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. 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?"
Can you cite a source for that?
http://wwwnew.towson.edu/ows/proref.htm 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. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com