From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> writes:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Tobias Schwinger <tschwinger@neoscientists.org> writes:
Rob Stewart wrote: >>> > When classifying types it is often necessary to match against > several variations of one aspect. Special, *abstract* > variations make this possible.
Nice! Thanks!
Except that "this" needs an antecedent.
It has one: "to match."
No, I mean, you can't just say "this;" you have to say "this <noun>." It's the <noun> that's missing.
Since when? I've never heard of that "rule."
Your "sarcasm" is unwarranted.
Actually, there was no sarcasm. I didn't want to call your statement a rule. I chose to put "rule" in quotes to identify your statement as something presented as a rule that quite likely was never established by a competent authority. In retrospect, I can see how that could come off wrong, so I apologize for the confusion.
I learned this rule from Andrew Koenig, who said it was one of the surprising things he learned from his editors after writing his first book.
The problem here is that the antecedent is unclear. What is "this?" "classifying types?" "matching against several variations?"
The antecedent could be "classifying types," but "to match" came later and is more specific. Thus, "to match" has a stronger association, which doesn't leave much room for the alternative to my ear. The pronoun could be replaced to remove all ambiguity, but that doesn't mean the sentence is _unclear_ as written.
Can you cite a source for that?
I've never before heard the "one, clear, unmistakable noun" discussion and was never taught that identification with antecedents was that strict. Certainly you should remove troublesome ambiguity, but must one always remove all possibility? The first example given, After putting the disk in the cabinet, Mabel sold it. doesn't strike me as necessarily confusing if read in context. Yes, it can be made clearer, but context normally fills in the gaps. I wouldn't change it unless it remains confusing when read as part of the paragraph to which it belongs.
has an example that exactly reflects your text, but you can google up numerous examples online that discuss the need for pronoun/antecedent agreement and clarity.
I find my text even less confusing than the disk/cabinet example. Unfortunately, English doesn't rigidly follow rules as much as grammarians would like. There are too many conflicting rules and regional practices to make it so. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;