In one documentary devoted to the French Revolution the narrator says (just after Saint Just and Lazare Carnot have been mentioned):
A third member [of the Committee of Public Safety] was the crippled lawyer Couthon*.
Why was not "the" used before "third"?
P. S. In one of my previous posts Article before ordinal numbers I already posed a question regarding the usage of the articles before the ordinal numbers. But I think that the answer which I received does not cover this one. The body of the Committe of Public Safety was composed of the precise amount of members. Or would using the definite article indicate that Couthon was the third most important member or something similar? Or is it so because the narrator did not name all the members of the COPS but just three?
Best Answer
Until another member is added to the group, there is no third member; thus "the third member" would be premature. Only once the group contains three members can one refer to "the third member".
Compare: I'd like to add a third coat of varnish. One could say "I'd like to add the third coat of varnish" if one had been planned from the get-go. But an ad hoc third coat would be called "a" third coat. Once that ad hoc coat of varnish has been applied, it can be referred to as "the third coat".
On that logic, if it had been stipulated somewhere that the group must be comprised of three members, then one could say "he was asked to become the third member."
SCENARIO A
Hello, Mr. Jones. I'd like to ask you some questions.
--OK, go right ahead.
Where were you on the night of the 25th at 10PM?
--I was here at home, thinking about "a" and "the".
Are you ready for a second question?
--Yes.
SCENARIO B
Hello, Mr Jones. I'd like to ask you two questions.
--OK, go right ahead.
Where were you on the night of the 25th at 10PM?
--I was here at home, thinking about "a" and "the".
Are you ready for the second question?
--Yes.