Skip to main content

Should I use an article with the word “part”?


I’ve noticed that some people use an article with the word “part” and the bulk of them does not (at least at some web pages I skimmed through). Which is the correct variant? I think that parts of something are countable, so there should be an article, whether definite or not.


A few examples right out of my head. Please, do not consider it as meaningful sentences. These are just for demonstrating and mean almost nothing.



KDE is a part of the Linux GUI.
The mentioned district is a part of the city.
This stick was a part of that tree.
Something is the main part of his success.



Here you go – a few real life examples I’ve just stumbled with:



… the resulting moc file is included in a _automoc.cpp file, which is then compiled as part of the target.


DarwinPorts was started in 2002 as part of the OpenDarwin project.


It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier.




Answer



All the sentences with X is/was a part of Y do not require the indefinite article.



KDE is part of the Linux GUI.
The red-light district is part of the city.
This stick was part of that tree.



are all fine without a.



X is *{the/a} main part of his success.*



however, requires the definite or indefinite article. OTOH, it's not a great sentence.



X is the main reason for his success.



is much better and more natural.


If you're talking about a long novel, say, you might be able to say:



Chapters 10-20, which depict in great detail the heroine's biography and the reasons for her unusual personality and character, are {the/a} main part of the novel.



The article is required here because there's a adjective in front of the noun. The other sentences don't include that adjective before part. The sentence



This is main part of the novel



is ungrammatical.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more