English questions

[bradrn]

Sorry for stating the obvious, but a place can meet the description "you can feel the wind blow, see trees, fields, clouds and sky, hear birds sing and do some jogging along the river" even if it's far away from the next town.

Or, for that matter, even if it’s right in the city centre.

[azhong]

A question about the necessity of several the's in the sentence narrating a scene:
The wind blew through the leaves and over the fields. The Clouds floated in the sky.

It doesn't refer to specific leaves, fields or clouds. Which the's should I keep and which should I leave out? Thank you.

[Raphael]

I'd leave out the third "the" myself, but I'm really not sure if there's any "correct" answer.

[evmdbm]

You could leave them all out...

The wind blew through leaves and over fields. Clouds floated in the sky

[zompist]

A question about the necessity of several the's in the sentence narrating a scene:
The wind blew through the leaves and over the fields. The Clouds floated in the sky.

You could leave them all out...

The wind blew through leaves and over fields. Clouds floated in the sky

This is rather subtle. Easy point first: definitely remove "the" before "clouds".

The others are what we might call scene-setting articles. Normally you use "the" on second reference: "I saw a cloud. The cloud looked like a bear." But when you call up a scene for the reader or listener, you can (and normally should) use "the" for objects they can reasonably expect would be in that scene. Examples:

I went to a busy restaurant. The host said I'd have to wait at the bar.
I read my brother's manuscript. The plot was nonexistent and the characters were dull.
I went to the zoo. The lion was asleep as usual, and the dolphins were amusing.

In these sentences the writer hasn't referred to these things before (host, bar, plot, character, lions, dolphins), but they are things you'd expect to find in a restaurant / manuscript / zoo. They come with the scene. Compare:

I went to a busy restaurant. A mouse was running along the counter.

A restaurant isn't supposed to have visible mice, so mice don't come with the scene. "The mouse" would be odd here.

Now, in azhong's sentence, I'd take "the leaves and the fields" as coming with the scene— even if it's a very minimal scene evoked by "the wind."

evmdbm is not wrong to leave them out. I think the difference is just which elements are setting the scene and which are evoked as part of it. In azhong's sentence "the wind" is enough to set the scene all by itself— if an area is open enough to feel wind, it's not surprising if it has leaves and fields. In evmdbm's version wind, leaves, and fields are all doing so.

I explain all this because textbooks usually don't. The reference to "specific" things sounds like something from a textbook; it's covered by what I called second reference above. But textbooks usually miss more complicated rules (and thus mislead advanced students).

(Oh, and people often fall back on the claim that things like this are "arbitrary." But if most speakers agree on a rule, it's a rule, even if grammars and textbooks don't teach it.)

[azhong]

The others are what we might call scene-setting articles. ...when you call up a scene..., you can (and normally should) use "the" for objects they can reasonably expect would be in that scene. Examples:
...
I went to a busy restaurant. The host said I'd have to wait at the bar.
...
Compare:
I went to a busy restaurant. A mouse was running along the counter.

A restaurant isn't supposed to have visible mice, so mice don't come with the scene. "The mouse" would be odd here.

Thank you for your clear explanation. I'm so glad I finally know the rule now.
A further question based on your "rule", please. This is my full text:
Mimì and Rodolfo... had their own way to spend a weekend happily... On this Sunday morning they went for a walk in the countryside as usual. The wind blew through the leaves and across the fields. White clouds floated in the blue sky; the sky was high and clear.
Q: Now that I've mentioned "countryside" to set the scene, maybe I should also add a the before clouds?

1. White clouds floated in the blue sky...
:?:2. The white clouds floated in the blue sky...
3. The clouds were white and floated in the blue sky...

Does the existence of "white" change the rule? Thank you.

Edit: And my sentence will still go on with birds and fish, where I'll meet the same question:
Birds flew in the sky, fish swam in the river, and the river flowed gently/peacefully like a wise elder.

[Raphael]

I don't think that "white" changes anything in this context, but I wonder what others think.

[Travis B.]

About the clouds, I would omit the the unless you were previously talking about the sky or the weather or like, to which the clouds are hence connected. The white clouds makes it sound like there are some particular clouds that were already introduced or implied that you are talking about.

[Zju]

Does anybody happen to know what's the etymology of the surname Whelchel? And how is it even pronounced?

[azhong]

An unrelated question (and please allow me reminding you all that Zju is asking a question above):

I made a sentence:
1. Almost every morning I draw water with buckets from a brook, which is not far away.
And I received corrections from German speakers:
2. Almost every morning I fetch water with buckets from a brook that is not far away.

Then a German asked, translated by Google Translate,
"I remembered that there was a comma before "which" but not before "that"."

And another German commented,

...the comma depends on whether it is a defining or non-defining clause.
In BE you can use "which" for both, i.e. with or without a comma, depending on the case.
In AE, as far as I know, only "that" is used for defining, so "which" always comes with a comma, because it's always a non-defining extension."

The comment seems to be a bit different from what I've known. I was told that "which" as a relative pronoun is now very formal for AE and is almost always replaced by "that". That said, it's still grammatical to use "which" in either a defining or a non-defining relative clause.

Your comments please, on this point and on the others in the explanation of English usage, if possible? And then I'll pass your comments to my German helpers (in return for their help). Thank you.

[willm]

Unfortunately, I have no idea what the etymology of the surname Whelchel would be. As for pronunciation, I would guess /wɛltʃəl/.

There is a rule somewhat commonly observed in the US (and, as the German commented, not in Britain, if I recall correctly) that "which" should only be used in non-restrictive (non-defining) relative clauses. I follow this rule in my speech and writing, but not everyone does, and the rule is broken even by many good writers, so you probably shouldn't worry about it. Many native speakers use "which" in restrictive relative clauses. It does sound more formal, as well, just as you thought.

However, only "which" can introduce a non-restrictive relative clause. An example of a meaning difference based on this would be "He gave me a gift that I appreciated" versus "He gave me a gift, which I appreciated", where the first sentence involves appreciating the gift and the second sentence involves appreciating the giving. The first sentence could also be "He gave me a gift which I appreciated" and keep the same meaning, but the second meaning requires "which" and the comma.

I hope all of this makes sense!

[Darren]

Does anybody happen to know what's the etymology of the surname Whelchel? And how is it even pronounced?

This random website says "This German surname of WHELCHEL was originally derived from a Germanic personal name composed of the elements WALD (rule) and HERI (army). The name was introduced into England by the Normans during the Invasion of 1066 in the form WALTIER and WAUTIER." A few other websites seem to agree it's of German origin at least. The only other explanation I can come up with is that it's a variant of Welchel, which comes from the same Anglo-Saxon root as Wiltshire.

As for pronunciation, I'd guess /ˈwɛltʃəl/. This article suggests that it used to be pronounced /ˈwɪlki/ at least in one place, which is kinda interesting.

[Linguoboy]

This random website says "This German surname of WHELCHEL was originally derived from a Germanic personal name composed of the elements WALD (rule) and HERI (army). The name was introduced into England by the Normans during the Invasion of 1066 in the form WALTIER and WAUTIER." A few other websites seem to agree it's of German origin at least.

Germanic ≠ German. Reflexes of Proto-Germanic *Waldaharjaz are found in most branches of West and North Germanic. The Norman French versions derive from Frankish *Waltheri (which in this case happens to coincide with Old High German Waltheri).

One of those "other websites" suggests that it's a variation of German Welcher, which is explained as a habitational surname from Velichov/Welchau in the Czech Republic. I can't find any support for this but I haven't checked Bahlow yet. Frankly, all the explanations I've found online seem pretty speculative, without any decent citations to back them up.

[Linguoboy]

An unrelated question (and please allow me reminding you all that Zju is asking a question above):

I made a sentence:
1. Almost every morning I draw water with buckets from a brook, which is not far away.
And I received corrections from German speakers:
2. Almost every morning I fetch water with buckets from a brook that is not far away.

I'm not sure why anyone felt it necessary to replace "draw" with "fetch". These have different literal meanings, as "draw" refers solely to the process of lifting water with buckets whereas "fetch" is the entire process of drawing the water and bringing it to the destination where it will be used. (The implied meanings are pretty much the same, since there would be no point to drawing water and just leaving it by the brook, so it's implied that you also transport the water.)

[Travis B.]

An unrelated question (and please allow me reminding you all that Zju is asking a question above):

I made a sentence:
1. Almost every morning I draw water with buckets from a brook, which is not far away.
And I received corrections from German speakers:
2. Almost every morning I fetch water with buckets from a brook that is not far away.

I'm not sure why anyone felt it necessary to replace "draw" with "fetch". These have different literal meanings, as "draw" refers solely to the process of lifting water with buckets whereas "fetch" is the entire process of drawing the water and bringing it to the destination where it will be used. (The implied meanings are pretty much the same, since there would be no point to drawing water and just leaving it by the brook, so it's implied that you also transport the water.)

To me fetch implies that one will be transporting the water a distance, even if it is a relatively short one, while as you state draw indicates the physical act of extracting water from the brook itself.

[Travis B.]

Also, which and that have different meanings here to me at least; which indicates that the location of the brook is incidental to the primary act in the sentence whereas that indicates that the location of the brook is important to the identity of the brook itself (e.g. it may be in contrast to other brooks which are further away).

[azhong]

Also, which and that have different meanings here to me at least;
(1) which indicates that the location of the brook is incidental to the primary act in the sentence whereas
(2) that indicates that the location of the brook is important to the identity of the brook itself (e.g. it may be in contrast to other brooks which are further away).

I am not sure, but it sounds to me you're talking about nonrestrictive and restrictive relative clause respectively for (1) and (2)? Is your comment based on the the two sentences linguoboy quoted (if so, it would make sense to me):

1. Almost every morning I draw water with buckets from a brook, which is not far away.
2. Almost every morning I fetch water with buckets from a brook that is not far away.

Or is it based on this pair out of my original post (without a comma before "which")? In this case your comment would be unfamiliar to me.

1. Almost every morning I draw water with buckets from a brook which is not far away.
2. Almost every morning I fetch water with buckets from a brook that is not far away.

[Travis B.]

Also, which and that have different meanings here to me at least;
(1) which indicates that the location of the brook is incidental to the primary act in the sentence whereas
(2) that indicates that the location of the brook is important to the identity of the brook itself (e.g. it may be in contrast to other brooks which are further away).

I am not sure, but it sounds to me you're talking about nonrestrictive and restrictive relative clause respectively for (1) and (2)? Is your comment based on the the two sentences linguoboy quoted (if so, it would make sense to me):

1. Almost every morning I draw water with buckets from a brook, which is not far away.
2. Almost every morning I fetch water with buckets from a brook that is not far away.

Or is it based on this pair out of my original post (without a comma before "which")? In this case your comment would be unfamiliar to me.

1. Almost every morning I draw water with buckets from a brook which is not far away.
2. Almost every morning I fetch water with buckets from a brook that is not far away.

To me there is a difference between the which sentence with a comma and the which sentence without a comma; with a comma it is less restrictive than without a comma, but even without a comma which, which here may or may not be restrictive depending on context, is less restrictive than that, which is largely restrictive to me.

[azhong]

Does the small passage have any problem? Thank you.

1. It seems the word Schlange* has implied that the shape of the animal is long.
2. The form of an rope is also long, very similar to that of a snake.
3. A rope lying in the tall grass looks exactly like a snake.
4.1 Thus at times I am also frightened by a rope at the river.
4.2 Thus at times a rope at the river also frightens me.

[*] In German, Schlange means "snake" and lang, long.

[zompist]

Suggested corrections:

1. It seems the word Schlange* implies that the shape of the animal is long.
2. The form of a rope is also long, very similar to that of a snake.
3. A rope lying in the tall grass looks exactly like a snake.
4.1 Thus at times I am also frightened by a rope in? the river.
4.2 Thus at times a rope in? the river also frightens me.

1. or suggests. "Implies" means that there is some necessary relation, rather than pure chance. "Suggests" is more compatible with a mere resemblance in sound.
2. More colloquial: The shape...
4. I'm not sure if you're thinking of a snake in the river, or on the riverbank.
4. "Thus" is not wrong, but so would be more colloquial.