Re Personal pronouns

[Larry Trask]

[ moderator re-formatted ]

Pat Ryan writes:

[LT]

>> Whatever the intended meaning of "stands for" might be, a pronoun does not
>> "stand for" a noun.  A pronoun doesn't even belong to the category 'noun'.
>> Instead, it belongs to the category 'noun phrase', and, in many cases, it
>> takes its reference from another noun phrase overtly present in the
>> discourse.

>> Example:

>> Q: "Where's the woman we're supposed to meet?"
>> A: "She's over there."

>> And *not*:

>> * "The she we're supposed to meet is over there."

>> A pronoun does *not* "stand for" a noun in any coherent sense.

> [PR]
> I am frankly rather surprised by your apparent uncertainty regarding the
> intended meaning of "stands for".

> And your example seems (no offense intended) trivial and the result of a
> knee-jerk application of your method.

> Your first sentence, of course, omits the relative pronoun that in a more
> formal register would have been present.

> "Where is the woman that we are supposed to meet?"

> Though such a sentence is not commonly seen, it would be perfectly
> acceptable to let "she" stand for "woman":

> "Where is she that we are supposed to meet?'

Sorry; not relevant.

The required form is *'the she', and not merely 'she'.

> It is obvious that "she" can stand for either "(the) woman" or the fuller
> NP: "(the) woman (that) we are supposed to meet".

Nope.  That 'she' cannot take the place of 'woman', and that is the end
of it.

[on 'possessive']

> An interesting question for another time. Frankly, I believe that the
> definition of "possessive" can be rather simply stated.

Well, I'd certainly like to see your effort!  ;-)

Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK

larryt at cogs.susx.ac.uk