Illnesses [branch of Omission of definite article]

[Arnold Zwicky]

On Jan 21, 2010, at 6:35 AM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
>
>
> ILLNESSES
>
> I wonder whether, as I think Arnold suggested, one can draw any
> conclusions at all.

i think there are some tendencies, but there's a lot of idiosyncrasy
and an enormous amount of variation.
>
> Specificity (a particular disease) vs. generality (group of
> illnesses)?  But --
>
> I would say "I have the measles / mumps /shingles"; and in contrast
> to Damian, I would also say "I've got the whooping-cough".

well, i have both variants for "measles/mumps/shingles", but prefer
the anarthrousness variant for "whooping-cough".

(OED draft revision March 2009 on "measles": In plural form. Usu. with
sing. concord; freq. with the.)

>  On the
> other hand, I would *not* say "I have the diphtheria / smallpox /
> polio".

i believe all of these are attested, especially from older speakers,
and in some dialects, though i don't think they're the majority
variants.

> I would not say "I have the cancer" -- but that makes some sense:
> there are too many kinds of cancer.

i'm pretty sure i heard the arthrous variant from speakers of my
grandparents' generation.

it might be that disease names (and nouns in some other domains) tend
to be used at first with the article, marking uniqueness/specificity
of the referent, and then the expressions are (sometimes) simplified.
(it might even be that someone has studied the history of some of
these items.)

in another domain, some discussion of GWB's "the Google" and one older
speaker's "the email", plus some related examples, here:
   AZ, 11/8/07: The Google:
  http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005096.html

> A plural form (but taking the singular) where there is also a count
> noun?  Does "I have measles / mumps / shingles" (without "the") mean
> "I have measles spots / mumps swellings / shingles blotches" (more
> than one)?

(OED: A red spot on the skin forming part of a rash (later spec. that
of measles: see sense 1a). Also fig. [with cites from the 14th century
on])

i'm comfortable with "mumps" used this way, but less sure about the
other two.
>
> Did people used to say "I have flu" when the distinction between the
> various types was not recognized?  And now generally say "I have the
> flu" because they and their hearers will think "the variety of flu
> that's prevalent at the moment"?  On the other hand, today both "the
> seasonal cold flu" and "the H1N1 flu" are running around.

i don't follow this reasoning.  when the distinction between the
various types wasn't recognized, i'd think people would use the
article to refer to what they thought of as a single disease entity.
similarly in current times when the particular strain of (the) flu is
not important in the context.
>
> Presence of an adjective, making the illness specific?  For example,
> do people say "I have the German measles" (my usage), or "I have
> German measles"?

either way for me.

maybe i should have made (an)arthrousness one of the topics for my
course this quarter.

and a bonus item: "in future" (in BrE), discussed here:
   GP, 2/15/07: In (the) future:
  http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004201.html

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org