Is it ambiguous to use it to refer to the dog in the following sentence?

I was seen driving the car, hitting the dog, and burying it.

  • You're obviously asking if, given the way your sentence is framed, "What is being buried: the car or the dog?" You could make the sentence clearer, I think, by simply adding the word "then" after the word "and." @ChaslyfromUK and his idea of using semicolons is also a good idea. Another option: "I was seen doing two things: driving the car that hit the dog, and then burying it" (and that option is but one of many). Don – rhetorician Sep 17 '15 at 11:01
  • 1
    Note that nobody reading that sentence would think you buried the car. – Robusto Sep 17 '15 at 11:07

I was seen driving the car, hitting the dog and burying it.

I would say that the problem here is that the two commas initially give the impression that they are a pair, thus making 'hitting the dog' parenthetical. Commas aren't strong enough (in my opinion) to indicate a list in this situation.

I suggest using semicolons.

I was seen driving the car; hitting the dog; and burying it.

The semi-colon represents a break within a sentence that is stronger than a comma, but less final than a full stop. It enables the writer to avoid over use of the comma and preserves the finality of the full stop. Semi-colons are used to separate items in a list and to link closely related sentences.

University of Leicester

Update: 17 Sep 2015

I forgot to answer the main question. My answer is no, it is not ambiguous. The word 'it' refers to the nearest noun, i.e. the dog.

  • The OP's sentence has a second comma - just before the word 'and'. This allows hitting the dog to be a parenthetical phrase, in turn allowing it to refer to the car. – Lawrence Dec 16 '15 at 23:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.