Grammatical precision

how about this...

Pure's examples:
"Imelda's pussy, which had the definite scent of gardenias, got her into no end of trouble." "John's curved scimitar cock, long admired by the opposite sex, brought him great notariety."

The exercise:
"Toni Morrison's genius enables her to create novels that arise from and express the injustices African Americans have endured."

My first attempt at rewording:
The injustices African Americans have endured have allowed Toni Morrison's genius to create novels.

How about this as an answer:
Toni Morrison has the genius that enables her to create novels arising from and expressing the injustices African Americans have endured.

or,

Toni Morrison's genius, that enables her to create novels, expresses the injustices African Americans have endured.
 
Pure, you know you're getting kind of tedious.I

say it's fine, and I say the hell with it.

Let's get on with the angels dancing on the head of the pin.


---dr.M.
 
Hi, the Earl,

Sorry, I confused yours with the other 'which'/that suggestion.

//Shouldn't it be "Toni Morrison's genius enables her to create novels that arise from, and express, the injustices that African Americans have endured" //

You inserted 'that'. Afaik, the 'that' is optional, as in "He's the man I once knew." So your suggestion is not wrong, but does not 'fix' the sentence, either.

Best,
J.
 
Wild Sweet,

//How about this as an answer:
Toni Morrison has the genius that enables her to create novels arising from and expressing the injustices African Americans have endured. //

This solves the problem, which had to do with an improper antecedent of 'her.'. An antecedent may not be a possessive.

:rose: :rose: :rose:
 
Pure said:
Wild Sweet,

//How about this as an answer:
Toni Morrison has the genius that enables her to create novels arising from and expressing the injustices African Americans have endured. //

This solves the problem, which had to do with an improper antecedent of 'her.'. An antecedent may not be a possessive.
I did read that Post article, but I don't like the resolution. I understand the rule, but to me, it doesn't seem as if the antecedent is the possessive. The problem, if anything, is that the antecedent is implied rather than stated. Most people understand that "her" refers to Toni Morrison rather than Toni Morrison's genius. The problem is the missing context, which makes the pronoun ambiguous. But -- ambiguous pronouns, it seems to me, are really only a problem when they truly cause confusion.

But if you're going to give out roses, I'll take one. :)
 
thank you for the roses :)

oh, gee it's so obvious now i look at it.

thanks Pure, lesson much appreciated. :rose:
 
Hi Dr. M

//Pure, you know you're getting kind of tedious.//

Hey, one man's tedium is another's porn. :)


(Having studied Dr. M's peculiar genius at writing and aversion to recondite disputes about dancing angels, I can see the reason why a particular type of problem has plagued him.)**
;-)

:devil:

**anyone find this an odd sentence?
 
Last edited:
Hi, Open Thighs,

you said,

//Most people understand that "her" refers to Toni Morrison rather than Toni Morrison's genius. The problem is the missing context, which makes the pronoun ambiguous. //

Seems like a good point. I too thought of a case where Toni was mentioned in a previous sentence. That would mitigate the problem, perhaps.


//But -- ambiguous pronouns, it seems to me, are really only a problem when they truly cause confusion. //

The author of the article made the following good point. The clarity of a sentence is not proof of its grammaticality, as in
"Jenny took off she dress." (Acceptable Black, but not standard English.)

Roses to all who have survived the tedium. Especially you, Sarah.

:rose: :rose:
 
Rubbish

I actually disagree with the statement that there is an improper antecedent. If the pronoun referred to the genius, it would be "it" not "her" because in English we have the assumption that almost all non-sexual nouns are neuter. (Some exceptions are ships and trains and cars and 'planes, and some sexual nouns can be treated as neuter, but that isn't relevant here.)

Since there is no possible ambiguity there is no error. The pronoun agrees in gender and number with only one possible subject.
 
well, now that that's solved...

I must say I enjoyed the challenge!

What struck me about the original post is that these were the PSAT's, not the SAT's. For those of you outside the U.S., the SAT, otherwise known as the Scholastic Aptitude Test, is a nationwide, standardized multiple-choice test taken by high school students who plan to attend college. The scores are a factor used by Admissions Officers in deciding which students will be accepted in which of our illustrious institutions of higher learning.

The PSAT is the Pre-Scholastic Aptitude Test, which is a grammatical nightmare in itself since, taken literally, the name implies it should be given to students before entering Kindergarten. In actuality, it is given to jr. high/middle school kids, and often to high school students in the lower grades.

The thought that 500,000 of these students actually had to have a grade adjusted upward after this question was thrown out is just mind-boggling. How many of these kids do you really think knew what the grammatical error was, and how many just got lucky?

Joolz
 
Wild said, of dr. m,

//i want to know who his 'peculiar genius' is.//

Well I don't know the name, but he's got something/someone working for him. That's a nice little story of his, "A Lady of Thorns." Well conceived, and generally well-executed imho, notwithstanding being his own editor, I think.

http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=92080


J.

PS

Grammatical anomaly for the day: same problem as before, but in anaphora.

1)Her fame soaring, Toni Morrison's literary genuis had evidently triumphed.

or, more in the literotica vein,

2)His cock pulsing, Tom's moment of glory had come.
 
Back
Top