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