Dobrý den, nedávno jsem se setkal ve dvou různých učebnicích s velmi podobnou definicí, avšak u jedné u užit člen určitý, zatímco u druhé neurčitý člen.

Definice 1: Monetary policy is a set of policies that governments use in order to control the money supply and to achieve a sustainable economic growth.
Definice 2: Monetary policy is the set of policies that governments use in order to achieve a sustainable economic growth by adjusting the money supply.

Ty definice jsou velmi podobné, avšak mají jiný člen před slovem ‘set‘. Je v angličtině možná situace, kdy oba členy jsou použitelné a záleží jen na subjektivním pohledu mluvčího? Protože v těch definicích mi přijde, že jednou je užit určitý člen, protože mluvíme v podstatě o specifickém souboru opatření (jaká opatření? – opatření za účelem udržení stabilního ekonomického růstu), ale v druhé je užit člen neurčitý, neboť by to šlo brát jako jakýkoliv soubor takových opatření (ne jeden konkrétní jedné země, prostě nějaký, který je používán za účelem udržení stabilního ekonomického růstu). Chápu to správně, nebo je to jinak?

Děkuji

Ano, chápete to správně. Záleží v daném případě na subjektivním pohledu mluvčího.

If the speaker feels he's defining what monetary policy is (in contrast to any other policy like education policy, defence policy or foreign policy), then he uses „the set of policies …“.

If the speaker feels he's describing what monetary policy is – its a set of policies, he uses „a set of policies“. What follows in the „that“ clause is perceived by the speaker at the moment of speaking simply as additional incidental information about monetary policy, not as a definition of the term.

Hello, thank you very much. If I get the point about the use of definite article in the first definition, is it so that the speaker can emphasize the specificeness of that sort of policy (he uses the definite article, in order to stress the fact that it is one type of policies)? Thank you

Well, we're looking at a single sentence out of context. ☹️

If, in the context, the speaker feels the need to define what one set of policies is to distinguish it from another set of policies, then he will use the definite article, and the purpose of the information in the „that“ clause is rozlišovací or upřesňující.

If, in the context, the speaker feels he is giving a „first mention“ description of what a set of policies is, and the context doesn't need him to distinguish this set of policies from any other set of policies, then he uses the „first-mention“ article which, by default, is the indefinite article. The speaker is, of course, free to add a „that“ clause with any additional incidental information, and the purpose of that information is simply vedlejší or doprovodná or dodatečná.

I am citing a passage from ‘Elektronická mluvnice současné angličtiny‘: ‘Podobně Airlines charge too much. Aerolinie účtují příliš vysoké ceny (aerolinie obecně). – The airlines charge too much. Aerolinie účtují příliš vysoké ceny (aerolinie jako jeden druh dopravy). Jak ukazuje poslední příklad, někdy je užití členu záležitost subjektivního pojetí mluvčího.‘

I thought it might be the situation that is referred to in that passage – once there is (in the passag of that book) used the definite article in order to talk about it as about a specific type of transport, while, in the second option, there is zero article, as the speaker talks about ‘airlines‘ in general.

Well, that's another way of explaining the matter, and if that helps you to understand the difference, then so much the better. It's certainly a matter of how the speaker, at the moment of speaking (and in the context), sees his statement (as a definition, or as a „first-mention“ description with additional information). So yes, it's subjective.

Thank you very much! Is the following sentence gramatically correct: The road freight-forwarding is much easier than the boat transport. (I am talking about road freight-forwarding in general, as well as about boat transport, yet I want to talk about it as about two specific types of the transport of goods.)?

Well, we have no context, so we don't know if there has been any previous mention of these activities. In the absence of context, these look like first mentions, and as they are abstract nouns, the default is zero article. So you should omit the articles.

Similarly (no article) :

• Hang-gliding is more dangerous than stamp collecting.
• Actions speak louder than words.
• Crocodiles are more dangerous than cats.

If, in the context, there has been a previous mention of the activities, then you can use the articles, so:

Our company carries out two main activities: it handles road freight-forwarding and shipping. The road freight- forwarding is much easier than the shipping.

Well, then I am a tad unsure whether I understood the explanation in the above-cited passage. I know the writer doesn't provide any context to those two sentences, but since it is used as a way of illustrating the use of either article in a certain situation, I thought that it could be used that way – why is then the definite article in front of the word ‘airlines‘ in the above-cited sentence?

The Emsa examples aren't very helpful because they don't give any context for their sentences either. If they say „the airlines charge too much“, then we assume that there is some kind of comparison or difference being made with other types of transport such as „the road haulage companies“ or „the railway companies“ or „the shipping companies“.

It seems it is clear to me, now – thank you very much for your priceless help, and I am sorry for the plethora of questions! So, when I want to make a comparison, as for instance, in the abovementioned example, though with an abstract noun, I can use the definite article?

You can use the definite article with an abstract noun in the kind of (non first-mention) context I've used above.

• Crocodiles are more dangerous than cats. This is because the crocodiles have sharper teeth than the cats. Here, we're still talking about crocodiles and cats in general.

Super – I get it now. Thank you very much!

But, in your last two sentences, you are still talking about road freight-forwarding in general, as well as about shipping in general.

We are esentially talking about ‘jakákoliv spedice po silnici‘ (I am sorry for saying it in Czech, I was a bit unsure how to explain it in English – I hope it makes sense).