--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> > wrote: > <snip> > > > > > Nectar is NOT "sweet > > > > > poison." In fact, it is worse than normal poison. > > > > > > > > Huh?? MMY said ayurveda turns normal poison > > > > into worse than normal poison? > > > > > > Nevermind, I got it. "It" in the last sentence > > > refers to "sweet poison," not nectar, right? > > > > Yeah. An interesting problem with the English language. > > Does "it" in the second senttence refer to the most recent > > subject, or to the most recent noun? > > I don't know whether there's an actual rule, > but the problem here is that you have three > nouns all referring to similar substances, > and you're attempting to elucidate the > relationships between them. There aren't > any clues as to the antecedent of the > pronoun, as there would be if you were to > say, for example, "The bee stung the dog. > It howled and ran away." > > I think that's what caused my confusion. >
In some languages, at least, there's no confusion. I think Japanese has a fixed rule about implicit pronouns (there's no "it" that I'm aware of, just "this one," that one," "that one way over there," etc).
