neither (the?) time nor (the?) money to go on holiday

[Couch Tomato]

From English Grammar in Use:

Write sentences with both ... and / neither ... nor ... / either ... or ... .

I haven't got time to go on holiday. And I don't have the money.

I have neither time nor money to go on holiday.

But the key gives, 'I have neither the time nor the money to go on holiday.'

Do we really need the articles here? It sounds alright without the articles too.

Thank you in advance.

 

[Bevj]

I have only ever heard/used this expression with the articles.

 

[eyeofhorus]

I think it sounds better with the articles. Imagine that our concept of 'going on holiday' requires a certain (minimum) amount of time and money. Unless we have that particular budget, we would not be able to go.

This implies "the time and the money required".

 

[Pedro y La Torre]

I agree with Bevj, it is possible that American English speakers omit the articles; for that we shall have to wait for one stop by.

 

[djmc]

It sounds right with the article before, on the other hand it sounds right without. It would be slightly more gnomic without as in "neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring".

 

[JustKate]

I would invariably say "neither the time nor the money," and I think it would sound a bit odd to me - though perfectly understandable, of course - if I heard someone else say "neither time nor money." I'm not sure there is any logical reason for this. Perhaps it's because when you're talking about money and time for a very specific purpose, it's natural to think of them as that particular chunk of time and that particular chunk of money, even if they are not actually in existance as yet, and that's why the definite article is used.

 

[Couch Tomato]

Thank you. Well, it appears that most speakers lean towards using the articles.