3

I would like to show two sentence patterns:

A) The purpose of the capacitor is not to provide energy. Its capacitance therefore does not have to be large.

B) This bucket is produced in a factory overseas. Its capacity is small.

I think the use of "its" in A) is O.K. as "its" can refer back to capacitor only. At first glance, it could do so to "purpose" and "energy". However, as neither of them can be associated with "capacitance", it is clear that "its capacitance" is the capacitance of the "capacitor".

Furthermore, I think in B), "its" is used in an ambiguous manner. Here, "capacity" can refer back to both "bucket" and the "factory overseas".

Is my understanding correct?

Decapitated Soul
  • 16,598
Uncle76
  • 31
  • 2
    The problem with B is that it introduces irrelevant information. The reader then tries to make sense of it: Do overseas factories only produce small capacitors? Why are we talking about where it was produced if the point is to discuss its capacity? That's why one then leaps to: "maybe the capacity is about the factory. The next sentence should clear it up" And if the next sentence is "So we can only get 500 a month" then we know we're right. But if the next sentence is "So there's not much risk of shock" then we are back to wondering what overseas factories have to do with it. – Jim Nov 22 '19 at 08:05
  • 3
    I think you're struggling to come up with decent example sentences. But your analysis is sound: the antecedent is a near nominal that makes sense. And careless use can cause problematic ambiguity. << The dog chased after the train. --- (a) It was limping slightly. (b) It was travelling rather slowly because of an unfavourable signal. (c) It was swiftly approaching the tunnel. [needs disambiguating] (d) It was quite a sight. [no proper antecedent; retrievable referent 'the spectacle'] (e) It was just beginning to rain. [no antecedent; non-[antecedent]-referential or weather-it]. – Edwin Ashworth Nov 22 '19 at 12:39
  • Possible duplicate of How are pronouns resolved? – Edwin Ashworth Nov 22 '19 at 12:48
  • 'Is my understanding correct?' Yes. The format of this site, however, does not fit very well the questions to which the answer is simply 'yes'. – jsw29 Nov 22 '19 at 16:05
  • 1
    I don't think anyone would read B as describing the factory's capacity. Grammatically it could mean that, but in practice it wouldn't be taken that way. – nnnnnn Nov 22 '19 at 21:41
  • 6
    @nnnnnn, that depends on the context. In the midst of a conversation on home maintenance, it would indeed be taken to be about the capacity of the bucket; in the midst of a discussion about outsourcing some business operations to overseas factories, it could easily be taken to be about the capacity of the factory. – jsw29 Nov 22 '19 at 22:04
  • 1
    Your concern about sentence B is to some extent justified. The problem can easily be overcome by replacing "its" with "The former's" or "The latter's". Or better still merge the two sentences "The bucket, which is produced in a factory overseas, has only a small capacity" or "The bucket is produced in an overseas factory, which has small capacity". – WS2 Jan 16 '20 at 09:18
  • Nonsense. There is no ambiguity in the sample sentence B for any normal person. This is because of the general sense and the emphasis in the preceding sentence. Other sentences of the same structure may be ambiguous. Take each on its merits. – David Jan 16 '20 at 21:08
  • 1
    I’m voting to close this question because this question is artificial as it deliberately lacks context. – Greybeard Mar 06 '22 at 15:12

4 Answers4

1

I also believe it's ambiguous. Definitely. The fact is, at least in my mind, that factory could have a small capacity and the bucket could have a small capacity. It's completely unclear to me which one does.

Jamie Watts
  • 111
1

A) The purpose of the capacitor is not to provide energy. Its capacitance therefore does not have to be large.

B) This bucket is produced in a factory overseas. Its capacity is small.

The examples above do no more than demonstrate that the importance of context in English cannot be overstated.

Neither of the example would, in real life, be said on their own: both would have context. We know this as "capacitor" is preceded and modified by "the", and "bucket" by "this". Both determiners indicate prior context.

Community
  • 1
Greybeard
  • 41,737
-1

This capacitor is produced in a factory overseas. Its capacity is very small.

Ans: Yes, it is also ambiguous, wordy, and obscure. The term "Its" can also refer to "a factory overseas" because the word "capacity" can refer to production. However, somebody who is not familiar with electronics may understand that "Its" refers to "This capacitor."

However, the word "oversea" is adjective. It should be "an overseas factory." Right ?

Actually, many sources in electronics use the words Low Capacitance and High Capacitance. They have never used the words “small capacity”, “big capacity”, or “large capacity”.

I prefer the use of “relative clause” as follows.

This capacitor which is produced by an overseas factory has very low capacitance.

With participle phrase, the sentence can be like this.

This capacitor produced by an overseas factory has very low capacitance.

PS. You should study the collocations from the reliable sources like international journals in electronics.

For examples:

If a capacitor has very high capacitance, then a small difference in plate voltage will lead to a huge difference in the number of electrons (total charge Q) on the two plates [1].

Capacitors are also made from thin sheets of mica, with silvered surfaces; these have low capacitance [2].

References

[1] Khan Academy. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class-12th-physics-india/in-in-electrostatic-potential-and-capacitance/in-in-circuits-with-capacitors/a/capacitors-article

[2] Elsevier Website https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/capacitance

Community
  • 1
Jarurote Tippayachai
  • 27
  • Is the sentence pattern A) correct when one replaces the "capacity" with "capacitance"? (The focus is on the pronoun "its".) The purpose of the capacitor is not to provide energy. Its capacity therefore does have to be large. – Uncle76 Nov 22 '19 at 08:39
  • Sentence A is also incorrect. – Jarurote Tippayachai Nov 22 '19 at 08:41
  • Correction => The purpose of this research is to provide the capacitor with high energy and high capacitance. – Jarurote Tippayachai Nov 22 '19 at 08:53
  • You haven’t addressed the issue of ambiguity. – Lawrence Nov 22 '19 at 09:12
  • The parentheticals in your suggested corrections should be accompanied by appropriate punctuation. – Lawrence Nov 22 '19 at 09:13
  • 1
    +1 because * the ambiguity would not arise if the reader could be sure that the writer had not misused the word "capacity" or "capacitance"; * this answer points this out * this answer also gives ways to avoid the ambiguity. – Rosie F Nov 22 '19 at 09:17
  • Yes, it is also ambiguous, wordy, and obscure. "Its capacity therefore 'does have to be' large." I have never seen the collocation of "does have to be ..." => It is not only wordy but also obscure. Correction: => Its capacitance is very high. – Jarurote Tippayachai Nov 22 '19 at 09:53
  • For the use of punctuation, I take the examples from the references given. – Jarurote Tippayachai Nov 22 '19 at 12:51
  • To pick a nit: I think this answer is wrong to replace a factory overseas by an overseas factory. The former is far more familiar to my native BrE ear, the latter rather clunky. And I think that while oversea is an adjective, overseas may be either an adjective or an adverb. – High Performance Mark Nov 22 '19 at 17:10
  • @HighPerformanceMark Overseas can be either adjective or adverb. Some articles still use “overseas factories.” See in https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/8820-how-to-find-factory.html – Jarurote Tippayachai Nov 22 '19 at 17:31
  • Oxford Dictionary => https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/overseas_1 – Jarurote Tippayachai Nov 22 '19 at 17:35
  • In terms of alternatives, "The low capacity bucket was produced in a factory overseas" or "The bucket was produced in a low capacity factory overseas" would remove the ambiguity and be more concise. – JeffUK Jul 09 '21 at 12:07
-5

It's not ambiguous, but clearly refers to the factory.

Because: This bucket is produced ... sounds like a generic noun and does not go well with the third person singular. This is often not considered, and therefore the sentence would appear ambiguous and should be reworded.

Because: It is of course perfectly OK to say the dog is the most beloved pet. It is ..., but it is unusual to say ?The dog is carnivorous, if Dogs are would be preferable. The generic definite is really only used to agree in number with the argument, I suppose.

Overall, it makes too little a difference to say This bucket was produced ..., and thus it is overall ambiguous, anyway.

PS: I now read the linked question, which also talks about pronouns. If one expects any reference to the factory require a relative pronoun, one can tell from intonation whether it is relative or rather personal. But this only really works in speech, and probably not without occasional bloopers.

vectory
  • 800
  • 1
    This is ambiguous, too. – vectory Jan 15 '20 at 06:16
  • 1
    It does not "clearly refer to the factory". As a native speaker of British English, I initially thought it was obvious it referred to the bucket, before re-reading and finding the ambiguity. – AndyT Jan 16 '20 at 15:13
  • I don't deny that, my premises, which says the phrase were not ambiguous, is only supposed to be a hypothesis. I tried to show constraints under which it holds, but it's also eminently clear that the constraints are not particularly strong, and frequently wrong, yes. There's a difference between admissable underspecification (when it means the most beloved pet and thus the dog) versus idiomatic ambiguity, vagueness or uncertainty. – vectory Jan 16 '20 at 23:08