Артикли, сэр!

[savageanomaly]

No, no, thanks for your explanations, I'm sure they are of great interest not only to me, but to everybody in this forum.

My own hypothesis was that the difference between "(a) man of (action etc)" and "the man of (action etc) might be like this:
Watson is a man of action. - This is a pure statement of fact.
Watson is the man of action. = Watson is a real (genuine) man of action. - Here the definite article is used emphatically. "The" in this case should be stressed (?), as was stated by septentrionalis.

However, after reading your comments, as well as those of Yuri P, septentrionalis and Erica Blair, I see it's all not that simple.

My practical conclusions.    As an ESL learner, I'd rather always say: "he was a man of action", just because I know where in one of my textbooks I can find an appropriate rule to explain my choice. In fact it's the usual classifying use of the indefinite article that is described in any grammar book. The case of "the man of action" is much more obscure and undocumented. 

It can be used emphatically. In that case you would pronounce it as "thee" and put stress on it.
If you don't do this, then it's not emphatic. It need not be emphatic.

It's not simple because it's situational. If you come across a use you don't understand, don't look at the phrase or sentence in isolation. Understand it in its context (easier said than done).

Example: There are some people in the room with Watson. They are all lazy and like to watch TV all day while Watson goes out to garden (?!). He's the man of action, they're just bums.

^Not emphatic, just a statement of fact.

Practically, without full immersion it's very hard to learn consistent use of articles, I think. The Russian guy I tutor has been here for years and articles are the bane of his existence.

[savageanomaly]

RE: Baikal

Just say "Lake Baikal". Problem solved.

I can see it being used with and without the definite article:

1. Baikal is a lake in Russia.
2. For our vacation we're going to the Baikal.

:\

[nas2000]

Are there any other examples that Swan gives to illustrate this rule?

Nope.

For some reason it seems to me Swan wrote about that particular case in which an object and some parts belonging to it are concerned.

I think you're right. "The Man" doeesn't really fit the rule.

Here's another look at it:
"The Man of Action" is used as some kind of a title like in "the Duke of York".
OR
It's like giving sb high praise in a similar way they use the phrase "You're the man!"

[ibelk]

Thanks to all the comments in this topic I see that there's a wide range of possible ways to understand what Doyle meant by choosing the definite article in the phrase "Watson was always the man of action ...". So let every reader have his own understanding according to his language experience and intuition, since there are no clear written instructions upon this subject. I'll have mine; a poor thing, but my own. 

[sept]

1. Baikal is a lake in Russia.
2. For our vacation we're going to the Baikal.

"abstract thought/ fact vs. real action"?

[bonia]

To septentrionalis:  as you see it's an unsolved problem. Of course, I can do as you advise- Lake Baikal. And still, there are a lot of people "fighting" what is right or wrong. They all are sure that the others are bad at English and vice versa. But what should I choose in a test?

[savageanomaly]

To septentrionalis:  as you see it's an unsolved problem. Of course, I can do as you advise- Lake Baikal. And still, there are a lot of people "fighting" what is right or wrong. They all are sure that the others are bad at English and vice versa. But what should I choose in a test?

Since tests love rule-bound prescriptive grammar ... A general rule is that the names of lakes (without the word Lake in front of them) take the null article (i.e. the definite article is unstated), unless specific exceptions are listed in whichever book is issued by the testing body.

This would be correct on TOEFL.

[ibelk]

Рад стараться.  Возможен еще вариант без артикля:
Because Lenin was man of action rather than social scientist, he threw his ideas together ...
... Mr. Hudson was man of action before he was artist.
… he was man of action as well as dreamer.

И все-таки, почему перед social scientist , artist, dreamer нет артикля?

[Erica Blair]

A general rule is that the names of lakes (without the word Lake in front of them) take the null article (i.e. the definite article is unstated)

Any source, please?

[Yuri P]

ibelk
А где Вы взяли эти, без артикля? Что-то Гугл про них ничего не знает.

[ibelk]

ibelk
А где Вы взяли эти, без артикля? Что-то Гугл про них ничего не знает.

Это все нашлось в гугл-букс. Про Ленина:

http://www.google.ru/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Because+Lenin+was+man+of+action+rather+than+social+scientist%2C+he+threw+his+ideas+together+...&btnG=
Остальное - там же.

[ibelk]

Рад стараться.  Возможен еще вариант без артикля:
Because Lenin was man of action rather than social scientist, he threw his ideas together ...
... Mr. Hudson was man of action before he was artist.
… he was man of action as well as dreamer.

И все-таки, почему перед social scientist , artist, dreamer нет артикля?

Удалось найти кое-что, проливающее свет на загадочное (для меня, по крайней мере) дело об отсутствии артиклей в этих предложениях.  В книге Архипова И.К. "Грамматика английского языка. Артикли" описываются случаи, когда существительные, употребленные без артикля (даже исчисляемые существительные в ед.ч), имеют "признаковое значение" ("adjectival force"), а не значение существительного ("nominal force"), например: Jane turned Communist. She liked her servants to be Church of England. Архипов  указывает, что "Сугубо признаковое содержание существительных в подобных употреблениях проявляется особенно наглядно в возможности сочетания их с наречиями степени признака, что совершенно невозможно для тех же существительных, обозначающих предметы", и приводит примеры:
(1) He was soldier enough to fight the battle to its bitter end.
(2) He was more artist than businessman.
(3) A very key problem ...
(4) It was absolutely dynamite to listen to them.

Если посмотреть на озадачившие меня примеры, можно заметить, что они легко перефразируются по образцу (2) без потери смысла:

Because Lenin was man of action rather than social scientist = Because Lenin was more man of action than social scientist
... Mr. Hudson was man of action before he was artist. = ... Mr. Hudson was more man of action than artist.
... he was man of action as well as dreamer = ... he was no less man of action than dreamer

Думается, это тот самый случай.

[savageanomaly]

(1) He was soldier enough to fight the battle to its bitter end.
(2) He was more artist than businessman.
(3) A very key problem ...
(4) It was absolutely dynamite to listen to them.

A couple of these examples make no sense to me.

3. Has the indefinite article. ?? (Also, "very" before "key" is extremely poor construction.)

4. 'Dynamite' is an abstract noun. Obviously it has no article. If you put an article there, you'll be referring to literal stick of dynamite. The rules for concrete vs. abstract nouns are different, as you know. Even if they are homonyms.

[ibelk]

A couple of these examples make no sense to me.

3. Has the indefinite article. ?? (Also, "very" before "key" is extremely poor construction.)

4. 'Dynamite' is an abstract noun. Obviously it has no article. If you put an article there, you'll be referring to literal stick of dynamite. The rules for concrete vs. abstract nouns are different, as you know. Even if they are homonyms.

"Key" is a noun, but is modified by the adverb "very"; the indefinite article belongs to the noun "problem". The same can be said about "dynamite": it's a noun, but it is modified by the adverb "absolutely". This brings forth the "adjectival force" these nouns have in the above examples. I think that's why the author gives them here.

[savageanomaly]

A couple of these examples make no sense to me.

3. Has the indefinite article. ?? (Also, "very" before "key" is extremely poor construction.)

4. 'Dynamite' is an abstract noun. Obviously it has no article. If you put an article there, you'll be referring to literal stick of dynamite. The rules for concrete vs. abstract nouns are different, as you know. Even if they are homonyms.

"Key" is a noun, but is modified by the adverb "very"; the indefinite article belongs to the noun "problem". The same can be said about "dynamite": it's a noun, but it is modified by the adverb "absolutely". This brings forth the "adjectival force" these nouns have in the above examples. I think that's why the author gives them here.

Again, this is very strange. I hope this isn't what the author means because it's somewhat different from the articles issue.

When two nouns are put together, the first noun functions as an adjective. We don't need the concept of "adjectival force" for that.

ex. paper towel, school bus, coffee table, office manager, etc. = 1st noun functions as an adjective

The article cannot belong to 'problem' but not to 'key'. This is impossible because 'key problem' here functions as a unit. All articles belong to the whole unit.

PS Something can be 'key' or 'not key'. Something cannot be 'very key' or 'a little key'. It makes no sense.

[ibelk]

PS Something can be 'key' or 'not key'. Something cannot be 'very key' or 'a little key'. It makes no sense.

Cases like this must be extremely rare, but here is one example from Google books (google gives some more):

"You have hit a very key problem, in that it is that kind of information which ..." (United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Astronautics - 1971)

I suppose the author was just trying to explain some instances of this rare "adjective-like" usage of nouns he might encounter from time to time.

And what about the three phrases that interest me most? Do you find the explanation by Arkhipov, or rather my attempts to apply it to my questions, to be satisfactory?

[savageanomaly]

PS Something can be 'key' or 'not key'. Something cannot be 'very key' or 'a little key'. It makes no sense.

Cases like this must be extremely rare, but here is one example from Google books (google gives some more):

"You have hit a very key problem, in that it is that kind of information which ..." (United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Astronautics - 1971)

I suppose the author was just trying to explain some instances of this rare "adjective-like" usage of nouns he might encounter from time to time.

And what about the three phrases that interest me most? Do you find the explanation by Arkhipov, or rather my attempts to apply it to my questions, to be satisfactory?

1. Yeah, people do write that. It's still poor writing. Best to avoid.

2. The "adjective-like" usage of nouns that I explained above is not rare at all. It's extremely common and is used all the time. Just put two nouns together.

3. I think her (his?) explanation explains some things and doesn't explain others. How helpful this is... in my opinion, not very.

ex. You can also say "He was more an artist than a businessman" and it means exactly the same thing as the example given. In fact, it's more natural to use the articles in this sentence, unless spoken aloud and the speaker does air-quotes or something. When I read her example without any air-quotes, my brain resists because it sounds unnatural... =)

[ibelk]

1. Yeah, people do write that. It's still poor writing. Best to avoid.

I'll follow this advice with great pleasure. 

2. The "adjective-like" usage of nouns that I explained above is not rare at all. It's extremely common and is used all the time. Just put two nouns together.

Yes, but the examples 1, 2, 4 show that a stand-alone noun, too, can function as an adjective and even be so adjective-like as to take an adverb modifier. This is what is unusual about them. In the example 3 "key" is used attributively and modifies "problem", but it itself is modified by the adverb "very". "You have hit a key problem". "How key is the problem you have hit?" "Very key".  (Bad English, I remember.)

3. I think her (his?) explanation explains some things and doesn't explain others. How helpful this is... in my opinion, not very.

The author is he. The book is not a scientific monograph, but a kind of grammar handbook with exercises for English learners. Among the textbooks I have within my reach this one happened to be the only one that provided some explanation of the absence of articles in the three phrases I had cited. And I haven't got a better explanation as yet.

ex. You can also say "He was more an artist than a businessman" and it means exactly the same thing as the example given.

When I read her example without any air-quotes, my brain resists because it sounds unnatural... =)

Perhaps, those guys from the Committee on Science and Astronautics did do the air-quotes that were omitted in the publication.    Thank you very much for your comments and corrections.