jaituteja
Hi pqhai,
I agree with your explanation for the "new copy" thing.
I think
Marry's car, unlike that of John's, is white is not correct.
It should be unlike that of John... since we are using "that" we don't need to use the possessive form of John.
the sentence should be
Marry's car, unlike that of John, is whiteOR
Marry's car, unlike John's, is whiteWe are comparing the car of Marry to that of John,not mary's car to John.Regarding your below statement,
However, in your example, the clause "that of...." is a main clause and is not be modified by anything.
I could not get your point.. Can you please elaborate.
Thanks,
Jai
KUDOS if it HELPED..!!!

Hi Jai
Yes, we're comparing Marry's car with John's car. We do not compare Marry's car with John. You can see the
possessive form - John
's. If you repeat the same thing, we can omit the noun.==> John's means John's car.
Pronoun topic is huge. If you use pronoun, you will use a representative rather than repeat an antecedent. You just use "this, that, these, those" to
indicate the antecedent. Logically, the readers need to understand the nature of the antecedent first. Therefore, pronouns
must be modified.
For example:
Incorrect:
Unlike John's car, that of Marry is white.Because you're comparing X to Y. X is antecedent and Y is the pronoun. Logically, Y is
just a new copy of X, so X must show its characteristics first.
In your sentence, "that" is the pronoun ==> it indicates something appears before it in the sentence ==> The "thing" appears before the pronoun must be understood by readers first. However, without a description about the pronoun, readers do not understand the nature of the antecedent. You cannot understand the phrase "Unlike John's car" if it stands alone.
Correct:
Marry's car, unlike that of John, is white ==> The antecedent is Marry's car. Even without the pronoun, readers still understand the nature of Marry's car completely (Marry's car is white). Then the usage of pronoun (a
new copy) will be correct.
Hope it helps.