Ahoj,

zajímalo by mě, zdali bude v následucící větě před spojením „massive Russification“ člen neurčitý, nebo nulový. Vím, že podstatné jméno „Russification“ je sice normálně nepočitatelné, ale v některých případech, pokud jsou rozvita nějakým přídavným jménem, se abstraktní podstatná jména nepočitatelná gramaticky chovají jako počitatelná podstatná jména a přibírají člen neurčitý.

Ultimately, however, Alexander III, after his father's assas­sination in 1881, adopted a decidedly more nationalist course, which resulted in [a] massive Russification and Jewish pogroms.

Děkuji předem za případnou odpověď.

A massive russification in the wording of the given sentence here sounds out of place. A native speaker wouldn't put the article in.

Ultimately, however, Alexander III, after his father’s assas­sination in 1881, adopted a decidedly more nationalist course supported by his minister Nikolai Pobedonoscev, which resulted in massive Russification and Jewish pogroms. (springer)

Děkuji moc, Dane! A je pak nějaký důvod, proč je člen neurčitý v těchto případech?

1. Who is afraid of a friendly capitalism?
2. He has always supported the idea of a united Europe.

Jak capitalism, tak Europe jsou přece také podstatná jména nepočitatelná.

In 1 and 2, we're talking about 2 different types of the noun: a friendly capitalism (not, for example, an unfriendly, not an extreme, not an unfettered capitalism), and a united Europe (not, for example, a divided, a fragmented, a regionalist Europe).

In the „massive Russification“ example, I think we feel that we're not talking about a type of Russification. „Russification“ is felt (in the absence of any other descriptor) to be a process, not (in the context in which it occurs) to be a defined action with a start and a finish, thus making it countable as a type.

I can only offer these explanations as a native speaker with a natural feel for the way articles are used. I didn't have to learn any „rules“. You may get a more helpful answer from a Czech (or Slovak) speaker.

But “a friendly capitalism” — isn’t that a process as well? How could the word “capitalism” be a defined action with a start and a finish?

Who is afraid of a friendly capitalism? makes no sense (in this specific wording) in English and wouldn't be said or written by a native speaker, so I can't see the point of trying to make sense out of nonsense.

One of the biggest mistakes learners make is to try to analyse a single standalone sentence out of context and wonder about the use of articles. The first consideration in the use of articles is „do we know about the noun subject already, or is it a first mention?“ In a sentence taken out of context, we often have no sense of whether we already know about the subject in the context, or if it's a first mention.

Co se týče věty „Who is afraid of a friendly capitalism?“, narazil jsem na ni v tomto vláknu.

https://www.helpforenglish.cz/…6-capitalism

Někdo tam píše, že si v New Yorku koupil tričko s tímto nápisem na něm. Nějaké takové jsem také našel na Googlu.

I'll bet my bottom dollar that the T-shirt was made in China (or in Bangladesh under Chinese licence for the logo). I very much doubt that a native English speaker would pay good money to wear a T-shirt whose logo is clearly „foreign“ English. The sentence is bizarre for several reasons:

1. The long form „who is“: T-shirt logos typically use informal style (and try to save space), so „who is“ will be contracted to „who's“.
2. a friendly capitalism. This is just not English. ☹️
3. The style of the sentence is over-formal and cumbersome. T-shirt logos are not written in legalistic style.
4. Because of the way the information in the sentence is structured, we don't understand the topic focus (the main point) of the sentence: who's afraid? I don't know. Maybe Genghis Khan? Attila the Hun? Krteček? Mickey Mouse?

The main point is probably not who's afraid of it, but what is objectionable about it or wrong with it.

I can understand the intended sense of the logo, but it would be worded and styled completely differently, e.g. „Benign capitalism – why not?“ But even this is too deep an idea to convey on a T-shirt.

So the issue here is not primarily grammar, because „who's afraid of a friendly capitalism?“ is as grammatically correct as „who's afraid of a rabid dog?“, but it just doesn't make sense. The issue here is semantics.