Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2021 September 24

= September 24 =

Can "the father" not take "his father" as antecedent?
I had this sentence in Travis Kelce (edited for brevity):

A user later changed it to:

I objected to this change on the grounds that a father has already been introduced by the time we reach "although", so repeating "his father" is ambiguous and could refer to Travis's grandfather, but they maintain that there is so few instances where you can say "the father" and have it logically make sense, this is not [one] of those instances &#91;1&#93;. Is that true? And assuming it is in this user's idiolect, is it not appropriate encyclopedic language to refer to someone's father (and not, say, a Catholic priest or "Hippocrates is the father of medicine") as "the father"? Nardog (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd never heard of this unusually surnamed person. My three-second ultra-skimread turned up "He is the younger brother of Philadelphia Eagles center Jason Kelce." Thus he has at least one sibling. This and any other sibling are, I presume, in both Travis's family and Travis's father's family. Indeed, Travis himself is in his father's family, implying that Travis's pronunciation differs from his relative Travis's [i.e. his own] pronunciation. Are readers likely to care which Kelce, Travis aside, have which pronunciation? If so, perhaps this needs more radical rephrasing; and if not (as I'd imagine), then perhaps simply "he pronounces his surname, although others in his family pronounce it ." -- Hoary (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Better phrasing is of course possible, but, the reference desk being no place to hold content disputes/suggestions, what I'm curious about the most is whether the first sentence makes sense (syntactically and semantically). (We actually kind of do care about which Kelce has which pronunciation. See the section in question and this correspondence for details.) Nardog (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (FWIW, by "the father's family" I meant excluding Jason and Travis (said father's sons). The original quote is "I say because that's what my father says, but everyone on my father's side says ", which AFAIC clearly refers to the family the father was born into, not like his spouse or children.) Nardog (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To me, your version makes perfect sense, until I concentrate, whereupon it occurs to me that he's in his father's family (etc etc; see above), although there may be some sort of implicature that he isn't. If that is a problem, then it's just as much a problem in the version by "a user". So much for the semantics. As for the syntax, I see nothing wrong with either. I have to say that the version by "a user" sounds fully idiomatic to me, whereas yours sounds slightly unidiomatic; I can't say why. When an NP is definite, a definite determiner/specifier is used. "The" is one such determiner/specifier, but "my" is another; cf the indefinite construction "a [noun] of mine". (Incidentally (i), English words spelt "*lse" are pronounced /ls/ but they're rare: else, false, pulse, impulse, repulse, convulse, and that's about it. (ii) If the pronunciation was plain /kɛls/ a couple of generations ago and is now more commonly (even within the family) /ˈkɛlsi/, I'd unencyclopedically and irresponsibly speculate -- here, not in the article -- that the change may have been influenced by the fairly dramatic rise in popularity of the name "Kelsey".) -- Hoary (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What about the ambiguity? Does it occur to you that the two "his father"s could be referring to different people (i.e. the latter is the grandfather)? Nardog (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ambiguity is always present in language. There's often more ambiguity in written language, as when people are conversing, there are a lot of context clues as to meaning which are lost in written language.  Stress and tone of voice, which place different kinds emphasis on different words, are often lost in writing.  Also, the context of the greater conversation, including what the people have been talking about around the sentences in question, who is around, their relationship with each other, etc.  is all part of giving meaning to words that can be lost in writing.  When you say "Can "the father" not take "his father" as antecedent?" the answer "it could, but it depends on a lot of things whether or not it is".  -- Jayron 32 16:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking if there's any ambiguity. I'm asking if the first sentence, comparatively, has less ambiguity than the second. As for the section title, the other editor's position was that "there is so few instances where you can say 'the father' and have it logically make sense, this is not [one] of those instances", hence the question. Do you agree with them? Nardog (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * See, I parse the "the" in that sentence as attached to "family", with "father's" as a modifier. -- Jayron 32 18:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's surprising to me. What does (or could) it mean then? Can you think of any situation in which "the father's family" parsed that way makes sense? Nardog (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Family", "Which Family?" "The Father's Family" parses the same to me as "The Ball", "Which ball?", "The Red Ball".  -- Jayron 32 18:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you go "Which father?" right after that? Nardog (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see what function "the rest of" performs in that sentence, and whereas I understand the logical/grammatical issue you're raising about the/his, this version *sounds* better to me:
 * although I'm not sure I can explain why it sounds okay. Logically, "the rest of his father's family" = "father's family minus father", but since we already know how father pronounces it (due to following) no information is lost by dropping the rest of. Mathglot (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point re "the rest of". The repetition of "his father" gives me a pause and makes me wonder if it's referring to the paternal grandfather for a second, but perhaps this is one of those things L1 speakers simply "know". Attributives and possessives indeed seem to interact with definiteness in a weird way (like how you can say "Raise your hand"). Fascinating. Nardog (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I've changed the phrasing to make it clearer. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "his father" is ambiguous Oh, so you agree with me? But your version doesn't really resolve the issue as it still repeats "his". Do you have any problem with "although [the rest of] the father's family pronounces it /kɛls/"? "following" is also unclear How so? To me "because his father does" not only is verbose but sounds much more like it's a conscious choice than "because that's what my father says". What about "after" in place of "following"? (I know these things ultimately don't matter and I don't really care about the article. I just want to understand where people are coming from and be a better writer/editor.) Nardog (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The second sentence reads slightly better than the first. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the second sentence is ambiguous (it could mean, "... the rest of the latter's father's family ...") but only in theory. A reader will normally interpret it the same as the first. If the second occurrence of "his" is emphasized, however, the grandfather interpretation comes to the fore. --Lambiam 22:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Who bold-faced the his? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Me, of course, not to emphasize the word but to highlight the difference. If someone did that in article prose it would immediately be undone. Nardog (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Without that bolding, the meaning seems clear enough. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is actually a problem of tone. I recognize the construction from news reports, invariably where something tragic has happened, as in "... accused her father of stealing her life savings to fund one drunken night of gambling. The father was not available for comment". The tone suggests that we know nothing about the father, and we're not sure whether we like the father or even want to grant him full status as a person: it's objectifying. I'd use "Kelce's father'. Card Zero  (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is actually a problem of tone. I recognize the construction from news reports, invariably where something tragic has happened, as in "... accused her father of stealing her life savings to fund one drunken night of gambling. The father was not available for comment". The tone suggests that we know nothing about the father, and we're not sure whether we like the father or even want to grant him full status as a person: it's objectifying. I'd use "Kelce's father'. Card Zero  (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with the OP. The crucial consideration should be, how to avoid ambiguity, so "his father" should be avoided. Syntactically, I see no problem with "the father", but there are other - less controversial - solutions, e.g. "this/that father", or simply: "Travis's father" (I'm sure that's what Card_zero above me meant, writing "Kelce's father" by mistake). 185.120.124.33 (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If I saw,
 * [my emphasis], I might start scanning the preceding paragraphs for a missed mention of some other father. --Lambiam 07:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So "Travis's father" is the best solution. 185.120.124.33 (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So "Travis's father" is the best solution. 185.120.124.33 (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)