occasionally, when it is completely unambiguous, "which" can refer to a whole NOUN PHRASE that immediately precedes the comma. in this case, this noun phrase is "X's letters to Y". (note that this noun phrase, as a unit, does immediately precede the comma.)
also, note the complete lack of grammatical ambiguity: "which" can't refer to dickinson, who is a person, and it's also followed by a plural verb. both of these pieces of evidence point to the noun phrase "X's letters to Y".
--
here's the basic summary: if you have "X of Y, which..." then: * if Y works as the antecedent of "which", then "which" should stand for Y. * if Y doesn't work as the antecedent, but "X of Y" DOES work, then "which" can stand for "X of Y".
--
i feel your pain, though. this problem is definitely a case of "learn surprising lessons from the correct answers, but never question the officially correct answers."
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-1-1 20:33:15
楼主
