"I was reading posts there" vs. "I was reading the posts there"



This is my post from History Stack Exchange. I was reading posts there and one specific issue interested me. That's why I wrote that post.

Should I use the when referring to posts on History SE in general?

This is my post from History Stack Exchange. I was reading the posts there and one specific issue interested me. That's why I wrote that post.

Since I did not refer to particular posts, I used no article, but a native speaker corrected me, adding the.

Would not the use of the indicate "all posts"?

P.S. Do we say

I was in the N.Y. Library. I was reading the books there, and one book interested me.

The N.Y. Library must be quite big. On the other hand, without the the reader might assume that I took some books along with me into the Library and was reading them there.


Posted 2016-01-13T07:10:52.667

Reputation: 36 949

I am no native speaker. But I don't think it means all the posts. This is limited to the specific posts that you were reading, I guess? – Usernew – 2016-01-13T07:16:23.963

1@Usernew - "the" sometimes serves to indicate "all of (something)". I'm asking just in case. Of course from the context the reader will understand that I haven't read the entire collection of HSE's posts. I'm just wondering why it's felicitous. – CowperKettle – 2016-01-13T07:18:55.943

3Native speakers often correct sentences based on their instinct on how odd the sentence sounds to them. As English comes naturally for them, these corrections are instinctive. Maybe the editor felt that the sentence lacked a certain "the" somewhere. – Varun Nair – 2016-01-13T07:20:08.097


Highly recommend this article by Barbara Abbott on definite and indefinite (it's a pdf)

– Alan Carmack – 2016-04-13T03:09:51.203

@AlanCarmack - thank you, Alan, I'll definitely look into it. – CowperKettle – 2016-04-13T03:42:02.253


Another highly recommended pdf: Uniqueness, Familiarity, and the Definite Article in English. Betty Birner. University of Pennsylvania. Gregory Ward. Northwestern University. @whitedevil

– Alan Carmack – 2016-08-16T04:21:11.217

In Birner & Ward, see sentence 12: *When I was traveling through Switzerland last year I took a beautiful photograph of the mountains.* The mountains does not refer to (a) all the mountains in Switzerland, or even (b) "every mountain in Switzerland seen by the speaker". It refers to an "undifferentiated subset" of the mountains. This is the same usage as the posts there and the books in the NYPL. The use of the in a NP with plural count noun (mountains, posts, books) does not have to, and sometimes absolutely cannot, refer to all of them. @whitedevil – Alan Carmack – 2016-08-16T23:33:43.940

@AlanCarmack What do you think of this; Books of the NYPL are very old. or The books of the NYPL are very old. Which one is the correct one if I am generalizing about the books? – whitedevil – 2016-08-17T21:05:57.187

1In today's English, for sure: the books of the NYPL are very old. For some reason the bare plural books of the NYPL seems odd. Probably because of of the. – Alan Carmack – 2016-08-17T22:50:11.607

1However, with at the, either the bare plural Books at the NYPL or the definite noun phrase the books at the NYPL works. Both phrases refer to the same books; it is just that one phrase uses the bare plural books and the other uses the definite the books. The phrase at the NYPL is a locative phrase, indicating the location of the books. (By contrast, of the is not a locative phrase and seems to require the definite noun phrase in this case.) – Alan Carmack – 2016-08-17T23:00:44.390

@AlanCarmack So do I have to say, the species of the world, not species of the world? – whitedevil – 2016-08-17T23:24:01.547


The phrases species of the world and books of the NYPL will work in some contexts, but perhaps not so readily as the subject of a(/n independent) clause. You could search Google Books for specific phrases and see what you get. In the meantime, we should continue this in the chat room we were using before. I will have to step away from my keyboard for awhile

– Alan Carmack – 2016-08-17T23:45:52.017



Implied reference

If your intended audience doesn't know that History Stack Exchange contains "posts", then you should omit the article. By omitting it, you are implicitly saying "I don't expect you to already know what is available to read on History Stack Exchange. So, I am informing you now: the things on History Stack Exchange that can be read are 'posts'."

If your reader knows that there is nothing to read on History Stack Exchange but posts, you could omit "posts" entirely:

I was reading there and one specific issue interested me.

The way to think of "the" in this context (and most contexts) is that it refers to something that the reader understands that you have already referred to, even if only implicitly. For example:

I went to the kitchen and got the tricycle.

only makes sense if your listener knows that a tricycle was in the kitchen. We don't normally expect that there would be a tricycle in a kitchen.

I went to a new customer's kitchen and fixed the sink.

This makes sense because it's normal and expected that a kitchen would have a sink, even if this is the first time you've heard of the kitchen. The word "kitchen" implicitly brings up the sink, so you can refer to the sink with "the".

At the Turkish restaurant, I got köfte, a kind of spiced meatball dish.

Here, omitting the article suggests that you don't expect your listener to know what köfte is or that it's something you'd likely get at the Turkish restaurant.

At Canter's Deli, you should get the corned-beef sandwich.

Here, "the" is appropriate because bringing up the deli implicitly brings up typical items on the menu. Even if you don't expect your listener to know that Canter's Deli serves corned-beef sandwiches, "the" can still be appropriate because "the" also suggests selecting one thing from among many choices. The sentence means "At Canter's deli, you should choose 'corned-beef sandwich' from among your choices for what to eat—which will be apparent once you're there."

The books at the library

That last point about "the" makes this sentence sound a little silly:

I was in the N.Y. Library. I was reading the books there, and one book interested me.

"Oh, you were reading the books!" As opposed to what, the posters on the wall? The definite article also suggests that you were there to read all the books, which is absurd. Usually when there is grammatical ambiguity, a listener will use common sense to avoid making an absurd interpretation, but in this case, the absurdity is hard to avoid because a listener understands this sentence by analogy with the "…and fixed the sink" and "…get the corned-beef sandwich" sentences. This sentence treats "the books" as a single fixture in the New York Library. That doesn't make sense if you're reading them; it makes sense in a context like this:

The yearly cost to insure the books in the New York Library is over a million dollars.

Notice "the yearly cost". The definite article fits there because insuring books implies a yearly cost.

Bringing your own books

About whether without "the" the reader might assume that you took some books along with you into the library and were reading them there, the answer is no. The ordinary thing to do at a library is read the library's books, not your own. A reader will assume that unless you say otherwise. If you were reading your own books, you'd have to say that explicitly.

The best way to reword your last example is probably just this:

I was reading at the N.Y. Library, and one book interested me.

The metaphor of pointing

If this is sounding like complicated rules to memorize, here is a simple way to understand what's going on. "The" is like pointing to something that your listener already sees, much like "that" as a demonstrative adjective (etymologically, the similarity between the words is no coincidence). For example, if someone holds up a tray containing two cookies and asks "Which would you like?", you could answer "I'll take the big one." Or you could start a conversation with "Look at the bird in that tree"—if there's only one bird and it's easy to see. The word "the" is appropriate even though it's introducing something new, because you're pointing out something that your listener already sees, or you're inviting your listener to look at it. The specific thing you mean is already there, and you're just pointing to it. Only, instead of pointing with your finger, you're pointing with the noun phrase that follows "the".

In the case of implied reference, when you bring up a kitchen, your listener "already sees" the sink, so you refer to the sink with "the". Regarding a tricycle in the kitchen, "the tricycle" would suggest that you assume that your listener expects that the kitchen contains a tricycle. Unless some other context already set that up, your listener is likely to think that you misspoke or that he misheard. Regarding advice about what to order at a restaurant, "the" can introduce an entirely new food item, because your listener will "see" the menu when actually visiting the restaurant.

Often more than one choice is perfectly good. The choice between "reading posts" and "reading the posts" is largely a matter of taste. But you should understand that these choices convey information about what you are assuming your listener sees, imagines, or expects.

Ben Kovitz

Posted 2016-01-13T07:10:52.667

Reputation: 25 752

1This is one of the best missives on the definite article I've encountered on ELL. – J.R. – 2016-01-13T15:38:39.153

-1 Just like you can 'inform' someone that the deli carries corn beef sandwiches by simply using the, you can inform someone that SE: History contains posts by using the posts. The same for the tricycle. – GoDucks – 2016-01-13T15:41:43.383

@J.R. Really? Because it does not describe how native speakers use the definite article. This post of mine is much more accurate.

– GoDucks – 2016-01-13T15:46:09.797

Go in the bedroom and get me the red and white socks that are on my bed. Your listener does not have to know already that there are a pair of red & white socks in the bedroom. What you assume is that the listener can identify which socks you are taking about: thus you use the. – GoDucks – 2016-01-13T15:48:39.243

@GoDucks - I like your candy cane colored socks analogy, but I think this answer agrees with it, rather than conflicts with it. I don't think answer says we can't say "Go in the kitchen and get the tricycle." Rather, it points out that the mental picture changes pretty sharply when we add that bit about the tricycle, more so than when we add a tidbit about the sink. – J.R. – 2016-01-13T15:55:15.140

1@J.R. In both sentences, the tricycle and the sink, the definite article is used because the speaker assumes that his listener can identify which one he means. Either from context (the only tricycle you will see when you go in the kitchen) or from common knowledge (kitchens contain sinks). It is what the speaker assumes about his listener not what the listener actually knows that is the key thing. – GoDucks – 2016-01-13T16:01:38.130

@GoDucks - Yes, exactly. That's how I interpreted this post. (This is elementary, yet a vexingly difficult concept to explain!) – J.R. – 2016-01-13T16:05:23.060

@J.R. Did you not see the sentence: This only makes sense if your listener knows that a tricycle was in the kitchen. This sentence by itself deserves the downvote. – GoDucks – 2016-01-13T16:07:18.820

@GoDucks - Except for one fact: once you say the sentence, the listener knows that a tricycle was in the kitchen. (I think Ben was trying to explain why it's okay to say, "I went to the kitchen and got the tricycle" – even if you haven't mentioned the tricycle beforehand – and that we don't need to say, ""I went to the kitchen and got a tricycle.") – J.R. – 2016-01-13T16:15:50.257

@GoDucks The example of the deli is intended to illustrate that you can inform someone of the implicitly referred-to thing's existing with "the". It's hard to be both brief and comprehensive (probably impossible), since contextual factors can affect grammaticality and meaning in endless complex ways. Would you say "I went to a new customer's kitchen and fixed the tricycle" is normal English? – Ben Kovitz – 2016-01-13T16:16:24.627

3It sounds like normal English to me, but it sounds like a relatively unusual situation. – J.R. – 2016-01-13T16:18:53.060

2@Ben,it accords with the 'rule' I am stipulating: a speaker can use the definite article when he assumes that his listener can identify which referent he means. It depends on what the speaker assumes about his listener, not what the listener already knows. (continued) – GoDucks – 2016-01-13T16:23:12.700

1Upon hearing that sentence, the interlocutor might ask Oh really, which tricycle? meaning you have either assumed incorrectly that I know which tricycle you are talking about, or that you are about to tell me more about the tricycle. Or even you are playing mind games with me, because I have absolutely no idea which tricycle you are talking about. – GoDucks – 2016-01-13T16:26:31.900

1Note: the assumption of the speaker does not have to be a correct assumption. I've covered a lot of this in the my answer (to use an obsolete formula) that I've linked to above. – GoDucks – 2016-01-13T16:28:25.610

@J.R. I mean, in a normal situation, without additional context, does it sound like normal English? To me, it would suggest some sort of miscommunication or misunderstanding: "Why is this person assuming that I'd expect there to be a tricycle in that kitchen?" – Ben Kovitz – 2016-01-13T16:34:30.543

@GoDucks If the listener can't enter the kitchen and find the tricycle, because the event happened in the past or the statement is fiction or a lie, then would you say that "the tricycle" is inappropriate? – Ben Kovitz – 2016-01-13T16:45:58.163


Ben, I believe my comment covers the situation of Why is this person assuming that I'd expect there to be a tricycle in that kitchen?" In short: Because he does, but it may not be a correct assumption. @J.R.

– GoDucks – 2016-01-13T16:50:44.857

@GoDucks I'm still not sure I understand your criticism. But I can edit the message to be more explicit that saying or omitting "the" conveys information about what the speaker assumes about the listener's knowledge. In the current version of the answer, I, uh, assumed that my reader would understand that when I refer to the listener's knowledge, I mean the speaker's assumptions about the listener's knowledge. – Ben Kovitz – 2016-01-13T16:58:38.530

Your explanation using kitchen is quite reasonable. But the verb to read could be used as a transitive verb and intransitive at the same time. It would be better if you could make an example using a transitive verb where you can't omit its object. I upvote your answer. – None – 2016-01-13T17:29:25.027

Ben, I would be glad to discuss this in a chat room. – GoDucks – 2016-01-13T17:34:55.110

@GoDucks I just added a new section, explaining more generally what's going on and explicitly bringing up assumptions about the listener. Oh well, brevity was long gone, anyway. – Ben Kovitz – 2016-01-13T17:50:38.910

4@BenK - I wouldn't expect a tricycle in a kitchen. That said, if you told me, "I went to the kitchen and got the tricycle," then I would assume there had been a tricycle for some reason, not that you had made some kind of grammatical mistake. – J.R. – 2016-01-13T18:40:31.327

1+1, but it's not quite true that the is a short form of that. That was originally the nom.sgl.neuter form of the demonstrative/determinative whose corresponding masculine and feminine nom.sgl. forms were se and seo or siu--all other forms began with Þ-. Starting in about the 10th century the forms in s- were replaced with forms in Þ-, and somewhat later, as most declensional affixes were lost, Þe was bracketed off as the article while Þæt was bracketed off as the demonstrative. – StoneyB on hiatus – 2016-01-13T18:41:46.260

@StoneyB Thanks. I've never looked into it in depth. I mostly wanted to say that "the" really functions like the demonstrative adjective "that". Hmm, I could just say that. Now editing… – Ben Kovitz – 2016-01-13T18:44:49.167

@J.R. Me, too. Indeed there is no clear boundary between grammaticality and sense. The main thing I'm trying to get across is that these grammatical choices convey expectations about what the listener knows and doesn't know. It could probably be done way more concisely, but hopefully the latest version is reasonably clear. – Ben Kovitz – 2016-01-13T19:03:21.813

1I have kept my downvote. Your first sentence does not accord with reality. If my wife does not know that there is a mink coat in the hall closet, does this mean I should not use the? Compare two ways of telling her. (1) your way. You say you have to use a because she is not aware that it is there: Honey, in the hall closet there's a mink coat. It is a mink coat I bought you for your birthday. Could you please go get it? – GoDucks – 2016-01-14T01:55:17.617

1To my way: I use the, which means I am implying that I think she knows that she can identify it, even if not at first (B) Honey, could you go get the mink coat out of the hall closet? She: Huh? Which mink coat could you be talking about? He: It's the mink coat I bought you for your birthday. She: Oh you! You are so full of surprises! Thank you so much! – GoDucks – 2016-01-14T01:55:45.320

@GoDucks I certainly agree that the answer could be more clearly written, if only to block interpreting the examples as absolute, mathematical rules. For example, the opening sentence is not about your wife's mink coat. It's only an example, meant to supply one precedent, to be varied thoughtfully and balanced against other pressures in other situations. Your example of the mink-coat birthday present illustrates a common grammatical pattern: going against the normal grammar for some kind of rhetorical effect. … – Ben Kovitz – 2016-01-14T02:39:51.077

… I haven't found a useful and friendly way to say "THIS CAN ALL BE VARIED IN ENDLESSLY CLEVER WAYS IN ENDLESSLY VARYING CONTEXTS, THERE ARE OFTEN CONFLICTING AND OVERLAPPING PRESSURES, IT'S ENGLISH GRAMMAR, DON'T THINK IT'S A RIGID SYSTEM!" It sounds like you also understand that English grammar is not rigid. I'd love to see an explanation that's unlikely to be interpreted as rigid rules. But I know that Copperkettle is too wise to make that misinterpretation, so I'm not too worried in this case. (I still think my answer is clumsily written, though. If I get a new idea, I'll edit some more.) – Ben Kovitz – 2016-01-14T03:42:13.783

2Ben I have no idea what you're ALLCAPPING ABOUT. Are you quoting someone? The example with the mink coat was just to counter the assertion of your first sentence. I also did that with the very normal request for someone to go fetch the red & white socks; in both cases my interlocutor did not know beforehand the item was there. My offer to discuss this in chat stands. I've already passed on to you a description of when a person uses the definite article that is anything but rigid. – GoDucks – 2016-01-14T05:36:10.473


The sentence "I was reading posts" reads more like you read a lot of posts regardless of whether they interested you or not. It is not very clear what posts you are referring to. If you are referring to the posts that interested you, it is better to put some or a few to limit the number of posts you were reading. I would not recommend using the in your example as it could be misleading and it is not clear what posts you read on History Stack Exchange.

It could be better to use a determiner or its equivalents in front of a countable noun especially when it was not mentioned before. The below sentences read better than using the definite article.

I was reading some/a few/a couple of posts there and one specific issue interested me.
I was reading (some) interesting posts there and one specific issue interested me.

If we contrast "I read a few books." with "I read the two books." you will notice that there is difference in the meaning.

In your second example, I would not put the there.

I was in the N.Y. Library. I was reading a few/a couple of/some (all meaning from two or three to unspecified number) books there, and one book interested me.

There could be millions of books in NY Library (unlike your History Stack Exchange posts) and using the for unspecific number of books is not appropriate. Again, you could consider using other words suggested above.


Posted 2016-01-13T07:10:52.667


Sorry, I did not provide enough context. I wrote my post after becoming interested in a particular issue discussed on History Stack Exchange. – CowperKettle – 2016-01-13T07:35:35.383

@CopperKettle I edited my post. I think the native speaker felt it a little off because there is nothing that can specify posts in your sentence. – None – 2016-01-13T07:40:36.250

@Downvoters. I received 3 downvotes. Any comments? Where can I improve my post? – None – 2016-01-13T16:53:50.897

I didn't downvote, but here's a possibility for why some people did: Many people interested in grammar are somewhat crazy about rules and/or have a fierce tribal dedication to one theory, and upvote or downvote on that basis. It doesn't mean your answer was wrong. Maybe the sentence "It is always better to use a determiner…" came off sounding too much like a rule. IMO, all your examples and advice are good, and your main point, about quantity of posts, is especially insightful. I had not even thought of that when composing my answer, and it's quite important. – Ben Kovitz – 2016-01-13T17:13:59.407


Of course, you should use the definite article. Why? Because you are specific about Stack Exchange, even specific about History Stack Exchange, and furthermore specific about posts that you are interested in!

You are also specific about the place (...was reading posts there...) and also about the topic (-say World War).

In short, you are very specific about the place (site), the niche (history) and also the type of posts (one particular topic/subject), so 'the posts...'!

Maulik V

Posted 2016-01-13T07:10:52.667

Reputation: 66 188


It would be idiomatic to say any of these things...

I was reading at the library...

I was reading a book at the library...

I was looking through some books at the library...

I was reading the latest posts on History StackExchange...

But not:

I was reading the books at the library...

It's not ungrammatical, of course, but the phrase "the books at the library" refers to them en masse.

The books at the library are kept on metal shelves. In the rare book room, the books are protected against fire by an emergency system that seals the room and fills it with an inert gas.

In the same way, "the posts" would refer to all of them.


Posted 2016-01-13T07:10:52.667

Reputation: 116 610

I was discussing this sentence "I was in the N.Y. Library. I was reading the books there" in a chatroom. My explanation for "the books" was that "The books" seems to be generalizing and making it definite at the same time. Definite that the books are indeed from NYL, and generalizing that "books" that you read in NYL can be any book in it, but more than one. But no article "books" does not try to make the fact that books are from NYL definite. It is more focused on conveying that he read some books and that they are from NYL is of small importance, just adding supplementary information. – whitedevil – 2016-08-13T19:47:20.523

But you seem to say it should refer to all of the books in NYP. Is that just one understanding or normal one? – whitedevil – 2016-08-13T19:48:27.387


In Uniqueness, Familiarity, and the Definite Article in English (pdf link) by Betty Birner, University of Pennsylvania, and Gregory Ward, Northwestern University, the authors talk about the use of the definite article with mass and plural nouns. They mention that in both cases, the noun phrase does not have to refer to all of the things mentioned in the definite noun phrase.

For example, see sentence 12:

When I was traveling through Switzerland last year I took a beautiful photograph of the mountains.

The mountains does not refer to (a) all the mountains in Switzerland, or even (b) "every mountain in Switzerland seen by the speaker". It refers to an "undifferentiated subset" of the mountains. This is the same usage as the posts there and the books in the NYPL.

The use of the in a NP with plural count noun (whether mountains, posts, books) does not have to, and sometimes absolutely cannot, refer to all of the things.

The same is true of the bare plural versions if the same noun phrases. Here, the reference is indefinite, and that includes being indefinite as to number. See also the ELL question Necessity of a definite article before the antecedent of relative pronoun for another natural example of the bare plural noun in the sentence

Johnson was helping her country win the space race, calculating trajectories that got spacecraft in and out of space.

The noun phrase trajectories that got spacecraft in and out of space is indefinite as to number. The use of posts there shows the same indefiniteness regarding number. It could refer to all posts but that is not the intent. The intent is to be indefinite.

Using the in the posts there makes the noun phrase definite, but here, as per Birner & Ward, the definite noun phrase does not have to refer to all the posts. What is important, per Birner & Ward is context and inferring the speaker's intent.

Thus, the does not have to refer to all the posts or all the books. The job of the is to make a definite reference instead of an indefinite reference. For all we know, posts could refer to all the posts, but since you make an indefinite reference we can't be sure about the number of posts you mean.

The posts by itself does not refer to all of them. Consider a lady who just sat down with a magazine. Her husband asks her what she is doing. She replies that

she is looking at the ads in the magazine.

She is just making a definite reference; it does not correspond to all the ads, which is what she might say if she were determined or intended to look at them all. Or a boy at high school. He has just started dating. Who does he date?

He dates the girls at his school.

Does this mean he will date all the girls. No.

As a native speaker, the use of the posts in your sentence is what I would use. And I and your Lang-8 proofreader instinctively felt that this was more idiomatic in this context. In one sense that's the entire answer. John Lawler has said in a comment to an ELU post and I paraphrase: English articles are idiomatic and one needs to (almost?) take them on a case to case basis.

On the other hand, you could say posts, but without the definite article it sounds vague; it does this because it is not a definite reference. It is not a question of either/or, but which kind of reference do you wish to make. To the native speaker who corrected you and to me, a definite reference sounds more idiomatic in this context, but it does not rule out saying just posts.)

Here's an example that is similar to yours:

The prices were high at Nieman Marcus. Well except for the fur coats, which were on sale for 50% off.

I just used the fur coats. This is a definite reference. And I can use the because I think you can identify which ones I am talking about. Namely, the ones at Nieman Marcus. But I don't have to use the.

I could have just said Well, except for fur coats, which were on sale for 50% off. This is an indefinite reference (with the zero article). It still means the fur costs at Nieman Marcus: this is clear from context. But otherwise it is not marked as definite.

This is comparable to your OQ. I can make a definite reference if I want. Or I can make an indefinite reference if I want. In this example, making a definite reference seems to be more natural and idiomatic here, and in your context about the posts.)

Note also you use the progressive past tense (was reading), which describes an action in progress. You were reading the posts there when one of them caught your attention, or you were interrupted.


I was tasting the wines at the the local vineyard when my wife called me on my cell phone.


I was tasting the wines at the local winery when I found one I decided to buy. Notice I don't intend to taste all of them, but when I find something I like, I will buy it.

(I would avoid the indefinite mass noun wines here because, like posts it just sounds too indefinite. Wishy washy.)

As for the NYPL, a native listener would assume you mean the books carried by the library. And unless you say otherwise (my books) this is a natural assumption. Just like I am going to the office. Unless I stipulate otherwise, you can assume I mean my office or whichever one I usually go to. The key is that I expect you to be able to identify which office I am talking about.

Again, the books does not mean all the books.

On using the definite article or not, see my answer on ELU to Are there any simple rules for choosing the definite vs. indefinite (vs. none) article?


Posted 2016-01-13T07:10:52.667

Reputation: 3 057

1Wine is not a good example because it is a mass noun. I was tasting wine at Niemann Marcus is equally grammatical and idiomatic. – None – 2016-01-13T16:32:44.530

1@Ranthony Wine is a noun that can be used as a mass noun, as in (the) wine at NM; and a noun that can be used as a count noun when it refers to different types of wines that the vineyard makes or the winery sells: it can sell red wines, white wines, old wines, new wines, bubbly wines, etc. Similar for The coffees in this coffee shop are out of this world: I mean the individual, different types of coffee that can be bought there. *I like a red wine after dinner*. *There is a coffee at Joe's that you just have to taste!* – GoDucks – 2016-01-13T16:42:46.887

The issue has been extensively discussed on EL&U. What I am saying is using a count noun without any exception (as in the OP's example, posts) would be a better choice. Also, I don't agree with putting the before wines when you are just tasting it. Maybe it is my primarily-opinion-based, but a mass noun is a mass noun which is broadly used without an article.. Your context at the local winery could be different from the context on History SE. You taste as many varieties of wine, but you don't read as many on History SE. Using the before posts is not better than using some or a few. . – None – 2016-01-13T16:51:59.420

@CopperKettle See my fur coats example; it seems analogous to your posts example. – GoDucks – 2016-01-13T17:59:52.330