This staduim was built by the workers of XXXX company.
Context: The company in questoion fininced the works and its workers (welders, constractors, etc) took park in the construction. Actually it’s these workers who built the staduim. Not every worker of the company participated in the construction but many.
Must I use “the” in the sentence above? My feeling is that it should be without “the” but I’m not sure.
In my opinion, it is better with the article.
Take a look at this:
It’s from here:
democraticunderground.com/di … 39x1432037
I know the rule:
Peter wanted his father to buy him a bicycle.
His father bought Peter the bicylce he had wanted him to buy.
The second sentence is about a definite bicycle.
Back to the car workers sentence. I thought that the “who don’t contribute” bit defines a group of workers. There are some who contribute and there are those who don’t.
In my example there is no such “definition”. The only thing known is that the workes of the company participated in the construction. Still you say it would be better with “the”. Do you think the car workers sentence will aslo be better with “the”?
They are workers of that particular company, whether they are the entire workforce or not. In addition, there would be many people in support positions in the company who may not have had a hands-on role in building the construction, but who will have enabled those who worked in it to do their job.
With and without the article are both perfectly acceptable. I stated my preference.
Personally, I would add the article to your new example too.
It might also be worth pointing out that the originator of that headline is hardly a shining light in terms of grammar usage.
Thank you for the explanation, Bee!