the effects/effects/the + nouns / (just) nouns
I came across this sentence in NY Times and just thought the author could write "effects of humans"(without "the") without changing the original meaning.
lf it were just "effects of humans", we would understand it as the author was talking about "effects of humans, in general" and it's not different from the meaning of the original sentence.
I understood this way. is this right understanding?
For now, the main porpose for this question is to know if I understand it correct or not.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
The epic Netflix documentary(Our planet) offers a visual banquet, but it doesn’t sugarcoat the effects of humans on the environment.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
Thank you!
Search from various English teachers...
Answers · 7
0
without 'the', it would be saying 'it doesn't sugarcoat effects' - talking about 'effects' in general. It could mean the effects of humans, animals, plants, cars.. anything/everything.
You need to use 'the' to talk about specific effects - in this case the effects of specifically humans.
0
Really does need the 'the', otherwise are you talking about how sugarcoating effects things.
Probably autocorrect but it's purpose, not porpose.
Still haven’t found your answers?
Write down your questions and let the native speakers help you!
Don’t miss out on the opportunity to learn a language from the comfort of your own home. Browse our selection of experienced language tutors and enroll in your first lesson now!
Start Learning Today
