XPost: alt.usage.english, alt.language.latin

Which are correct:

1) The economy boomed, which continued into the early 20th century.
2) The economy boomed, continuing into the early 20th century.
3) The economy was booming by the time the 20th century arrived.

2 and 3 are OK. 1 is not (what is the antecedent of "which"?)

[xxxxxxxx], which continued into the early 20th century. <--- give an example for where there's no clear antecedent for [which], and explain
how it works. ---------- omg... myAI gave me bad ans. (as bad as ACB)

_____________________

The economy boomed, which continued into the 20th century. <---
there's no clear antecedent for [which], but it works! Explain how it
works.


In the sentence "The economy boomed, which continued into the 20th
century," the word "which" does not have a clear, singular antecedent.
Instead, it refers to the entire preceding clause "The economy boomed."

How It Works:

1. Referential Context: The phrase "which continued into the 20th
century" implies that the booming of the economy had lasting effects or persisted over time. While "which" usually points to a specific noun, in
this case, it effectively encapsulates the whole idea of the economy's
state.

2. Implicit Meaning: The context allows readers to infer that the phrase
is discussing the ongoing effects of the booming economy. Readers
understand that the booming economy is what had an impact that extended
into the 20th century.

3. Flow of Information: The structure of the sentence creates a natural
flow, where the first part introduces a significant event ("The economy boomed"), and the second part expands on its implications or duration.
This connection helps the reader grasp the relationship without needing
a specific noun to anchor "which."


In summary, while "which" lacks a clear, single antecedent, the context
and the overall meaning of the sentence help it function effectively,
allowing readers to understand that it refers to the phenomenon of the
booming economy as a whole.

_________________________________Is this acceptable in a formal writing?

In formal writing, clarity and precision are crucial. While the use of
"which" in the sentence "The economy boomed, which continued into the
20th century" can work contextually, it may be considered less
acceptable due to the lack of a clear antecedent.

<-------- Bad answer!!!!




___________Bad answer! Even in a formal setting one may write. [That
won't do.], where [That] refers to the whole situation.


You make a valid point! In formal writing, it is indeed possible to use pronouns like "that" or "which" to refer to broader concepts or entire situations, as long as the context is clear.

Clarification:

1. Contextual Understanding: In your example, "That won't do," the
pronoun "that" effectively summarizes an entire situation or argument.
Readers can infer its meaning based on the surrounding content.

2. General Acceptability: Similarly, using "which" to refer to a
preceding clause can be acceptable in formal writing, provided the
context allows for a clear understanding. It reflects a cohesive
narrative flow.

3. Considerations for Formality: While it can be acceptable, writers
should still be cautious. Overusing such structures can lead to
ambiguity, especially in complex arguments or dense texts.


Conclusion:

Your example illustrates that broad references can work in
formal writing, as long as they are clear and the context supports them.
It's about balancing clarity with stylistic choices. Thank you for
pointing that out!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)