0

I am overthinking a little issue for a while now. For a new campaign I am working on I would like to say "Addressing Challenges of Millennials". Do I have to use "the" before Challenges or can I omit it?

I read that omitting and article before an unspecified plural noun is correct. In this case, the challenges are specifically related to Millennials, however Millennials have a lot of challenges, so I do not want to specify them.

  • 1
    I wouldn't include an article before "Millennials", but I'd definitely expect one before "Challenges" - Addressing the* Challenges Facing Millennials* (I don't like "of" either! :) – FumbleFingers Feb 18 '23 at 17:13
  • Thanks FumbleFingers! I have just realized that I posed the question wrongly. I wanted to ask whether I have to put an article before "Challenges" as in "Addressing Challenges of Millennials" or "Addressing the Challenges of Millennials".. – Leon Noel M. Feb 18 '23 at 19:22
  • 1
    The problem with *of* is that it doesn't clearly define the relationship between challenges and millennials (someone could write a piece titled Addressing the Challenges of Climate Change, for example). So you might think the meaning of your title is obvious, but crusty old fogies like me might interpret it as meaning you've written something to *help us [cope with all these millennials!]*. – FumbleFingers Feb 18 '23 at 19:36

1 Answers1

2

(Note: the question originally asked about "the" before "Millenials".)

Such omissions are not always 'correct' even though they might be grammatical. The definite article and the null article give rise to different levels of specificity. Compare, for example, "I am the king" vs "I am king", or "He is the chicken" vs "He is chicken".

In your case, "Addressing Challenges of the Millennials" is very close to "Addressing Challenges of Millennials", but the version with "the" can give rise to the question, "Which group of Millennials is the author referring to?"

Since you are referring to Millennials in general, the version without "the" would express your intent more unambiguously.

Now, regarding the change in your question to whether "the" should be present before "challenges", it could be argued that exactly the same logic applies: "the challenges" is a concrete set of challenges, while "challenges" without the definite article represents challenges as a quality. However, things aren't so cut and dried with the subject of the clause/sentence. Consider the following:

  • The king is here.
  • (*) King is here. (note: the asterisk marks an ungrammatical instance)

Unless King is a name, the null article doesn't work here. But if we replace the word King with the word Comfort, it's grammatical again.

  • Comfort is here.

Something more is going on. While we might speculate that abstract nouns and names (which can be thought of as an abstract noun) don't require determiners when used as subjects while concrete nouns do, there may be nuances not yet considered here.

However, this gives us just enough to note that with the abstract noun challenges, both forms are grammatical:

  • the challenges of millenials
  • challenges of millenials

The difference is that including "the" here suggests a concrete set of challenges, whereas the anarthrous form references challenges as an abstract quality.

If you want to clearly announce your intention to address merely a subset of challenges facing millenials, you can use the quantifier "some"

  • Addressing Some Challenges of Millenials

This starts to feel a little clunky as a title, but further refinement would take us beyond the scope of this question.

Lawrence
  • 38,640
  • Thanks Lawrence! I have just realized that I posed the question wrongly. I wanted to ask whether I have to put an article before "Challenges" as in "Addressing Challenges of Millennials" or "Addressing the Challenges of Millennials" – Leon Noel M. Feb 18 '23 at 19:21
  • @LeonNoelM. You're welcome. Stack Exchange encourages editing to clarify, add information, or deal with typos, etc. However, edits should not invalidate previously-valid answers. That said, your seemingly-innocent switching of the noun of interest uncovered an interesting wrinkle in the topic of how determiners change how nouns are understood. I've extended my answer to try to (start to) address that. I hope it helps. – Lawrence Feb 20 '23 at 17:19