2

While Heaphy was in the role of hawk-eyed, sure-handed, specimen-procuring guide, Hochstetter, Haast and their colleagues were delighted by him and quick to sing his praises. (source)

This sentence strikes me as missing an article. Since "guide" is a count noun, shouldn't the sentence read:

While Heaphy was in the role of a hawk-eyed, sure-handed, specimen-procuring guide, Hochstetter, Haast and their colleagues were delighted by him and quick to sing his praises.

Is "the role of guide" grammatical?

  • We can omit articles before nouns indicating [unique roles or positions](https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/27182/is-there-a-missing-definite-article-before-caliph-in-the-groups-leader-xyz-a). I'm not sure why the author omitted it here though. – CowperKettle Jan 07 '19 at 17:13
  • I think it's a typo or editing mistake. The sentence is not correct without the article. – Canadian Yankee Jan 07 '19 at 17:31
  • 2
    @CanadianYankee: *Feasibly* a typo, given the extra-long list of adjectival elements between the [potential] article and the associated noun (which tends to make the "stylised" omission of the article a little more "clumsy"). But no way is it "incorrect". – FumbleFingers Jan 07 '19 at 18:50
  • @FumbleFingers - Thinking about it, I guess you're correct - sometimes we do omit the article if we're treating the noun as if it's a formal title. – Canadian Yankee Jan 07 '19 at 18:53
  • @CanadianYankee: Just to hammer the point home, Google Books claims *hundreds of thousands* of written instances of the article-less form [*in the role of teacher*.](https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22in+the+role+of+teacher%22) But obviously none at all of *in the role of hawk-eyed, sure-handed, specimen-procuring teacher*. :) – FumbleFingers Jan 07 '19 at 18:56

1 Answers1

1

Articles are sometimes omitted from unique roles, positions, titles, etc.

Heaphy was in the role of guide.

Cheryl was hired in the role of director.

etc.

Tashus
  • 7,198
  • 13
  • 22