Consider these sentences:

Sudama’s wife pleads with Sudama to meet Krishna.

One day, Sudama’s wife told Sudama, “I have heard a lot about your friend Krishna.

In both the sentences, can the second occurrence of "Sudama" be safely replaced by "him"?

  • Hmm, perhaps we would write "Susheela pleads with Sudama to meet Krishna" today. Replacing the (apparently) subordinate role with her actual name. Aug 3 at 18:28
  • @WeatherVane Thanks. +1 for your knowledge of Hindu mythology Aug 3 at 18:36
  • 3
    On topic, I would replace the repetition of 'Sudama' with 'him' as it is obvious to whom the pronoun refers. Aug 3 at 18:41
  • The "possessive antecedent" is still frowned upon by a few grammarians. If you feel that one may be lurking, leave your sentences as they are or go with @WeatherVane 's Susheela version. Otherwise, use the pronouns and don't worry — it's clear what is meant. Aug 3 at 18:50
  • @TinfoilHat Thanks. Aug 3 at 19:03

1 Answer 1


It depends on the context, since the antecedent of "him" may be ambiguous. If Sudama's wife were having a conversation with Mahmoud, "pleaded with him" would normally be interpreted to refer to Mahmoud, not Sudama.

But without context that could suggest some other antecedent, "him" would normally be assumed to refer to Sudama, so you could make that replacement safely.

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.