possible ambiguity of 'he' when two nouns are in use

Question

I want to express that Brahma explained to Indra the mistake Indra had committed.
Is it proper to say it like this?

Brahma explained to Indra the mistake he had committed.

Is there any grammatical rule that says which of the two people (Brahma and Indra) does 'he' refer to?

No rule. Just try to be as clear as you can. When someone is worried about clarity you often see constructions like "Brahma explained to Indra the mistake he, Indra, had made." — Robusto, May 21 '15 at 16:58
My usual interpretation is that the pronoun refers to the closest previous noun; however, there's enough "looseness" in the rule that something like your example sentence is ambiguous. — Matt Gutting, May 21 '15 at 16:58
@MattGutting Yeah I agree, pronoun is always applicable to the closer noun. So in that way I have no difficulty in deciphering the meaning of the sentence as the speaker has intended. — Andy Semyonov, May 21 '15 at 17:01
@AndySemyonov Usually - but see the second example sentence in Hellion's answer. — Matt Gutting, May 21 '15 at 17:03
This could easily mean "Brahma explained to Indra the mistake he, Brahma, had committed." The sentence is quite ambiguous without a larger context. — A.Ellett, May 21 '15 at 17:03
Some languages (like Ojibwe) have a "fourth person" (called obviative in the trade) for precisely this situation. The pronoun referring to the more important (or first introduced) 3rd-person NP is inflected in the proximate case, while the pronoun for the less important (or second introduced) 3rd-person NP takes the obviative case. But in English, we just have to cope, because we have no more cases left at all. — John Lawler, May 21 '15 at 17:18
@MattGutting It does sound apparently true in both the cases taken for explanation, that either of the nouns in question, could have made the mistake. But I think it makes more sense, at least grammatically, to apply the pronoun to the closer noun. I would understand it that way. And in most cases we have the comfort of having full-context to not misunderstand the intent of the writer. :) — Andy Semyonov, May 21 '15 at 17:32
@Andy: I don't think "closest noun" is a particularly relevant factor. To me, semantic/contextual credibility is far more important. So OP's example is completely ambiguous without further context, and I don't see any reason to even speculate on whether *he* refers to Brahma or Indra. There are no such issues with John told Jane that he* was mistaken* or John told Jane that she* was mistaken. Or John told Jane that he was sorry, come to that (where John told Jane that she was sorry* just doesn't make sense, regardless of any such syntactic principles). — FumbleFingers, May 21 '15 at 17:51
@FumbleFingers As I said context is principally important in cases where the concerned nouns are either both masculine or feminine. However, I wouldn't blame someone if they construed the gist of the sentence, going by 'closer noun' rule, in the absence of context. — Andy Semyonov, May 21 '15 at 18:05
@Andy: Although Jane had assumed John's boss would give him time off to be present when she* gave birth, it turned out the company just couldn't afford it. John told Jane that she was sorry, but she still felt cheated. In all three highlighted cases, the referent is not* the immediately preceding noun, and I at least would "blame" anyone for attempting to slavishly apply a fairly irrelevant "principle" whilst ignoring straightforward issues of "credibility". Including the fact that John's boss must be a woman (I'd certainly disparage anyone disposed to ignore that possibility! :) — FumbleFingers, May 21 '15 at 19:55
@FumbleFingers You just have an embarrassingly meticulous proclivity! :) I still believe the 1st sentence leaves enough room for unambiguous comprehension. We know from the outset Jane and John are partners and that the boss, either a male or female is a different person altogether. We also know that Jane is with child and it's her expectation that John would be allowed leave from work, when 'she' does give birth to their child. I hardly see any obscurity in construing the meaning, probably because the context is aptly sufficient here. — Andy Semyonov, May 21 '15 at 20:43
We could still simplify it if we're to adhere to rules. 'Although Jane had assumed her husband John's boss would give him time off to be present when their child was imminent'... The 2nd eg. however sounds ambiguous to me, How could Jane or anyone in their right minds while feeling sorry be feeling cheated at the same time? So I would request context on this one to give any opinion on its ambiguity or if it's just intended as deliberate obscurantism. :) — Andy Semyonov, May 21 '15 at 20:43
@FumbleFingers Of course, why should the boss give John time off when it's the boss who's pregnant! :-) I guess Jane just expected that since John was having an affair with his boss that she'd allow him to be there at the birth. Just goes to show that sister's (Jane) aren't always correct. — A.Ellett, May 21 '15 at 21:13
@A.Ellett If the Boss is pregnant and she's having an affair with John, I don't think John would have any difficulty getting leave from work. ;-) — Andy Semyonov, May 21 '15 at 21:30
And as for the 2nd eg. I have now understood the meaning of it. I didn't realize it was in continuation of the 1st. :) I can see why Jane would be disappointed and feeling cheated now. — Andy Semyonov, May 21 '15 at 21:48
This was one hilarious piece of text. And @FumbleFingers still maintains that misplacing the pronouns is perfectly fine. :) — Andy Semyonov, May 21 '15 at 21:51
@AndySemyonov: The point was show that given the right semantic/contextual setting - such as my second ("birth") example - we can easily be 100% certain of the referent for each pronoun. Without using any Apply pronoun to immediately-preceding noun principle, which doesn't work there. That example may look tricky to a NNS, but if it was read out loud I doubt most native speakers would even notice anything particularly unusual about it. They'd just automatically / unconsciously make the right connections (probably the only conscious thought would be Ah, right! John's boss must be a woman!). — FumbleFingers, May 22 '15 at 11:41
@FumbleFingers But the point wasn't in construing the intended idea of the writer, it's if the the text sounds ambiguous? In your examples it certainly does. Whether a native or non-native audience can comprehend the message is a completely different issue. Therefore to guard against such possibility, the writer can opt for the rule in question. With that knowledge in mind and of writer's adherence to the rule, the reader be sure of not misunderstanding the text. However, when perusing through amateur writings, one would be better of relying on their wits and common sense. :) — Andy Semyonov, May 22 '15 at 12:27
@AndySemyonov: You don't seem to be responding meaningfully to my comments. My "birth" example is not ambiguous in the least, but OP's actual example is completely ambiguous in and of itself. We can only know what it's supposed to mean because OP tells us in the first sentence of the question. But nothing about the example itself provides any clues as to how to interpret the pronoun. Your point about pronoun should apply to immediately preceding noun is simply mistaken - there is no such principle. — FumbleFingers, May 22 '15 at 12:40
@AndySemyonov: I'd heard of it, but I didn't know what the rule of 'pronoun-antecedent' meant until now. As that example shows, it's not even necessary that the referent of a pronoun should have appeared anywhere earlier in the text. And I for one don't recognize any value whatsoever in that so-called rule. But it appears you will not be convinced by any number of perfectly natural counter-examples, so I guess we may as well leave it at that. — FumbleFingers, May 22 '15 at 13:12
Absolutely, I won't change my style of writing by oscillating between following and then not following the rule I learned very early in my education. :) — Andy Semyonov, May 22 '15 at 13:17

score 3 · Accepted Answer · edited Jun 15 '20 at 07:40

By itself, that statement is ambiguous; there is no way to tell whether it is Brahma or Indra that has made the mistake.

You can add some context around it to make clear whose mistake it was:

Brahma saw that Indra had made a mistake. Brahma explained to Indra the mistake he had committed. (Clearly here Indra made the mistake.)

Brahma examined the work he had done so far and saw that he had made a mistake. Indra came in. Brahma explained to Indra the mistake he had committed. (Clearly here Brahma made the mistake.)

possible ambiguity of 'he' when two nouns are in use

1 Answers1