There is absolutely nothing wrong with the original sentence.
There would also be absolutely nothing wrong with this alternative, which is probably what the examiners wanted:
John was one of the astronomers who devoted all his time to science.
As FumbleFingers pointed out, this is partly because some (archaically) believe that 'he' is the only suitable ...
It is grammatical.
John was one of several astronomers who devoted all their time to Science.
"their" refers to "several astronomers" and John was just one of them.
"Mary Ann is one of the girls who are going to run the marathon."
The it in both example sentences is, as noted, a "dummy it" -- that is, this it is not referential,
and thus doesn't have any meaning, because meaning in pronouns is a matter of reference only.
This dummy it (there are several others) is an artifact of a syntactic rule called Extraposition, which works to make sure that "heavy" subject noun phrases (clauses ...
Both instances of "that" refer back to the specific features alluded to at the beginning of the sentence when it says "a number of features".
Microsoft built a number of features into Windows 9x that allow previous users of DOS and Windows 3.x to capitalize on their investment and that allow technicians access to DOS-based troubleshooting.
If there were no ...
The intent of the speaker is perfectly clear: it is the subject that is expected to undress. At the same time, the sentence can be construed to be ambiguous, which the debased subject can use to their advantage to gain the upper hand right back. "I would like to paint a picture of you naked!" — "Well, start undressing, then". This kind of retort is a ...
The "it" has no antecedent. It's being used in the same way as in "it turned out that.." or "it so happened that...", or even "it rained yesterday". The "it" in those sentences has no antecedent. The actual wording of the passage "it fared with him" is a very old-fashioned way of saying "it was his fate". He was destined to end up like a ship sailing too ...
The question you ask, “Can the antecedent ever be used in a prepositional phrase?” is of course, certainly it can. Proof:
After the meteorite fell on Jack, he was never again the same.
Jack likes running with Jill. She is a good person.
Jack likes running with Jill. He is a good person.
As you see, I have constructed three such examples. The answer to ...
a. Before Sarahi can board the bus, shei needs to get some coins for the fare.
b. Before shei can board the bus, Sarahi needs to get some coins for the fare.
Refer to anything in the speaker's and listener's environment that they are both aware of (they can be exophoric).
Refer to something previously mentioned within the sentence or ...
Hmm... Did you consider that "them"'s referrent might be unexpressed? Them refers not to cookie, but to "cookies", the plural form of the noun expressed in the sentence and whose existence is implied.
Not all pronouns belong to nouns that are expressed elsewhere in the sentence. "Are they going to help?" "They" is all by itself. Or try: "The man called and ...
Relative clauses with which can have a wide variety of phrases as antecedent, despite the fact that which is often described as a relative pronoun:
Preposition phrase - They alleged the party was on Friday, which it wasn't.
Adverb phrase - They said the party would be soon, which it wasn't.
Adjective phrase - They said the balloon would be blue, which it ...
When Donatus listed the Latin Parts of Speech in his Ars Minor, he didn't mention "Quantifier".
partes orationis quot sunt? octo.
quae? nomen pronomen uerbum aduerbium participium coniunctio praepositio interiectio.
How many parts of speech are there? Eight.
What are they? Noun Pronoun Verb Adverb Participle Conjunction Preposition ...
It's "the people" who are demanding greater political control, and that's probably why the governors were quarreling with them.
There's no ambiguity here. The word "who" can't attach to the "governors" at the beginning of the sentence, because the verb in this sentence is "quarreled". The appositive clause in the predicate has to apply to the noun in the ...
Your example sounds just fine to my ear, but if I replace the subject and verb in the sentence, I can create a less acceptable sentence, such as:
I like this teacher so much that I befriended dozens of them.
Or, even more absurd sounding:
I like Mike so much that I befriended dozens of them.
The absurdity owes to the pronoun-antecedent disagreement, and, ...
You can't put a flower in an a***hole and say it's in a vase
You can't put a flower in an a***hole and call the a***hole a vase
would both also be valid paraphrasings of the same sentence, but the original works too. Although grammatically the "it" could refer to either the flower or the a***hole in
You can't put a flower in an a***hole and call ...
The key is the word macroscopic. In fluid dynamics the macroscopic velocity is a vector giving the magnitude and direction of the fluid. Individual particles within compressible fluids may have velocities that differ from the macroscopic velocity.
That is too ambiguous. It is impossible to figure out if it is the house that is facing east or the backdoor, unless more details regarding of the direction are given.
A man coming out of the backdoor of his house which is facing east witnessed the beautiful sunrise.
Given that this question appeared in an exam and it is about direction, the ...
I think the pronoun "he" and "she" is unable to identify both their antecedents in both sentences?
Correct. As for the solution, I feel you should at least do that on your own, it is your homework after all.
When it is apparent that it refers to the egg (or at least I’d assume that most people also interpret it this way), is it fair to use it instead of some other word?
Or would we have to remove the so-called “ambiguity” by not using a pronoun there?
Could the sentence be improved?
Not really, it's fine.
It's worth noting that while the ...
I think there's very little ambiguity. The sense follows naturally. If the amulet is in the bag, it has to be the bag that's hooked.
Writing the sentence the first way implies a quickness and ease of action, which I think is what you want. It's written as one continuous action (is it meant to be surreptitious?). You're right, the second way is clunkier. ...
First, forget the supposed rule that pronouns refer to the most recent noun mentioned. It's not really how they work. As a reader, you should try to figure out the antecedent by looking at what would make the most sense. As a writer, you should only worry if there is a possibility of confusion, which there isn't in this case. If there is a possibility of ...
Your test is unfair, because there is no single answer that everyone would agree upon.
Everybody, along with everyone, traditionally uses a singular pronoun of reference: everybody must sign his own name. Because
the use of his in this context is now perceived as sexist by some, a
second option became popular: everybody must sign his or her own
This is an area where English is transitioning. Until thirty or forty years ago, almost every writer wrote he in this sense, without thinking any further about it.
Now, there is no generally accepted answer. If you write he, some will complain that females are being ignored or excluded. If you write he/she the result is ugly or unwieldy.
I prefer they, ...
This passage is indicating when "individuals are entitled to notice and hearing" of "facts that will produce adverse consequences to them". Two cases are contrasted: adverse adjudicative facts, and adverse legislative facts.
The passage is saying individuals can expect be notified of the former (adjudicative) but not the latter (legislative) . The final ...
In general, a plural pronoun should go with a plural referent. However, there are a number of exceptions to this rule, and I believe this is one of them.
In particular, you can use a number of them, dozens of them, hundreds of them, many of them, and so on with a singular referent. Consider the following sentences, all taken from the internet (found by ...
The 'rule' is that you go left until you find the first antecedent that works. In your example that would be stars.
This is not particularly intuitive. The type of pronoun limits its antecedents. A personal pronoun, for example, must refer to a person, so in a sentence like "Mary went to the shop she had noticed the day before", 'she' cannot refer to the ...
There are many uses for the word myself, and to treat it as only a reflexive pronoun is too prescriptive — so prescriptive, in fact, that it would be wrong. The use you give is indeed accepted as correct English, but for a rather tricky reason.
Nonetheless, use of one-word myself to stand in for two-word my self is established and generally accepted: "...
While extant is (roughly) the opposite of extinct (the state of [still] existing vs. the state of not existing), I would contend that there isn't an analogous opposite to extinction:
1a. The act of extinguishing: The extinction of the fire took several hours.
1b. The condition of being extinguished: mourned the extinction of her dreams.
Let's address this in a very simple manner. Remove into Windows 9x from the sentence. Let us withhold the subject (Windows 9x in this case) for a moment. Does the sentence still make sense? Does the sentence satisfy subject-verb agreement? If it does, like in this case, then that refers to 'number of features'.
Let me emphasize on the usage of allow and ...