implicit/implied (was Re: PSAT Glitch)

[Arnold Zwicky]

let me try to explain my problem in detail, using donna gorrell's
formulation as a take-off point:

  The antecedent of a pronoun must be a noun or another pronoun,
  not an adjective, a possessive case noun, a clause, or a phrase.

a dialogue between a Grammar Apprentice (A) and a Grammar Master (M):

A: master, is "Norway's" a possessive case noun?

M: yes, of course.

A: what noun is it the possessive case of?

M: the noun "Norway".

A: so, does "Norway's" count as an occurrence of the noun "Norway"?

M: of course not.

A: with apologies, master, but why not?

M: because "Norway's" functions as an adjective.

A: with further apologies, master, but *is* it an adjective?

M: as near as makes no difference.  it's just like the adjective
  "Norwegian".

A: i confess to a confusion, master, but either it's a noun, or
  it's an adjective, or it's both, or it's neither.  i was under
  the impression, however, that any particular occurrence of a word
  belonged to one, and only one, part of speech, and that for the word
  "Norway's" the only live options were adjective and noun.  am i
  confused?

M: for the sake of argument, let's say that "Norway's" is both an
  adjective *and* a noun.  the world is full of amazing things,
  apprentice.

A: ah, i see.  but you gave me the rule that pronouns had to have a
  noun or pronoun as an antecedent.  if "Norway's" is a noun, even
  one that is also an adjective, then why can't it serve as the
  antecedent of a pronoun?

M: because it is an adjective, and adjectives *can't* serve as
  antecedents of pronouns.

A: master, how do i know which rule has priority - the one allowing
  nouns to be antecedents, or the one prohibiting adjectives from
  being antecedents?

M: i tell you.

A: but, master, you told us that there were only two guidelines to
  correct language: what we can reason from first principles, and
  what we can observe from the practice of the best writers.  neither
  seems to apply in this case.  you give me only an ex cathedra
  pronouncement.  (and i must say that the best writers do not seem
  to be on your side.)

M: you annoy me, apprentice.  but i will humor you.  a general
  principle, one that should be obvious to you: prohibitions take
  precedence over permissions.

A: ah, i see.  this is indeed a good principle.  perhaps you can clear
  up something else for me.

M: ask away.

A: why, master, is it that adjectives like "Norway's" cannot serve as
  antecedents for pronouns?

M: because the adjective as a whole is the wrong part of speech; it
  could serve as an antecedent for a proadjective, if there any such
  things, but of course not for a pronoun.  a noun, "Norway", is
  certainly *implied* by the adjective "Norway's", but that noun is
  not actually mentioned in the adjective "Norway's".  just as with
  "Norwegian".

A: but, but, master, haven't you said that "Norway's" is *also* a
  noun, one that happens to be in the possessive case?

M: i did indeed.  at least for the sake of argument.

A: and didn't you tell me that the word "Norway's" counted as an
  instance of the word "Norway".

M: certainly.

A: well, then, i might be inexperienced in such reasoning, but doesn't
  that mean that the "Norway" in "Norway's" should be able to serve
  as an antecedent for a pronoun?  there would be no conflict in
  principles in such a situation.

M: of course not.  proper parts of words cannot serve as antecedents
  for anything.

A: ah, i see.  again, a good principle, in general, though i might
  be able to devise some difficult cases.  let me ask you about a
  related case that has been troubling me.

M: tell me about it.

A: i've been worried about the word "him".  do occurrences of this
  word count as occurrences of the pronoun "he"?

M: of course.  "him" is the objective case of the pronoun "he".

A: so "him" is the pronoun "he" (with a slightly different
  pronunciation) plus a suffix "-m"?

M: i suppose you could say so.  where is this leading?

A: can "him" serve as an antecedent for the pronoun "he"?

M: certainly: "Before I met him, he was ignorant."

A: but, master, isn't "he" a proper part of "him"?

M: technically speaking, i suppose.  but what's important is that
  it's just a case form of the pronoun.

A: so being a case form of some word is more important than having
  that word as a proper part?  is this another one of those priority
  things?

M: you really do annoy me.  but yes, i suppose so.

A: but then why doesn't the fact that "Norway's" is a case form of
  "Norway" count as more important than the fact that it has "Norway"
  as a proper part?

M: because they're just different.  pronouns are one thing, nouns
  are another.

A: master, this doesn't make sense.  aren't they entirely analogous
  situations?

M: of course not.  each situation stands on its own.

A: i am deeply troubled here, master.  could you find some explanation
  that is a bit less, well, stipulative?  perhaps there is some
  frequent pattern in languages, something akin to a linguistic
  universal?  you know so many languages; tell me how things work
  in latin, in turkish, and so on.  perhaps it is common that nouns
  in a possessive or genitive case (which are, after all, really
  adjectives, as you have explained to me) cannot serve as antecedents
  for pronouns in other cases.  that would be very telling.

M: i am tired, apprentice.  go away.

arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)