3 ms·

Am I misunderstanding "one-word" here? So far as I can see there's nothing wrong with the pronoun use in these, all of which have more-than-one-word antecedents

by gjm11 3y ago

Am I misunderstanding "one-word" here? So far as I can see there's nothing wrong with the pronoun use in these, all of which have more-than-one-word antecedents: "The last-but-one president of the United States met today with his former press secretary." "My favourite blues singer stubbed her toe." "That wretched web browser I hate is updating itself again."

TeMPOraL 3y ago
I don't know the grammar terminology (ESL, and all), but AIUI, in your examples, the one-word antecedent would be, in order, "president" and "singer". What I do understand though is the wider point: ambiguous sentences are a pain for AI and humans alike; if you use a pronoun, make sure there is exactly one candidate it could refer to.
nl 3y ago
"one word antecedents" means that the pronoun can refer to a single word (and only one). So in "The last-but-one president of the United States met today with his former press secretary." we see "his" refers to [the] "president". A counter example would be: "The last-but-one president of the United States and his partner met today with their former press secretary." In this case "their" could refer to to the president, his partner or the collective of the president and his partner.
- gjm11 3y ago
  This seems like an odd use of language to me -- the pronoun refers back to a particular thing, not a particular word, and the thing that's needed for clarity and definiteness is that there should be one thing, not one word. Consider: "The puzzle contained one red herring; it led a few solvers to waste some time." (Antecedent is "red herring"; a red herring is not actually a herring and it doesn't make much sense to say that what the pronoun refers back to is "herring".) "The puzzle contained three red herrings, of which the last but one was particularly liable to confuse; it caught out many solvers." (Antecedent is "the last but one [of the three red herrings]"; if you had to pick out a single word it would have to be either "herrings", which is plural, or "last", which is Just Plain Wrong.) "Mary went through the list of candidates to find the most suitable for the job. She sent him an email containing a job offer." (Antecedent is "the most suitable for the job". No single word will do.) I'm guessing that "one-word antecedent" is US educational jargon. I don't like it.
  - gjm11 3y ago
    A couple of more drastic examples to ram home the point that pronouns refer to things (or maybe ideas of things) rather than to words as such. You and I walk into the office and I point at one of the people sitting at a computer. "He's one of our best engineers. You should give him a pay rise." (The antecedent is merely gestured at, not mentioned in words at all.) I come into the room where you're listening to Bach's "Well-Tempered Clavier", and say "He's so good at fugues." (The antecedent is merely implied by context. No words, no gestures, nothing.)

by gjm11 3y ago

TeMPOraL 3y ago

I don't know the grammar terminology (ESL, and all), but AIUI, in your examples, the one-word antecedent would be, in order, "president" and "singer". What I do understand though is the wider point: ambiguous sentences are a pain for AI and humans alike; if you use a pronoun, make sure there is exactly one candidate it could refer to.

nl 3y ago

"one word antecedents" means that the pronoun can refer to a single word (and only one). So in "The last-but-one president of the United States met today with his former press secretary." we see "his" refers to [the] "president". A counter example would be: "The last-but-one president of the United States and his partner met today with their former press secretary." In this case "their" could refer to to the president, his partner or the collective of the president and his partner.

gjm11 3y ago
This seems like an odd use of language to me -- the pronoun refers back to a particular thing, not a particular word, and the thing that's needed for clarity and definiteness is that there should be one thing, not one word. Consider: "The puzzle contained one red herring; it led a few solvers to waste some time." (Antecedent is "red herring"; a red herring is not actually a herring and it doesn't make much sense to say that what the pronoun refers back to is "herring".) "The puzzle contained three red herrings, of which the last but one was particularly liable to confuse; it caught out many solvers." (Antecedent is "the last but one [of the three red herrings]"; if you had to pick out a single word it would have to be either "herrings", which is plural, or "last", which is Just Plain Wrong.) "Mary went through the list of candidates to find the most suitable for the job. She sent him an email containing a job offer." (Antecedent is "the most suitable for the job". No single word will do.) I'm guessing that "one-word antecedent" is US educational jargon. I don't like it.
- gjm11 3y ago
  A couple of more drastic examples to ram home the point that pronouns refer to things (or maybe ideas of things) rather than to words as such. You and I walk into the office and I point at one of the people sitting at a computer. "He's one of our best engineers. You should give him a pay rise." (The antecedent is merely gestured at, not mentioned in words at all.) I come into the room where you're listening to Bach's "Well-Tempered Clavier", and say "He's so good at fugues." (The antecedent is merely implied by context. No words, no gestures, nothing.)