, on 2013-August-23, 02:48, said:

fwiw the irish hate orange.......really really hate it...

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Catholic Irish hate orange, the Protestants in the north however ...

We're going through/just been through the marching season in the north where some of the more militant Protestants march down the roads to commemorate William of Orange's battles much to the displeasure of local Catholics.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-22, 01:17, said:

I would like someone with a good knowledge of the English language (and not geography) explain to me how you can refer to a specific set of something without a definite article.

In normal phrases, you need a definite article to distinguish the specific one from any other member of the category, e.g. "the dog" (a specific dog, known from context) is different from "a dog" (referring to any dog).

But there are no other Scotlands, Englands (no one would use it as a general term, to encompass both the original England and New England), or Netherlands, so the article isn't needed for semantic purposes. So it's not really needed in these cases, and its use with Netherlands is just tradition.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2013-August-23, 09:54, said:

In normal phrases, you need a definite article to distinguish the specific one from any other member of the category, e.g. "the dog" (a specific dog, known from context) is different from "a dog" (referring to any dog).

But there are no other Scotlands, Englands (no one would use it as a general term, to encompass both the original England and New England), or Netherlands, so the article isn't needed for semantic purposes. So it's not really needed in these cases, and its use with Netherlands is just tradition.

Note also the Ukrainian issue. They hate the use of the Ukraine, because to them that's the Russian way of putting them down as less than a country from the old Soviet days, they tend to like just Ukraine.

[gwnn]

That's interesting because neither Russian nor Ukraine have articles, what makes them such experts on the significance of 'the' all of a sudden? One Russian professor joked that they (Russians) use a random number generator to decide which article to use (or not to use).

[Cyberyeti]

gwnn, on 2013-August-23, 12:50, said:

That's interesting because neither Russian nor Ukraine have articles, what makes them such experts on the significance of 'the' all of a sudden? One Russian professor joked that they (Russians) use a random number generator to decide which article to use (or not to use).

I don't know, but the point was made quite forcibly by lots of people before the 2012 Euros over there.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2013-August-23, 09:54, said:

In normal phrases, you need a definite article to distinguish the specific one from any other member of the category, e.g. "the dog" (a specific dog, known from context) is different from "a dog" (referring to any dog).

But there are no other Scotlands, Englands (no one would use it as a general term, to encompass both the original England and New England), or Netherlands, so the article isn't needed for semantic purposes. So it's not really needed in these cases, and its use with Netherlands is just tradition.

Well, there are other nether lands than the Netherlands.

There is only one England and one Scotland. To me it seems relevant that we are dealing with a plural, of which there are several and one specific set of these are called the Netherlands. It's the same with the Alps. The Mont-Blanc is an alp and the Matterhorn is one, so they are both alps (no article), but together they do not make the Alps.

Jersey is a channel island, Guernsey is one too. They are both channel islands, but it takes a few more to make the Channel Islands. Without the article they are just a few random islands in the Channel. (BTW: I was taught at school that it was called "The Channel" or "La Manche" (in English and French). That doesn't mean that my teacher was right, though.)

Rik

[gwnn]

I'm looking for any other use of 'nether lands' and there's some song with that title but really I don't think this expression has any other meaning other than the country where I live in right now. It's the same as (at the risk of bringing it up again) 'United States.' Nobody in their right mind would use 'I live in united states' when referring to, say, a NATO country, or an EU country, or the Russian Federation, or any other entity that fits the term maybe technically. The expression is now hijacked, there is no turning back. If someone wants to use nether lands, they will use it at their own peril and should expect confusion to ensue.

[onoway]

barmar, on 2013-August-23, 09:54, said:

In normal phrases, you need a definite article to distinguish the specific one from any other member of the category, e.g. "the dog" (a specific dog, known from context) is different from "a dog" (referring to any dog).

But there are no other Scotlands, Englands (no one would use it as a general term, to encompass both the original England and New England), or Netherlands, so the article isn't needed for semantic purposes. So it's not really needed in these cases, and its use with Netherlands is just tradition.

To follow this a bit further, I think perhaps it's because there is an "s" on the end which in English generally implies some sort of multiple. So the "the" indicates meaning inclusion of whatever or whoever makes up the lands which together are called the Netherlands.

A lot of people posted while I was typing so sorry if this is redundant

[barmar]

gwnn, on 2013-August-23, 14:41, said:

I'm looking for any other use of 'nether lands' and there's some song with that title but really I don't think this expression has any other meaning other than the country where I live in right now. It's the same as (at the risk of bringing it up again) 'United States.' Nobody in their right mind would use 'I live in united states' when referring to, say, a NATO country, or an EU country, or the Russian Federation, or any other entity that fits the term maybe technically. The expression is now hijacked, there is no turning back. If someone wants to use nether lands, they will use it at their own peril and should expect confusion to ensue.

Indeed. The official name of Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos, which translates to United Mexican States or United States of Mexico. But no one would ever think of calling them The United States.

I had no idea that "alp" was an ordinary word meaning a high mountain, although I'm not surprised. But does any actually use it any more as a generic term? Similarly, does the phrase "a channel island" ever come up? Lots of these names originally came from descriptive phrases, but over time they become so associated with a specific place that it becomes difficult to use the original, generic phrase.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that MOST place names that are more than a couple of centuries old are like this. Early people didn't make up arbitrary names for people, places, and things, they were always just describing them. That's why so many places have common suffixes like (in English) "land" and "shire". In America we have many places with Indian names -- these all were descriptive terms in the native languages. Surnames are often derived from occupations (John Smith was originally John the blacksmith), family relationships (Fred Johnson was Fred, son of John), or places (Leonardo da Vinci's father was Piero da Vinci, who actually lived in Vinci). But we no longer even notice that surnames are also ordinary words -- if you're introduced to someone named "weaver", you wouldn't be inclined to expect them to work in the fabric trade (in fact, whenever you hear of people whose names are descriptive of what they do, it seems like an interesting coincidence).

Language is a very curious thing.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2013-August-23, 18:05, said:

I had no idea that "alp" was an ordinary word meaning a high mountain, although I'm not surprised. But does any actually use it any more as a generic term? Similarly, does the phrase "a channel island" ever come up? Lots of these names originally came from descriptive phrases, but over time they become so associated with a specific place that it becomes difficult to use the original, generic phrase.

Quite where the word Alp comes from is obscure, but one of the suggestions is that it doesn't really mean a high mountain, but describes the mountain pasture just below the glaciers. A channel island is never used because you either use the plural or the name of the individual islands or "one of the channel islands", this is common with island groups, the Maldives for example.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-August-23, 19:51, said:

Quite where the word Alp comes from is obscure, but one of the suggestions is that it doesn't really mean a high mountain, but describes the mountain pasture just below the glaciers.

That is actually correct. It is "Swiss German". In "German German" it is called an "alm". There is even a verb "alpen", which means letting your cattle go free on the alp/alm.

But for the discussion about plural names it doesn't matter much whether the alps are the peaks or the mountain pastures below the peaks.

What may be relevant, though, is that the word is used in its individual meaning.

Rik

[y66]

barmar, on 2013-August-23, 18:05, said:

Lots of these names originally came from descriptive phrases, but over time they become so associated with a specific place that it becomes difficult to use the original, generic phrase.

This seems right to me. For users who are not familiar with the original meaning or traditional usage, words that conflict with common usage require more energy to select, speak, listen to, type, read and comprehend which can induce peevishness in some.

[RSClyde]

Generalizations which can't possibly be true, but which are still applied to specific situations as if no further justification is warranted.
Bridge example:
"Well I can't do X because Y could happen." Oh, so now you can't make a bid which could result in a bad outcome, well this certainly changes the game.

[RSClyde]

People who argue in favor of a position by stating an argument, receiving a refutation, then not addressing it and moving on to their next point. Leaving this weird uncertainty like, "So what about you're first point? Are you withdrawing it? Was there something wrong with the refutation? (if so what?)"
Ex:
A: Evolution is just a theory!
B: (Explanation of how the word "theory" is used differently in scientific circles than in general public discourse)
A: But if evolution were true then why are there still monkeys?

[gwnn]

"Special offers just for you" emails from Amazon or similar sites. I just bought The Hunger Games trilogy for 21 euros online and 2 weeks later I get a great email offering me each of the three books separately for 10-12 euros (all on sale, of course) because these are items purchased by people who ordered the box set. Huh.