(the) pigs in a blanket

< Previous | Next >

VicNicSor

Banned
Russian
— Nadine over at Blue Chip got sort of sick. So she got that goddamn, Mongoloid boy of hers workin' the grill. I mean, that fuckin' idiot doesn't know rat shit from Rice Krispies. They eat breakfast about 9:00. And I'm pukin' up pigs in a blanket, like a sick, fuckin' dog by 10:30.
From Dusk Till Dawn, film

If 'pigs in a blanket' is what he'd eaten, shouldn't he have used the definite article with it, what do you think?
Thank you.
 
  • Hermione Golightly

    Senior Member
    British English
    There'd be no reason to use the definite article, unless the speaker felt some need to define which particular pigs in blankets they were referring to.
    Clearly there was none as far as we know, and the script writer felt no need to define what pigs were being referred to.

    Crossed with Loob. Let me define what 'exactly particular food item'. It was definitely not the pigs in blankets I served at my party.
    It is written without an article because the speaker refers to a general class: it was not caviare or sausage rolls or devilled eggs that she was vomiting up. They don't say whose food or where it was consumed.
     
    Last edited:

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    — Nadine over at Blue Chip got sort of sick. So she got that goddamn, Mongoloid boy of hers workin' the grill. I mean, that fuckin' idiot doesn't know rat shit from Rice Krispies. They eat breakfast about 9:00. And I'm pukin' up pigs in a blanket, like a sick, fuckin' dog by 10:30.
    From Dusk Till Dawn, film

    If 'pigs in a blanket' is what he'd eaten, shouldn't he have used the definite article with it, what do you think?
    Thank you.
    It's the same reason we don't have "the rat shit" or "the Rice Krispies" - we're here to help you adjust your expectations :D
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    Thank you everyone.
    I'm still missing something though. Why I wanted the article there was that "pigs in a blanket" look quite specific in the context.
    It's the pigs in a blanket he ate over at Blue Chip at 9:00. Speaking about them in a general way makes them look like they could be some other pigs in a blanket, not the ones he ate then and there. That's confusing me..
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    Unless it means (with the definite article) "the pigs in a blanket (that) her Mongoloid boy made."
    But that's exactly what the speaker meant.
    If it had been after breakfast, would you have "expected" him to be throwing up "the Rice Krispies"?
    It's the same reason we don't have "the rat shit" or "the Rice Krispies" - we're here to help you adjust your expectations :D
    "Rice Krispies" was mentioned in a general way in the OP, so no article of course. Or did you mean something different?
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    "Rice Krispies" was mentioned in a general way in the OP, so no article of course. Or did you mean something different?
    But the Rice Krispies mentioned wouldn't have been the ones being thrown up.

    If I had used "I'm throwing up cereal" as an example, would you have expected "I'm throwing up the cereal". In the case of "throwing up" it would be unnecessary to specify (grammatically or by style choice) where the vomit originated, just what it was :eek: :D
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    Yes, I'd have expect the article with any kind of food in place of "pigs in a blanket". Otherwise it has no connection with the previous part.

    1. The other day I was invited to a party at Owen's. There were a lot of people, the music was very loud, but the cookies were delicious.
    2. The other day I was invited to a party at Owen's. There were a lot of people, music was very loud, but cookies were delicious.

    Although no music or cookies are mentoned before, zero article would be incorrect, right? How does it differ from the OP?
     

    heypresto

    Senior Member
    English - England
    You're right, #2 is clearly wrong, but . . .

    Later on, after you had eaten too many of the cookies, I saw you throwing up cookies all over the toilet floor. No need for an article before the second 'cookies' here.
     

    VicNicSor

    Banned
    Russian
    You're right, #2 is clearly wrong, but . . .

    Later on, after you had eaten too many of the cookies, I saw you throwing up cookies all over the toilet floor. No need for an article before the second 'cookies' here.
    Ok I see:D However, the definite article, as an option, would still be correct in the OP, right?
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    You're right, #2 is clearly wrong, but . . .

    Later on, after you had eaten too many of the cookies, I saw you throwing up cookies all over the toilet floor. No need for an article before the second 'cookies' here.
    :thumbsup:We went to buy some wine and cheese this afternoon and now we are sitting on the deck watching the sun go down and drinking wine and enjoying good conversation. Just because wine was mentioned in the beginning of the sentence doesn't mean we have to put the article in the second part. Grammatically it would not be incorrect to insert an article, but it should not be "expected" and you'd only use it if the need to specify the cookies/wine/pigs was important.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top