pronoun antecedant - SC strategy guide 4th edition doubt

[esledge]

So ,can we generalize the rule that the pronoun always refers to nearly possible antecedant?

No, you can't! There is no proximity rule for pronouns and antecedents. That is, the nearest noun doesn't automatically win antecedent status!

While it's true that helmets is closer to they than players', I don't think that should be given as a reason that #7 is correct. In my view, the reasons are (1) players' is a possessive noun, which acts more like a modifier than a noun, so it can't be the antecedent of they and (2) it is illogical that players would be repainted or used in Sunday's game.

Question 8)

We finally chose the coffee table towards the back of the store,which we thought would complement our living room furniture.

After correction, the sentence becomes -

We finally chose the coffee table towards the back of the store,because we thought that this table would complement our living room furniture.

The explanation says that we use "this table" instead of "it" to avoid ambiguity.

My question is - if infact "it" were used here ,as per the rule in question 7(pronoun refers to the nearest antecdent i.e the store) there is no ambiguity

"it " refers to the store, which is wrong.

Hence,we should actually use "this table" always!

I actually disagree that it refers better to the store. The coffee table is part of the core of the sentence: We chose the coffee table (subject-verb-object). However, the store is just the object of a preposition, embedded deep in a modifier of a modifier of table: (toward the back) (of the store).

Generally, the subject is the "strongest" noun in a sentence, followed by the object, with other nouns having lower rank. The stronger the noun, the better it is as an antecedent. But this is not really a RULE, just a generalization. Exception: if a pronoun is used within a modifier, look for the antecedent within the same modifying phrase, or look to the modified noun.

Thus, the use of it could be OK, but there's enough reason to doubt the antecedent that we have better clarity with this table.

[rte.sushil]

We finally chose the coffee table towards the back of the store,which we thought would complement our living room furniture.

can the following 2 sentences be correct:-

1.) We finally chose the coffee table towards the back of the store that we thought would complement our living room furniture.
or
We finally chose the coffee table towards the back of the store that ,we thought, would complement our living room furniture.
//i remember <noun1 of noun2 that> In such scenarios , that should refer to noun1. please correct if i am wrong.
//using that as an sub-ordindate conjunction.

2.) We finally chose the coffee table towards the back of the store , the table that we thought would complement our living room furniture.
// as an absolute phrase as in e.g. last night our ac broke, an event that causes severe consternation) .Am i right?

Experts advice please!!

[tim]

Your examples are fine. I do want to point out thought that there is no rule about which noun "that" must modify. It's a lot less strict than "which".