<p>Do ambiguous pronouns occur everytime there is two or more possible antecedents in a sentence or sentence before the pronoun?</p>
<p>"The soldiers shot the criminals and three were killed." </p>
<p>Is the above sentence ambiguous in pronoun usage? I think three can refer to either soldiers and criminals right?</p>
<p>Well, its implied that the soldiers did the killing... so I dont think it is</p>
<p>anyone else?</p>
<p>The doctor examined Mary and she said that she should be doing more exercise.</p>
<p>This is quite ambiguous.
-this is from RRR (the sentence is not exactly the same)</p>
<p>bump</p>
<p>Yeah the latter example is also ambiguous. I don't know about the example that I posted though.</p>
<p>I do not think it is ambiguous because you said the soldiers "SHOT the CRIMINALS". It wouldn't make sense to say the soldiers shot the criminals and three soldiers were killed (or it be really weird).</p>
<p>i guess i will play devil's advocate for the first example:</p>
<p>"The soldiers shot the criminals and three were killed." </p>
<p>intuitively it makes sense that three criminals were killed because we imagine the sequence of actions in our mind (shot --> killed)</p>
<p>However, I think it is still ambiguous because there still exists the possibility that three soldiers were killed instead of the criminals.</p>
<p>I hope a grammar master comes in and slaughters me on this though. I have to learn as well :D</p>
<p>^ I see your point. BUT, if the sentence meant that, then the sentence doesn't make sense because the two parts would be unrelated. The soldiers shooting, and three soldiers dying doesn't seem to justify an "and" conjunction but I DO see your point.</p>
<p>yeah you're right. the "and" conjuction suggests a connection between the the first and second portion of the sentence.</p>
<p>if the sentence was, "The soldiers shot the criminals. Three were killed." </p>
<p>What would you think?</p>
<p>Then, I would not know which way it meant and it would be ambigious.</p>
<p>Yeah but I think you're right, il bandito. Most of the amiguous ones I've seen have two "names" - whether it be a compound subject or a subject and an indirect object, etc. in the beginning of the sentence.</p>
<p>From "The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers":</p>
<p>"If readers cannot easily identify the appropriate antecedent, you need to correct the ambiguous reference."</p>
<p>Hmm. EASILY - how objective is it?</p>
<p>At the same time this example is given:
"Someone needs to pick up weekend shipment <at the="" airport=""> that may arrive {at the airport} late Saturday Night."
{} version is obviously better, but you can EASILY interprete <> version.
<> just sounds awkward.</at></p>
<p>Feeling less ambiguous now?</p>
<p>Just to avoid confusion.</p>
<p>"If readers ... reference" rule is for pronouns with several possible antecedents.</p>
<p>The example is given for pronouns separated from their antecedents - another case of ambiguouity.</p>
<p>So would you say the sentence in my first post is a case of the ambiguous pronoun?</p>
<p>Two reasons.
1.
If all participants on this thread took a vote, it seems the result would not be unilateral.
2.
You have to stop and think of possible scenarios which your sentence might describe, so you are not [EASILY identifying the appropriate antecedent].
Even if you decided that one scenario has much more sense than another, it did require some mental effort.
Means ambiguity to me.</p>