General Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Reply Dangling modifier or faulty pronoun reference or okay?

Yes, of course. It's an "adverb". It clearly doesn't modify "tract". My mistake.

My question was really whether "the cheetah's" can be an antecedent because it's functioning as an adjective. Antecedents of pronouns (if we agree that's what the possessive adjective "its" is) are meant to be nouns (in all their guises) but not adjectives.

The pie tin was empty because Bob ate it.
(The antecedent can't be pie because it's an adjective.)

I was thinking along those lines.







Re: Reply Dangling modifier or faulty pronoun reference or okay?

To deliver oxygen fast to its hard-working muscles, the cheetah's respiratory tract is enlarged.

"The cheetah's" is not an adjective, it's a genitive (possessive) noun phrase functioning as determiner in the larger noun phrase "the cheetah's respiratory tract". Thus we have one noun phrase functioning in the structure of another.



The pie tin was empty because Bob ate it.

This is not a good example because it implies that Bob ate the pie tin, which is of course nonsense. Nevertheless, we understand the antecedent to be "the pie".

And "pie" is not an adjective - it is a noun functioning as modifier of "tin".

Not all items that modify nouns are adjectives!!




PaulM

Re: Reply Dangling modifier or faulty pronoun reference or okay?

So, now we get to the nuance.

"It's not an adjective. It's a genitive (possessive) noun phrase functioning as determiner." That's just another way of saying adjective. That's the point here. I didn't claim it was an adjective only that it was functioning as an adjective, which I still believe it is. The original point is that an antecedent has to be functioning as a noun not an adjective, and "the cheetah's" is "a genitive (possessive) noun phrase functioning as determiner" (in other words, an adjective).

I think it is a good example because it implies Bob ate the tin. Again, that's the point. We don't like our antecedents to be things acting like adjectives. I suspect I'm using the term adjective far more loosely than you, but so is much of the rest of the world.

If you look up faulty pronoun reference, you'll see dozens of sources claiming that a possessive noun can't be an antecedent of a pronoun because it's functioning as an adjective.

I think there are two grammars in this world. :hushed:

Re: Reply Dangling modifier or faulty pronoun reference or okay?

As a professionally-qualified grammarian, I took the time to give you a solid and accurate answer to your question.

I'm sorry that you prefer to follow Mickey Mouse schoolboy grammar.



PaulM

Re: Reply Dangling modifier or faulty pronoun reference or okay?

Firstly, your answer is inconsistent. You suggest cheetah's can be an antecedent but pie can't, after your explanation that neither is an adjective.

Secondly, when everyone else in the world is using Mickey Mouse grammar, professional grammarians ought to align themselves to it more because the grammar rules are there to capture what the masses do in language. When the masses change their habits, the rules need to change. Moreover, if you submit something that only you know is right, it might as well be wrong. It's about writing safely as well as correctly, so you have to play to the audience.




Re: Reply Dangling modifier or faulty pronoun reference or okay?

Oh, and "professionally-qualified grammarian" isn't hyphenated. Great example of irony though.

Re: Reply Dangling modifier or faulty pronoun reference or okay?

Firstly, your answer is inconsistent. You suggest cheetah's can be an antecedent but pie can't, after your explanation that neither is an adjective.


I did not say that. I said that the noun phrase "the cheetah's" can be an antecedent, not just "cheetah's".

I said that antecedents are noun phrases. "The pie" is a noun phrase, but "pie" is not, it's a nominal. Noun phrases include the article "a/the".

There is nothing at all wrong with your first example. "Its" relates to "the cheetah's".

I suggest you take the time to read my answer thoroughly.

Secondly, when everyone else in the world is using Mickey Mouse grammar, professional grammarians ought to align themselves to it more because the grammar rules are there to capture what the masses do in language. When the masses change their habits, the rules need to change. Moreover, if you submit something that only you know is right, it might as well be wrong. It's about writing safely as well as correctly, so you have to play to the audience.


No, the only people who are using Mickey Mouse grammar are clueless ignorant people like you who know nothing about grammar, yet pretend they do.

And who said anything about rules? There are certain rules, of course, but the syntactic analysis we're talking about here is based on how words, phrases and clauses are behaving and the relationship between various elements.



PaulM

Re: Reply Dangling modifier or faulty pronoun reference or okay?

Oh, and "professionally-qualified grammarian" isn't hyphenated. Great example of irony though.


Wrong again! If it were two words, the word "qualified" would be a modifier. But that's not the case here. If the word "qualified" is dropped, it becomes ungrammatical since you can't say a *"professionally grammarian".


You'll find examples without the hyphen, of course, but as compound modifier of "grammarian" it is best treated as a compound word, not a syntactic construction.


PaulM

Re: Reply Dangling modifier or faulty pronoun reference or okay?

I think we live on different planets. We certainly read different grammar reference books. Looking back through the posts, I have noticed that you go aggressive early. You might want to curb that.

"Professionally-qualified grammarian"? You might want to check that.


Re: Reply Dangling modifier or faulty pronoun reference or okay?

I think we live on different planets. We certainly read different grammar reference books. Looking back through the posts, I have noticed that you go aggressive early. You might want to curb that.


I don't just "read" grammar books, I'm involved in them in a number of ways - not that it's any of your concern.


PaulM

Re: Reply Dangling modifier or faulty pronoun reference or okay?

By your logic, "very qualified grammarian" would be hyphenated.

When a compound modifier includes an adverb, a hyphen is only used to eliminate ambiguity (i.e., when the adverb could feasibly be an adjective). Examples are best known player, well fatted calf, and fast evolving process.

(I'd take the hyphen out of "professionally-qualified grammarian" if I were you.)

You said: If the word "professionally" is dropped, it becomes ungrammatical since you can't say a *"professionally grammarian".

I don't understand that. If the word "professionally" is dropped, it becomes "qualified grammarian", doesn't it?


Re: Reply Dangling modifier or faulty pronoun reference or okay?

You initially asked a question about antecedents (the answer to which you failed to grasp) and now you are arguing about compound words vs syntactic constructions.

You're clearly here simply to cause an argument, and not in the least bit interested in learning about grammar. Why you asked a question here is beyond me.

Further, who were you hoping would answer your question? Some non-native speaker - perhaps a learner from China?

Wouldn't you prefer a grammarian who understands these things and can give you a decent answer? It seems not.


PaulM

Re: Reply Dangling modifier or faulty pronoun reference or okay?

When a compound modifier includes an adverb, a hyphen is only used to eliminate ambiguity (i.e., when the adverb could feasibly be an adjective). Examples are best known player, well fatted calf, and fast evolving process.

That's irrelevant. It matters not whether the compound is a well-established one or a one-off 'nonce formation'. In a tree diagram, the compound would still be shown as a single constituent, a single word, functioning as a modifier. That's how the grammar works.

You said: If the word "professionally" is dropped, it becomes ungrammatical since you can't say a *"professionally grammarian".

"If the word qualified" is dropped.

And unlike "professionally", "very" is a degree adverb, so different considerations obviously apply.