The principal tried to calm the worried students’ parents, as a result

But the real point is "who had disappeared"? It was not the parents who had disappeared. So by logic ‘who’ refers to the students. I feel there is no ambiguity in the pronoun reference.

Secondly a relative pronoun such ‘who’ when used without a comma before it assumes restrictive nature and therefore would mostly refer to an eligible noun just in front, unless there is no such noun at all or the noun in front is absurd.

Hello daagh,

Can't we imagine that some people disappeared long time back and the principal of their children tried to calm those people? Though not that logical, this meaning is perfectly conveyed thanks to the past participle tense. In SC, since we don't have a context, any possible meaning shift may cause ambiguity, I think. Pls correct me, if I am wrong.

'Who' should refer to an eligible noun or a noun phrase, such as parents of the students
E.g. Usually people do not like to talk to Mr. David of the East block who is utterly rude by nature. - Is this sentence wrong?

I am naive in English grammar. Pls correct me if am missing something.

Thanks.

binit
Hi

You have mentioned about some people. Also, you have said that the principal of their children tried to calm those people.
Who are some people and who are those people?

Please be sure who according to you had disappeared? the students or the parents? If you mean to say that the parents had disappeared and the principal tried to calm the lost parent’s children, then you are mistaken. Please read the second sentence and it clearly states that the principal tried to calm the worried parents.




I have never said anything about the use of past perfect tense. The children did disappear before the principal tried to calm. It is the correct tense to use and there is no issue about it.

The core issue, however, is about the reference for the relative pronoun ‘who’. If that is ignored, then you may be off the mark.

Hi,
I meant the parents were disappeared and the principal tried to calm the parents only. This meaning may also be conveyed by the second sentence -
The principal tried to calm the worried parents of the students who had disappeared in the storm.

I think the original poster also referred to the same ambiguity.

Thanks.

Do you mean that the principal tried to calm the parents who had disappeared? How can somebody be calmed when he or she has already disappeared? If you still want to think so, you may.

Hi,
The parents disappeared in the remoter past. The principal tried to calm in a later time.