+0
Hi,

Compensation followed. Before 1990, pay for the chief executives of financial firms were on par with those of chief executives of the largest traded companies, or even slightly lower.

Q1) Is the noun "pay" used only as non-count noun?

Q2) Can you use "of "in place of "for"?

Q3) The writer used the plural form of "that" to refer to "pay" because it's a non-count noun, but semantically has plural meaning. Correct?

Thank you.
+0
jooney-
Q1) Is the noun "pay" used only as non-count noun?

Q2) Can you use "of "in place of "for"?

Q3) The writer used the plural form of "that" to refer to "pay" because it's a non-count noun, but semantically has plural meaning. Correct?
1) Yes.
2) Yes, but that would be strange, though still understandable.
3) There is no really good explanation for this anomaly except faulty editing.

There are two solutions to the problem.

1) Change those to that.
2) Change pay to salaries or other plural count noun.

I suspect that the original writer had written "salaries", and an editor realized that the pay for executives is not usually called "salaries" so he changed it to "pay", not realizing that this necessitated another change later in the sentence.

CJ
Comments  
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Thank you for your answer, CJ.

Judging from your answer, the antecedent of that or those doesn't necessarily have to be part of a possesive construction.

So,

The Apple store in X street is bigger than that of Y street.

Is this correct?

Also, how do you deal with cases of non-count nouns that denote aggregates of entities such as clothes, valuables, groceries, etc? Do you use that or those to refer to that kind of non-count nouns?

I'd appreciate your help one more time.
jooneyJudging from your answer, the antecedent of that or those doesn't necessarily have to be part of a possesive construction.
Do you see what happened there? I made the same mistake as that editor did. I didn't realize there was still another change that had to be made Emotion: big smile

The sentence needs "those for" if "pay for" is changed to "salaries for".

The preposition must be the same for both parts of the construction. Or at least it should be. Often constructions that are only a little wrong in terms of parallelism don't bother the native speaker.

You example should be

The Apple store in X street is bigger than that in Y street. (Change 'in' to 'on' for American usage.)

As you see, you don't have to build this construction with a possessive; however, this construction is usually built with a possessive. Those that are not possessive are much more frequently phrased thus:

The Apple store in X street is bigger than the one in Y street.
jooneyhow do you deal with cases of non-count nouns that denote aggregates of entities such as clothing, valuables, groceries, etc? Do you use that or those to refer to that kind of non-count nouns?
my clothing and that of ...
my clothes and those of ...
my valuables and those of ...
my groceries and those of ...
my eyeglasses and those of ...
my trousers and those of ...
my politics and that of ...

CJ
Thank you so much for the help, CJ. I learned something new today.(well, I always do actuallyEmotion: smile)
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.