+0
Hi,

Just came across a web opinion about misuses of "as such." I understand that it must have an antecedent, but the following, which I've altered considerably, seems out of line:

One must first register to vote, which this girl has not done. As such, she is ineligible.

This is called incorrect for want of an antecedent. Although a correction has not been given, I expect the following would be acceptable:

This is a girl who has failed to register. As such, she is ineligible.

Would you say that "girl" is a proper antecedent in my second example, but not in my first?

(It just seems to me more of a symantic issue than a grammatical one.)

Thanks for any insight you may wish to contribute.

- A.Emotion: smile
+0
Hi,

Just came across a web opinion about misuses of "as such." I understand that it must have an antecedent, but the following, which I've altered considerably, seems out of line:

One must first register to vote, which this girl has not done. As such, she is ineligible.

This is called incorrect for want of an antecedent. Although a correction has not been given, I expect the following would be acceptable:

This is a girl who has failed to register. As such, she is ineligible.

Would you say that "girl" is a proper antecedent in my second example, but not in my first?

Yes, although I'd favour 'better' rather than 'proper'. In #1, the reader is asked to figure out that the reference is to 'someone who did not first register'. Sometimes this kind of figuring out is easy, sometimes not.

(It just seems to me more of a symantic issue than a grammatical one.) Yes.

Clive
Comments  
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Avangi:

I don't know that there are any rigid rules about definiteness of antecedents. I find both examples to be clear. The only logical antecedent for "she" (female) is "this girl". However, in the second sentence, I would write "This is the girl."
Thanks Clive and Alphecca. I thought I had an inkling as to what was being objected to, but I may have been wrong. I'll throw caution to the wind, and post the original:
A plaintiff must prove damages in order to recover, but Smith has not done so here. As such, she has no claim.

I think this is about the same with respect to the legitimacy of the antecedent. Emotion: nodding