8

I'm a bit confused about the use of the determinative article before "time". I know the rule is to not use the article when you talk about thinks in general. So if I say:

do you have time to do it?

since this is a specific time, that is the time to do something, it should be more correct to say:

do you have the time do to it?

Yet, the former version is used too. Why? Just an exception to the general rule? And what about:

have you got time to do it? have you got the time to do it?

Antonio Bonifati 'Farmboy'
  • 185

2 Answers2

2

This is a case where either way works, and they are both commonly used. In this kind of sentence, "time" can be used in the uncountable sense and you can also add clarification of an amount to the sentence. Or, you can refer directly to the specific time being discussed.

Another example would be, "Do you have water to give me a drink?" vs. "Do you have the water to give me a drink?" The first case refers to water in general and adds clarification of an amount. The second case refers to the specific water being requested. Again, both versions are fine.

fixer1234
  • 4,682
1

Articles are used before countable nouns. The time means the required duration, which is countable in terms of mins/hours, for a particular activity.

However, time, can also be uncountable based on the context.

English Grammar on time

honeybadger
  • 755
  • I am not really convinced of this explanation. What would you say about a sentence such as "You should use the beautiful weather and go hiking". – Christian Geiselmann Jun 01 '17 at 16:45
  • @ChristianGeiselmann some nouns can be both countable and uncountable. https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/weather – honeybadger Jun 01 '17 at 16:48
  • 1
    @ChristianGeiselmann, that's another case where either way works but your example isn't quite as generic. Without "the", it's a general statement about any beautiful weather. With "the", it refers to the current weather. The example in the question can be used interchangeably for the same situation. – fixer1234 Jun 01 '17 at 16:51
  • @EdwinAshworth As my answer states, here time implies duration. – honeybadger Jun 02 '17 at 04:03
  • 'Do you have the time' is certainly not a count-noun usage because of the unavailability of 'I have [the] seven times to do this job.' / 'Do you have three times to help me?' // Saying 'The time means the required duration, which is countable in terms of mins/hours, for a particular activity.' shows a lack of understanding of countness in linguistics. 'The rice is in the bowl' is a non-count use of 'rice', but the number of grains could be counted. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 02 '17 at 04:04
  • @EdwinAshworth In your example, The rice can refer to a quantity, say 100 lbs of rice is in the bowl. Hence, The rice is not always non-count usage. I am clear in my understanding of linguistics. Please go easy on me, sir. – honeybadger Jun 02 '17 at 04:18
  • I suggest you read this. The only count form ('count' has a specific meaning in linguistics) of 'rice' occurs when it is used as shorthand for 'types of rice' (and perhaps 'rice dish'): 'There are other rices than Oryza sativa: varieties of African rice, species name Oryza glaberrima, and Zizania spp. Two rices show particular resistance to ....' A count-noun usage must accept a numeral, so the unacceptableness of 'two cattle' shows that 'cattle' isn't count. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 02 '17 at 04:54
  • @EdwinAshworth While I go through your link, please refer to the link posted in my answer. It validates my argument. – honeybadger Jun 02 '17 at 04:59
  • It is not totally correct; this is the trouble with quoting an authoritative-looking source. In 'I took a long time to proofread the work.' they judge that the usage is count because the indefinite article is used, but that test doesn't always work. CGEL points this out; this has been covered here before. 'They took two long times' is unacceptable and proves that the usage is non-count. // The test applied to 'Do you have the time to spare?' yields 'Do you have three times to spare?', obviously ridiculous. So this usage is non-count. / Cattle can be counted, but 'cattle' is a non-count noun. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 02 '17 at 05:38