Pronouns can sometimes be misleading

Watch carefully and hit accurately




Pronouns are used for clarity, but if inappropriately used, they can cause confusion.

Look at the following example, which is a highlighted section of an article appearing in a newspaper:-

Fathers who spend time playing with their children can increase their intellectual and physical competency.

What is the second 'their' (which is highlighted in bold) referring to - fathers' or children's?

Obviously, the sentence can be rewritten to reflect the intended meaning unambiguously as follows:-

Fathers who spend time playing with their children can increase the latter's intellectual and physical competency.

Further explanations can be found in my earlier post :

Dr Mahathir or Pak Lah?

"Who"/"Whom" and Symmetry‏

Proper arrangements must be made as to who should play which part so that there will be a symmetrical piece to have a good rendition




It has been said that the correct use of "who"/"whom" has confused a lot of writers including very experienced ones. Symmetry is another aspect often overlooked.

I am inclined to believe that the following is one such case.

A truck door that says our drivers are "safe" drivers could make you wonder whether that company does indeed define "safe" differently from everyone else – besides leaving you wondering who they are trying to convince, when safe-driving behaviour alone should do the trick.

The highlighted "who they are" in bold should have been "whom it is".

The sentence in question is taken from an article titled How to shout about it appearing in the column of Mind Our English of The Star on Wednesday May 14, 2008.

Above is the email writtten by me to The Editor, Mind Our English of The Star seeking The Editor's comments, and since more than two months have elapsed, I (having faced such similar situation a few times before) feel that no response will ever be forthcoming.

This post has relevance to my following previous postings:

An error common even among experienced writers,

Asymetrical sentence

Symmetrical sentences and

"Who" or "Whom" (relative pronouns)

SALOON VS SALON (PART TWO)

'Saloon' and 'Salon' having the same meaning?






In my earlier post SALOON VS SALON showing the picture/flyer (again added herein) of PETZ SALOON, I mentioned about shops' names not necessarily reflecting the natures and/or activities of the shops.

I was inspired to create such a post after someone commented in The Star Online: Blog (Citizen's Blog) citing the Oxford (dictionary) that "hair saloon" or "hairdressing saloon" should be correct refuting the claim that it should be "hair salon" in Opinion Page of THE STAR NEWS by another person.

Now, according to the 'Question and Answer' Section about English usage under the headline "Is 'saloon' all right, too?" in THE STAR, 'salon' and 'saloon' can be used interchangeably as a result of comparing definitions and uses in a few dictionaries and Internet sites stated therein.

Be careful with modifiers

Right ingredients and colours will make it nice and tasty!




Adjectives and adverbs (including their respective phrases and clauses) will help make your sentence/s look nice and clear in meaning.

They are called modifiers and they can achieve the desired results if placed correctly. If not, you may have misplaced/dangling modifiers when your sentence/s will become awkward or you may have ambiquity.

Look at the following headline of a news item in a popular national English daily:-

Groups stage protest against costly petrol in Ipoh ("in Ipoh" being an adverb phrase, a modifier).

Costly petrol is not only found in Ipoh (city) but the whole country.

To reflect its intended meaning, the headline should have been “Groups stage protest in Ipoh against costly petrol” or “In Ipoh, groups stage protest against costly petrol.”