In Roman Times, provision of legal services by advocates was seen as a most sacred activity that should be executed by people from the highest ranks of Roman society.

Dobrý večer přeji, píši jeden text a nejsem si jistý jenom s jedním členem, konkrétně na začátku. Mělo by to správně být “the provision of legal services”, anebo “provision of legal services”, tedy s nulovým členem. Nejsem si to v tomhle případě schopný odůvodnit, jestli to je konrkétní, nebo obecné.

Mohu argumenty pro užití/neužití členu: (1) Konkrétní: provision of – poskytování čeho – právních služeb – užiji určitý člen – the provision of legal services (2) Obecné: jakkékoliv poskytování právních služeb – nulový člen – provision of legal services

Děkuji předem

Na mě tedy daleko víc než člen vyskočilo toto: In Roman times. Jinak člen za mě nulový. Je to obecné. Jdu na to touto logikou: pokud byste stejný podmět vyjádřil v -ing tvaru (providing), taky byste před to nedával člen, protože by to mělo právě obecnou platnost. Nevidím tedy důvod zde dávat člen.

Dekuji za to pismeno. To jsem nejak prehledl uplne.

Nasel jsem vetu v podobnem kontextu, kde mi to taky prijde s obecnou platnosti, ale ten co to psal, tam pouzil urcity clen:

Pro bono is the provision of legal services at no charge to individuals who would not otherwise have access to those services. In this way, pro bono service promotes access to justice for all people, regardless of financial situation.

In Roman Times, provision of legal services by advocates was seen as a most sacred activity … Mělo by to správně být “the provision of legal services”, anebo “provision of legal services”, tedy s nulovým členem. Nejsem si to v tomhle případě schopný odůvodnit, jestli to je konrkétní, nebo obecné.

Either version (i.e. with or without the article) is ok here.

• In Roman Times, provision of legal services by advocates was seen as …
• In Roman Times, the provision of legal services by advocates was seen as …

As you noted, the criterion for deciding whether or not to use the article is whether the speaker/writer at the moment of writing views „provision of legal services“ as a whole as the general subject, or „the provision“ of something specific (here, „legal services“). In the context, it doesn't seem to matter and doesn't affect the meaning.

Hi Dan, thank you very much for your help — you’ve helped me a lot. I have one extra sentence where I am a tad unsure about the article choice.

The advocate shall not initiate provision of legal services to a person whose interests are contrary to the interests of a person that is already being provided by this advocate.

Could there also be used the definite article, or not? I would, logically, say that not, because I am introducing it (provision of legal services) as a new element into the discourse: nejake poskytovani pravnich sluzeb. Thank you

Again, the advocate shall not initiate (the) provision of legal services to a person … is fine with or without the definite article, for the same reason as in the previous query. There doesn't have to be only one „right“ version.

One thing I would note (nezlobte se! = if you don't mind me saying so ) is that the sentence reads like a too direct translation from Czech, which relies much more heavily on abstract nouns („the provision …“) than English does. May I offer you this alternative The advocate shall not undertake to provide legal services to a person whose interests … ?

Hi Dan, Thank you. It (the alternative you’ve suggested) will fit better in the context. Thank you once again