General Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
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?

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?

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.