Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
21 Jun 2013, 17:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
John son of Edward,known for his driving skills,was killed in a road accident.
I want know what is the antecedent of HIS here (JOHN or EDWARD).
pls help...
BR//Surya
I want know what is the antecedent of HIS here (JOHN or EDWARD).
pls help...
BR//Surya
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
aceacharya
Joined: 04 Mar 2013
Last visit: 10 Feb 2016
Posts: 48
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 27
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
Schools: Booth '17 (M)
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44
GPA: 3.66
WE:Operations (Manufacturing)
Products:
21 Jun 2013, 18:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
John son of Edward,known for his driving skills,was killed in a road accident.
This is missing a comma between "John" and "son".
the sentence should be like
John, son of Edward,known for his driving skills,was killed in a road accident.
This way the phrase son of Edward becomes the noun modifier and John being the main subject can be a proper antecedent for it
This is missing a comma between "John" and "son".
the sentence should be like
John, son of Edward,known for his driving skills,was killed in a road accident.
This way the phrase son of Edward becomes the noun modifier and John being the main subject can be a proper antecedent for it
22 Jun 2013, 13:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
This sentence is a bit of a mess (what is the source?). If we spoke in old English it would probably make perfect sense as written, but we don't use that construction, "son of Edward", today. Even with the addition of the comma - "John, son of Edward,..." - the structure is antiquated and awkward (maybe if you said "the son of Edward" it would be a bit better). In today's English, you would use the possessive "Edward's son" as the common structure: "Edward's son John..."
As for the antecedent, in the original sentence - "John son of Edward,known for his driving skills,was killed in a road accident." - we would first have to get comfortable with that old english style of "son of Edward" and then we could treat son of Edward as John's title and treat John as the antecedent. The original seems to imply that John (who happened to be Edward's son) was known for his driving skills but yet was still killed in a road accident.
If we insert the comma after John we may have clarified the pronoun issue but we actually change the meaning: "John, son of Edward, known for his driving skills, was killed in a road accident." In this sentence "son of Edward" is clearly modifying John but "known for his driving skills" is a noun modifier and by force a noun modifier will modify the noun it "touches" - in this case that noun is "Edward". The sentence now states that John was killed in a road accident but his father Edward was the person who was known for his driving skills. [I also don't like staking the modifiers "son of Edward" and "known for his driving skills" because it often confuses the meaning.]
If we use today's language and state the sentence this way - "Edward's son John, known for his driving skills, was killed in a road accident." - the sentence is unambiguous. We see that "his" refers to John (the subject), John is Edward's son, John was known for his driving skills, and John was killed in the road accident.
KW
As for the antecedent, in the original sentence - "John son of Edward,known for his driving skills,was killed in a road accident." - we would first have to get comfortable with that old english style of "son of Edward" and then we could treat son of Edward as John's title and treat John as the antecedent. The original seems to imply that John (who happened to be Edward's son) was known for his driving skills but yet was still killed in a road accident.
If we insert the comma after John we may have clarified the pronoun issue but we actually change the meaning: "John, son of Edward, known for his driving skills, was killed in a road accident." In this sentence "son of Edward" is clearly modifying John but "known for his driving skills" is a noun modifier and by force a noun modifier will modify the noun it "touches" - in this case that noun is "Edward". The sentence now states that John was killed in a road accident but his father Edward was the person who was known for his driving skills. [I also don't like staking the modifiers "son of Edward" and "known for his driving skills" because it often confuses the meaning.]
If we use today's language and state the sentence this way - "Edward's son John, known for his driving skills, was killed in a road accident." - the sentence is unambiguous. We see that "his" refers to John (the subject), John is Edward's son, John was known for his driving skills, and John was killed in the road accident.
KW
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
