A History of Britain
- Thread starter dec-sev
- Start date
When you are speaking about the aggregate of past events that happened in Britain, you are speaking about the history of Britain. When you are speaking about a narration or systematic exposition of those events (as in a book, etc.), you are speaking about a history.
So, we are dealing with a modest historian here 
Thanks, liliput!
Thanks, liliput!
Hi dec-sev,
I sense that you might like some further clarification.
As pointed out by valvs, "history" can mean either the aggregate (= sum) of past events or a chronological account of them. The former is of course unique, and hence is invariably accompanied by the definite article. The latter is usually (but not always) non-unique, thus necessitating the indefinite article.
Examples:
"The History of Britain" (The word "history" is used here to mean "aggregate of [significant] past events".)
"A History of Britain" ("History" is used here in the sense of "chronological account of past events".)
"An Illustrated History of Britain" (Note: the use of the definite article here would not be grammatically incorrect, but would imply that there is only one account of British history with illustrations, which is very unlikely.)
"The Reader's Digest History of Britain" (The definite article is reasonable here, because there's probably only one account of British history that is published by Reader's Digest.)
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Abba
I sense that you might like some further clarification.
I don't think it's necessarily connected with modesty, although that could play a role in some circumstances.So, we are dealing with a modest historian here
As pointed out by valvs, "history" can mean either the aggregate (= sum) of past events or a chronological account of them. The former is of course unique, and hence is invariably accompanied by the definite article. The latter is usually (but not always) non-unique, thus necessitating the indefinite article.
Examples:
"The History of Britain"
(The word "history" is used here to mean "aggregate of [significant] past events".)"A History of Britain"
("History" is used here in the sense of "chronological account of past events".)"An Illustrated History of Britain"
(Note: the use of the definite article here would not be grammatically incorrect, but would imply that there is only one account of British history with illustrations, which is very unlikely.)"The Reader's Digest History of Britain"
(The definite article is reasonable here, because there's probably only one account of British history that is published by Reader's Digest.)Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Abba
Now it’s more or less clear. Still I’m not sure that I understand "aggregate of [significant] past events" correctly. Is it an enumeration of events with the dates? Something like this:As pointed out by valvs, "history" can mean either the aggregate (= sum) of past events or a chronological account of them. The former is of course unique, and hence is invariably accompanied by the definite article. The latter is usually (but not always) non-unique, thus necessitating the indefinite article.
Examples:
"The History of Britain"
1939 – 1945:WWII, etc…
It’s logical, as any account or description of an event is nothing but somebody’s account/description of it. But look at this:"A History of Britain"
Focusing on the political and social developments of the 19th and 20th centuries, Rodrick discusses the evolving relationship between monarch and parliament,…
It’s from the description of The History of Great Britain written by Anne Baltz Rodrick. So, the author discusses something, or in other words gives her opinion. According to the classification you gave the book should fall into the same category as "The Reader's Digest History of Britain" provided we alter the title “The History of Great Britain by Anne Baltz Rodrick”. Still we have “The history of Great Britain”.
Thinking about the matter I’ve come to the conclusion that we should exclude the definite article altogether when we speak about history