Use of partitive article

[Curt Jugg]

In my French grammar I came across these two pairs of sentences:

La pâte à pain est agréable à toucher
Il est agréable de toucher de la pâte à pain

Le foie de veau est bon à manger
Il est bon de manger du foie de veau

Could someone please explain why the partitive article is considered necessary in the second of each pair but not in the first. Thanks.

[Curt Jugg]

You may be right. Looking at various examples again, it seems that, where substances are concerned, if the noun in question is in subject position it is likely to be accompanied by the definite article, whereas if it is in the predicate it's likely to be accompanied by the partitive article.

[Neil Coffey]

Actual linguists aren't in the business of trying to dictate what is "right" and "wrong": that is really the realm of grammarians, style guide writers (and, dare I say, those who attempt to use pointless pedantry to cover up their ignorance and insecurities...!). The following quote from Steven Pinker is far more representative of an actual linguist's view:

"A dirty secret from linguistics is [...] that many of the prescriptive rules of language make no sense whatsoever." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-B_ONJIEcE (5'20)

If the authors had actually mentioned which specific linguist they had in mind, that would have helped. But presumably if it was an actual linguist, they were probably making a statistical observation. I imagine they weren't saying that the indefinite (or "partitive" as referred to here) never occurs, or should never occur, as a subject, but simply that statistically, it's less common than as an object or compared to definite subjects.

[Curt Jugg]

Interesting point, Neil. As a person attempting to teach himself French, I find the partitive article/definite article distinction a difficult one to master. Hopefully it'll come in time!