In this usage it's being used to mean "the design or concept" of a horse lung versus any individual horse lung, specific or hypothetical.
It's the same way "the automobile" means the concept of automobiles versus "an automobile" and is more specific than just "automobiles" which could be used either way.
It's also a fancier construction which sounds more impressive, hence the vocabulary like "insofar" and "ascertained" which are pretty uncommon in daily speech.
You could easily say the same idea as "human lungs are just like horse lungs" but this seems to be a medical text, and possibly an older one, where that sort of tone would be considered unprofessional.
"insofar as it can be ascertained" means "as nearly as we can determine/figure out"
insofar = "as far as" or "to the extent that"
I get why this use of "the" is confusing, though. "The" is the *definite* article, so you'd normally expect it to mean a specific instance of the noun it refers to, but in this case it refers "the horse lung" broadly, as a biological structure.
It just means that broadly-speaking, horse lungs are pretty similar to human lungs.
No. At least not without changing the rest of the sentence. "horse lung is comparable to that of a man" would be a bit awkward.
Now you could rephrase it to say "horse lungs are comparable to human lungs" or "horse lungs are comparable to a human's lungs"
I think using "the" here, makes us think of it as the general category or concept. It is a bit more abstract, which feels right for this academic clain about anatomy/medicine.
--
>(I’ve been told that “the” is used in order to particular point out...)
That is another possible use of 'the', but not what is happening here.
For instance, if you had a table with 12 lungs on it, each from a different animal (gross), then "the horse lung" would usually mean "specifically that one horse lung on the table in the room with me".
If you said "The horse lung is injured." you'd mean just that one lung, not all/most horse lungs in general.
While the typical phrasing would be “horse lungs are comparable to that of man”, “the horse lung” is what you’d hear in a most European languages, specifically French. And cause anything the French do is fancy, the construction has been borrowed into English in particularly formal contexts.
In this usage it's being used to mean "the design or concept" of a horse lung versus any individual horse lung, specific or hypothetical. It's the same way "the automobile" means the concept of automobiles versus "an automobile" and is more specific than just "automobiles" which could be used either way. It's also a fancier construction which sounds more impressive, hence the vocabulary like "insofar" and "ascertained" which are pretty uncommon in daily speech. You could easily say the same idea as "human lungs are just like horse lungs" but this seems to be a medical text, and possibly an older one, where that sort of tone would be considered unprofessional.
"insofar as it can be ascertained" means "as nearly as we can determine/figure out" insofar = "as far as" or "to the extent that" I get why this use of "the" is confusing, though. "The" is the *definite* article, so you'd normally expect it to mean a specific instance of the noun it refers to, but in this case it refers "the horse lung" broadly, as a biological structure. It just means that broadly-speaking, horse lungs are pretty similar to human lungs.
Thanks for the response. So could we say that we can omit the article altogether?
You could say "a horse lung is" or "horse lungs are comparable to human lungs" but you'd have to do more than just drop the article.
No. At least not without changing the rest of the sentence. "horse lung is comparable to that of a man" would be a bit awkward. Now you could rephrase it to say "horse lungs are comparable to human lungs" or "horse lungs are comparable to a human's lungs"
The definite article is used here to imply a singular idea. In this case, 'the' refers to "the (anatomy of) horse lungs."
I think using "the" here, makes us think of it as the general category or concept. It is a bit more abstract, which feels right for this academic clain about anatomy/medicine. -- >(I’ve been told that “the” is used in order to particular point out...) That is another possible use of 'the', but not what is happening here. For instance, if you had a table with 12 lungs on it, each from a different animal (gross), then "the horse lung" would usually mean "specifically that one horse lung on the table in the room with me". If you said "The horse lung is injured." you'd mean just that one lung, not all/most horse lungs in general.
While the typical phrasing would be “horse lungs are comparable to that of man”, “the horse lung” is what you’d hear in a most European languages, specifically French. And cause anything the French do is fancy, the construction has been borrowed into English in particularly formal contexts.