One of my betas flagged the following construction (context is that the MCs are seeking a woman named Sonya Halliday and expect to find her here):
"...saw a pair of stumpy legs sprawled over the ceramic tile, attached to a woman slumped against the refrigerator who was not Sonya Halliday."
My beta said that it reads as:
"...saw a pair of stumpy legs sprawled over the ceramic tile, attached to a woman slumped against [the refrigerator who was not Sonya Halliday]"
i.e., that the "who" clause is attached to "refrigerator." She suggested moving "who was not Sonya Halliday" to after "woman," as such:
"...saw a pair of stumpy legs sprawled over the ceramic tile, attached to a woman who was not Sonya Halliday slumped against the refrigerator."
But to me, that reads as
"...saw a pair of stumpy legs sprawled over the ceramic tile, attached to a woman who was not [Sonya Halliday slumped against the refrigerator]"
as if they expected to find Halliday slumped like that, rather than
"...saw a pair of stumpy legs sprawled over the ceramic tile, attached to [a woman who was not Sonya Halliday] slumped against the refrigerator"
as it should read.
I have trouble reading my original sentence incorrectly, because to me the "who" pronoun implies the antecedent is the closest person rather than the closest noun. But I do confess that if I replace it with a person:
"...saw a pair of stumpy legs sprawled over the ceramic tile, attached to a woman slumped against a man who was not Sonya Halliday."
it does indeed introduce ambiguity.
I have a feeling I should just leave the original and let my editor flag it if necessary, but I find myself obsessing about it instead of editing, so . . . fellow grammar nerds, thoughts?
"...saw a pair of stumpy legs sprawled over the ceramic tile, attached to a woman slumped against the refrigerator who was not Sonya Halliday."
My beta said that it reads as:
"...saw a pair of stumpy legs sprawled over the ceramic tile, attached to a woman slumped against [the refrigerator who was not Sonya Halliday]"
i.e., that the "who" clause is attached to "refrigerator." She suggested moving "who was not Sonya Halliday" to after "woman," as such:
"...saw a pair of stumpy legs sprawled over the ceramic tile, attached to a woman who was not Sonya Halliday slumped against the refrigerator."
But to me, that reads as
"...saw a pair of stumpy legs sprawled over the ceramic tile, attached to a woman who was not [Sonya Halliday slumped against the refrigerator]"
as if they expected to find Halliday slumped like that, rather than
"...saw a pair of stumpy legs sprawled over the ceramic tile, attached to [a woman who was not Sonya Halliday] slumped against the refrigerator"
as it should read.
I have trouble reading my original sentence incorrectly, because to me the "who" pronoun implies the antecedent is the closest person rather than the closest noun. But I do confess that if I replace it with a person:
"...saw a pair of stumpy legs sprawled over the ceramic tile, attached to a woman slumped against a man who was not Sonya Halliday."
it does indeed introduce ambiguity.
I have a feeling I should just leave the original and let my editor flag it if necessary, but I find myself obsessing about it instead of editing, so . . . fellow grammar nerds, thoughts?