Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rlgvax!dsi1!lee
From: lee@dsi1.UUCP (Lee Hagerty)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Grammar and Spelling on the Net
Message-ID: <555@dsi1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Mar-86 11:01:14 EST
Article-I.D.: dsi1.555
Posted: Wed Mar 26 11:01:14 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Apr-86 00:49:22 EST
References: <235@pttesac.UUCP> <33100034@ISM780.UUCP> <658@frog.UUCP> <544@dsi1.UUCP> <6113@kestrel.ARPA>
Reply-To: lee@dsi1.UUCP (Lee Hagerty)
Distribution: net
Organization: Dynamic Systems, Inc., Arlington VA
Lines: 26

In article <6113@kestrel.ARPA> ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) writes:
>In article <544@dsi1.UUCP>, lee@dsi1.UUCP (Lee Hagerty) writes:
>> In article <604@mmm.UUCP> mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes:
>> >	"Each person does as he thinks best."
>> > [...] The ambiguity is not the fault of disagreeing plurality.
>> 
>> This second example is not ambiguous, because the pronoun and its
>> antecedent agree. 
>
>Lee, you're wrong, and MKR is correct. There is an ambiguity, 
>and number agreement doesn't correct it.
>" Fred, the leader, has such omnipotence in the sect, that
>each person does as he thinks best."
>
>Peter Ladkin

Peter, of course, there could be ambiguity in your sentence.  There are
two nouns to which "he" can refer.  In the first example, there is only
one noun to which "he" can refer, and I am correct to think that "he"
refers to "person."  If the author of the first example had meant for
"he" to refer someone other than "person," a reader has no way of 
knowing that.  There is no reason even to suspect ambiguity.  We read
words, not minds.  Okay, okay!--some of you might read minds, but I
don't. (;->}

Lee