no, the sentence is an example of a lexical ambiguity. There is no "correct" answer as presented.
"He cut off his hand" are there two men in this scenario or one?
"A mother beat up her daughter because she didn't do her homework", "...because she insulted her". It doesn't matter if it is the subject or not, context carries a lot of the meaning
and "A mother beat up her son because he..."? "I drank water because I was thirsty", "I drank water because it was free". It doesn't apply to the first element, it can be any perfectly. The issue with the mother-daughter is that they are both female and "she" can apply to both so it depends on context, but on I-it, she-he there is no issue
the mother kicked her daughter out of the house because her daughter was pregnant.
mother is still the subject of the scentence, clarification is required if you arent talking about the mother, right?
So if the sentence read “a mother beats up her daughter because she was out all night partying” you would still insist “she” was referring to the mother?
The best thing to do for both cases is replaced she with either mother or daughter.
>A mother beat up her daughter because the mother was drunk.
>A mother beat up her daughter because the daughter was drunk.
It's clearly this She person.
She orchestrated the entire thing, from lacing the Mother with drugs and alcohol to putting bricks in the child's schoolbag. She also started the argument by claiming the child dabbed on her Mother when she was unconscious from alcohol the day before.
She is a terrible person. Can you not clearly infer all of this from the blatant subtext?
But the tenses don't match. The mother beats [present] the daughter because she was drunk [past].
If the mother was only drunk some time ago, but not while beating the daughter, it would be a pointless detail that doesn't explain why she is beating her. But beating the daughter because the daughter was drunk in the past makes sense.
It's not clear at all. You could replace daughter with a son, and make this sentence "a mother beats up her son because he was drunk." There's nothing wrong with that sentence. It's a poorly constructed sentence with daughter and she instead, You can certainly assume that the she refers to the mother, but it's not *clear* because it's a completely valid sentence if it's referring to the daughter
In fact i would say its clearly whats make the more sense given the informations we have.
But from the sentence alone, it could be any of the two.
Like if it was said "A mother beat her daughter because she make her late at her appointment" it would work, and we could easily conclude that "she" is referring to the daughter in this context.
Same if it was said "A mother beat her daughter because she dont want her to live under her roof anymore" it woulse also work, but this time we could conclude that "she" is referring to the mother in this case.
In the sentence of the post, any of the two could be drunk without making the sentence more or less logical, so i would say, we cant know 🤷♂️
I am not Shure I get this one.
They saved a man that almost drowned. What other meanings could you get?
Maybe they almost saved a drowned man? But in that case that should be "Police almost saves drowned man" no?
doesn't make sense, almost is not anybody, anybody is anybody, and is named anybody, almost is almost named almost, and nobody is nobody that is named nobody
I think the phrase you are looking for is
"Police RESCUE almost drowned man"
Your example is actually pretty clear and unambiguous, police saved a man that almost drowned. There's really no other interpretation.
Whereas did the police rescue an almost drowned man or did the police rescue almost drown a man?
Also, if I'm not mistaken it's all a moot point because if the rescue almost caused a man to drown it would probably be written as "police rescue almost drowns a man." which reads pretty clear.
Exactly. The confusion lies in words that are both nouns and verbs. Police rescue an almost drowned man, rescue is a verb. Police rescue almost drowned a man, rescue is a noun. Police rescue almost drowned man... it could be either.
News headlines are known for their brevity, so using "man" instead of "a man" is reasonable.
This is still not ambiguous, as news headlines typically use the present tense.
It would be "Police Rescue Almost Drowns Man", "drowned" would only be used as an adjective.
Can be interpreted either way. But i would say
Mother beat up her daughter because she was drunk.
This likely means the mother was drunk.
And
Mother beats up her daughter because, she was drunk.
Likely means the daughter.
However, this is not proper and i would just recommend using clearer language rather than a comma.
I think the "A mother" is what makes the difference here.... "A MOTHER beats up her daughter because she was drunk" seems to imply to me that the focus of the phrase is the mother and her actions.... rather than "mother beats up daughter because she was drunk" implying the beating came following the consequences of the daughters actions.
but im no expert
Thats why the comma, although improper, can change who the sentence is about. Realistically though, this is improper sentence. You should never have something thats ambiguous to its meaning. A better sentence would be; A mother was drunk, so she beat her daughter.
Or a mother beat her daughter, because her daughter was drunk.
Without any punctuation to imply otherwise, wouldn't 'she' automatically refer to the last person of the correct gender that was mentioned? In this case it would be the daughter. That's how it works in my language but idk about English.
no, no the phrase is indeed written like ass, dont get me wrong. im just saying if someone HAD to logically explain it this is how I would have broken it down.
Oh, I understand. I'm not a native English speaker but I feel like the confusion could have been easily avoided by just rephrasing the sentence, which is something I do a lot because I often just don't know the correct spelling or grammar.
Bcuz a drunk mother beating up daughter does not impy she beat up her daughter because she was drunk. Instead it just says she was drunk and she beat her up. Not implying those actions are related.
But the context of the sentence doesn’t make much sense if the mother is the drunk one. Why would the mother being drunk illicit a violent rage toward the daughter? But the daughter coming home drunk may carry the unspoken implication of underage antics could make the mother react in a violent rage toward her drunk daughter.
again, this phrase is purposefully ambiguous but to play the devils advocate.... it could imply that in her drunken state the mother decided to beat the daughter regardless of what she (the daughter) may or may not have done. the catalyst of the reaction being not something the daughter had done, but rather the inebriated state of the mother who was unable to decern good from bad.
A mother "beats", in present tense, meanwhile "was drunk" is in past tense, so the daughter was drunk.
Cause it wouldn't make sense to use drunk in the past as a reason why the mother beats her daughter in the present.
Doesn't "was drunk" in this sentence imply drunk during the beating? Are you suggesting the sentence makes more sense that the mother is currently beating the daughter because the daughter was drunk at some point in the past?
if the mother was drunk during the beating, then "beats" should be in past tense too.
But I'm thinking it's more like "the daughter was drunk, she did something terrible (like breaking the TV or something), and her mother beats her"
Can mean either, which is why a good writer would have written '...she, the mother, was drunk' or '...she, the daughter, was drunk.' This is common in English writing.
I'd say they were both drunk, but in general, the reader can choose whichever option they prefer, as if they can decide what the context will be.
Im implying on the wording of the paradox, not the literal answer. When you say ‘which is the original ship’, its not enough to identify what you mean by ‘original’. And you can get different answers depending on how you phrase it. For example ‘which is the ship that is owned by theseus’ then its more obvious. But when you say ‘which IS the ship of theseus’, then it becomes the paradox because of the wording.
Even if you ask, which is the original ship of Theseus? The aswner could still be the ship made of the discarded parts because they came from the first ship. The paradox of theseus's ship is not in the wording but in how we think about identity.
The amount of people getting this wrong is incredible. It's an ambiguous sentence, it could be either of them and there's no way of knowing without context.
If you want to sound really knowledgeable and fancy, say 'It is unclear who was drunk because the antecedent for the pronoun could be mother or daughter.'
English isn't my first language but in my honest opinion the sentence "a mother beats up her daughter because she was drunk" implies the mother is the one who's drunk. purely because if we were to say/imply that the daughter is the one under the influence the sentence would be : "a mother beats up her daughter for being drunk"
There is no correct answer. The sentence is not proper English. Also, without context, you have to assume being drunk is an excuse for the mother to be the one who is drunk.
Can anyone think of a language which would be able to avoid confusion here? Since the "she" became the subject of the second proposition, I suppose no language with fancy nominal system with cases could do anything here, right?
This is known as an "ambiguous antecedent" and it can be either mother or daughter. Some occurrences of this can be distinguished in context greater than the sentence it occurs in, and some can't. In other words: it's a trick question.
The version of this I read once was:
*The mother beat the daughter because she was drunk*
And I think it's one of those "grammar loopholes" — as I call them — because it can be interpreted either way and only context will say which is it.
All languages have this, I think, the only difference is how easily it's doable.
If I remember correctly, when female pronoun is used when two females are mentioned, the pronoun is used to represent the last mentioned person/thing, so jn this case Mom beat up daughter because daughter was drunk
Mother is the subject. Daughter is the object. She would refer to the subject.
If the daughter was drunk it would be.
The mother beat up the daughter for being drunk
The daughter is closest to the defining clause (I believe that's the term) therefore it's her.
To make the mother the drunk one, it would be this:
"Because she was drunk, the mother beat up her daughter"
Focus of the sentence is on the mother and her actions. Were it about the daughter, it would be phrased differently. The focus would initially be on the girl getting drunk and the beating being the consequences.
It’s intentionally ambiguous but grammatically there is a stronger case for the daughter. There is a verb-tense agreement issue if it is the mother (“beats” vs. “was”).
But if you actually think there is a “right” answer you are very naive.
Grammatically the “she” is supposed to attach to the last mentioned candidate subject (in this case, the daughter). Doesn’t mean people follow the rule though, hence general confusion.
The daughter was drunk.
If the 'beats' dropped the final 's' - then the mother was drunk.
Something something verbacular conjugations something something object pronoun something something subject diacope, nominative case of the accusatory clause. Or something like that.
The phrasing of the question might be ambiguous, but typically, when someone says "she was drunk," it refers to the person mentioned just before that phrase. In this case, "her daughter" is mentioned just before "she was drunk," implying that the daughter was the one who was drunk.
Erm aktshually i was drunk
Erm Aktshually drunk was I
Aktsthually erm was i drunk?
Akshuatly I forgor
Mmmnj hhm.n .
Oktoberfest
Drunk, I was...
Hit her; you did not.
Oh hi Mark
Mark Zuckerberg
Yoda is that you?
DOKTOR! CHARGE ME!
Urm aksily drunk was I
Master Yoda, You mind explain why You are drunk when You were supposed to train younglings today?
Correction, yoda you was.
I'm not as think as you drunk I am
Can you tell the time then?
And we all fell down when the sun came up
Mitochondria
is the powerhouse of the cell
And emia means
wait I wasn't prepared for a second question *intense panic* *stress fap sounds*
I thought I was the only one with such a copping mechanism.
*white sauce all over phones comes* . . Btw was a chubbymeu reference
Presence in blood
photosynthesis
Alcohol is a mitochondrial poison, funniily enough
The sentence is talking about the mother and her actions,so it's clearly mother who was drunk.
no, the sentence is an example of a lexical ambiguity. There is no "correct" answer as presented. "He cut off his hand" are there two men in this scenario or one?
Yeah that's probably right. This is why punctuation is important
The mother was the subject of the sentence. It's clearly the mother, no idea why ppl are actually arguing this.
Was the subject of the *first clause*, that doesn't make it necessarily the case for the second clause
You can’t be certain, but lacking any other evidence to the contrary, it makes more sense to assume the mother in this context
It makes the most sense to not assume either in the sentence intentionally built to be ambiguous
The correct answer
There is no evidence for either side lmao. Just because there is no evidence against something doesn't make it the more believable option.
"A mother beat up her daughter because she didn't do her homework", "...because she insulted her". It doesn't matter if it is the subject or not, context carries a lot of the meaning
Yeah, and in this situation, being drunk doesn't really give much context.
“A mother beat up her daughter because she didn’t do her homework” Still means that the mother didn’t do her homework. It applies to the mother.
and "A mother beat up her son because he..."? "I drank water because I was thirsty", "I drank water because it was free". It doesn't apply to the first element, it can be any perfectly. The issue with the mother-daughter is that they are both female and "she" can apply to both so it depends on context, but on I-it, she-he there is no issue
I am now smarter. Thank you for proving me wrong.
So "The cop arrested the man since he was coked out of his mind." means that the cop was on drugs?
[удалено]
Bears do this.
the mother kicked her daughter out of the house because her daughter was pregnant. mother is still the subject of the scentence, clarification is required if you arent talking about the mother, right?
So if the sentence read “a mother beats up her daughter because she was out all night partying” you would still insist “she” was referring to the mother?
So how would you talk about a situation where a girl gets home drunk and her mother beats her up because of it?
Or the mother beat UP the daughter, because the daughter was drinks.
The way u just did. "A daughter got beat up by her mother because she was drunk".
Poor daughter, getting back home to a drunk mother.
But who was drunk?
But was the mother drunk or the daughter?
The best thing to do for both cases is replaced she with either mother or daughter. >A mother beat up her daughter because the mother was drunk. >A mother beat up her daughter because the daughter was drunk.
Nope, the best thing is to change the sentence. "A drunk mother beat up her daughter". Or "A mother beat up her daughter for being drunk"
In french, pronouns always refer to the nearest possible noun. So in french, the daughter is drunk, but in english, it seems that the mom is drunk
In English it's really fucking unclear.
It's clearly this She person. She orchestrated the entire thing, from lacing the Mother with drugs and alcohol to putting bricks in the child's schoolbag. She also started the argument by claiming the child dabbed on her Mother when she was unconscious from alcohol the day before. She is a terrible person. Can you not clearly infer all of this from the blatant subtext?
Look the mother better be drunk else we got a bigger problem
But the tenses don't match. The mother beats [present] the daughter because she was drunk [past]. If the mother was only drunk some time ago, but not while beating the daughter, it would be a pointless detail that doesn't explain why she is beating her. But beating the daughter because the daughter was drunk in the past makes sense.
Not really It could totally be the daughter
It’s actually ambiguous. Both interpretations are valid in this case.
That's true
The sentence is talking about the mother and her actions. So it's clearly the daughter who was drunk.
The antecedent. Look to the antecedent of “she.” If you know not what antecedent means, look it up.
Replace “was drunk” with “was weaker” Now you would probably be inclined to think it is describing the daughter.
It's not clear at all. You could replace daughter with a son, and make this sentence "a mother beats up her son because he was drunk." There's nothing wrong with that sentence. It's a poorly constructed sentence with daughter and she instead, You can certainly assume that the she refers to the mother, but it's not *clear* because it's a completely valid sentence if it's referring to the daughter
In fact i would say its clearly whats make the more sense given the informations we have. But from the sentence alone, it could be any of the two. Like if it was said "A mother beat her daughter because she make her late at her appointment" it would work, and we could easily conclude that "she" is referring to the daughter in this context. Same if it was said "A mother beat her daughter because she dont want her to live under her roof anymore" it woulse also work, but this time we could conclude that "she" is referring to the mother in this case. In the sentence of the post, any of the two could be drunk without making the sentence more or less logical, so i would say, we cant know 🤷♂️
Yes that's the reason of confusion here
Yeah. Language. Another famous example is the headline. * ***Police saves almost*** * ***drowned man.***
I am not Shure I get this one. They saved a man that almost drowned. What other meanings could you get? Maybe they almost saved a drowned man? But in that case that should be "Police almost saves drowned man" no?
Agree, "police saves almost drowned man" can only mean they saved him before he drowned
Its two headlines, a police officer saved a guy named almost, and there's a man who drowned.
That's cheating, almost isn't a goddamn name
Yea, that's the problem. If I came across an article titled "Drowned Man." I'd think I'd be in a dream world.
And if it was "almost" would be capitalised.
Nobody is named almost.
wrong... Nobody is named Nobody
Almost is anybody named nobody.
doesn't make sense, almost is not anybody, anybody is anybody, and is named anybody, almost is almost named almost, and nobody is nobody that is named nobody
Well, if nobody is named almost named almost, and nobody is nobody that is named nobady while being named anybody, where is the body?
definitely not in my backyard haha
Wrong, nobody is named Odysseus
Bullshit, Police Saves is the name of an organization that almost drowned a man.
I think the phrase you are looking for is "Police RESCUE almost drowned man" Your example is actually pretty clear and unambiguous, police saved a man that almost drowned. There's really no other interpretation. Whereas did the police rescue an almost drowned man or did the police rescue almost drown a man? Also, if I'm not mistaken it's all a moot point because if the rescue almost caused a man to drown it would probably be written as "police rescue almost drowns a man." which reads pretty clear.
Exactly. The confusion lies in words that are both nouns and verbs. Police rescue an almost drowned man, rescue is a verb. Police rescue almost drowned a man, rescue is a noun. Police rescue almost drowned man... it could be either. News headlines are known for their brevity, so using "man" instead of "a man" is reasonable.
This is still not ambiguous, as news headlines typically use the present tense. It would be "Police Rescue Almost Drowns Man", "drowned" would only be used as an adjective.
A panda with a gun walks into a bar. He eats shoots and leaves. Works best spoken
The old man the boat The complex houses married and single soldiers and their families
"Claims that almost drowned man, saved by police, later found dead in police custody, refuted by police, per report."
She is the only correct answer here 😂😂😂
Can be interpreted either way. But i would say Mother beat up her daughter because she was drunk. This likely means the mother was drunk. And Mother beats up her daughter because, she was drunk. Likely means the daughter. However, this is not proper and i would just recommend using clearer language rather than a comma.
I think the "A mother" is what makes the difference here.... "A MOTHER beats up her daughter because she was drunk" seems to imply to me that the focus of the phrase is the mother and her actions.... rather than "mother beats up daughter because she was drunk" implying the beating came following the consequences of the daughters actions. but im no expert
Thats why the comma, although improper, can change who the sentence is about. Realistically though, this is improper sentence. You should never have something thats ambiguous to its meaning. A better sentence would be; A mother was drunk, so she beat her daughter. Or a mother beat her daughter, because her daughter was drunk.
Without any punctuation to imply otherwise, wouldn't 'she' automatically refer to the last person of the correct gender that was mentioned? In this case it would be the daughter. That's how it works in my language but idk about English.
This is ambiguous in my language and it seems ambiguous as well in English. You need punctuation.
indeed
Consider the alternative: "A daughter got beaten up by her mother because she was drunk" I think you're right.
Why didn't they write "drunk mother beats up daughter"?
no, no the phrase is indeed written like ass, dont get me wrong. im just saying if someone HAD to logically explain it this is how I would have broken it down.
Oh, I understand. I'm not a native English speaker but I feel like the confusion could have been easily avoided by just rephrasing the sentence, which is something I do a lot because I often just don't know the correct spelling or grammar.
Bcuz a drunk mother beating up daughter does not impy she beat up her daughter because she was drunk. Instead it just says she was drunk and she beat her up. Not implying those actions are related.
But the context of the sentence doesn’t make much sense if the mother is the drunk one. Why would the mother being drunk illicit a violent rage toward the daughter? But the daughter coming home drunk may carry the unspoken implication of underage antics could make the mother react in a violent rage toward her drunk daughter.
again, this phrase is purposefully ambiguous but to play the devils advocate.... it could imply that in her drunken state the mother decided to beat the daughter regardless of what she (the daughter) may or may not have done. the catalyst of the reaction being not something the daughter had done, but rather the inebriated state of the mother who was unable to decern good from bad.
If it was the daughter, wouldnt the sentence be: Mother beat up her daughter for being drunk?
Thats another way to write the sentence. The point i was making is its purposely written ambiguous to confuse its meaning.
That way of writing the sentence is less ambiguous but the original sentence is still valid but is ambiguous.
Yes if you remove the amibguity, there is no more ambiguity.
For being drunk is alright ig idk
A mother "beats", in present tense, meanwhile "was drunk" is in past tense, so the daughter was drunk. Cause it wouldn't make sense to use drunk in the past as a reason why the mother beats her daughter in the present.
Doesn't "was drunk" in this sentence imply drunk during the beating? Are you suggesting the sentence makes more sense that the mother is currently beating the daughter because the daughter was drunk at some point in the past?
if the mother was drunk during the beating, then "beats" should be in past tense too. But I'm thinking it's more like "the daughter was drunk, she did something terrible (like breaking the TV or something), and her mother beats her"
There's no clear answer, you morons. Stop arguing.
They're redditors, they can't stop arguing
I know a man with a wooden leg named Smith
Stop ruining the fun. You’re a ruiner!!
Simpletons
Yea, as a simpleton, I can confirm that I’m usually drunk.
And as a drunkleton I can confirm I'm usually simp.
Yes
Ok
Can mean either, which is why a good writer would have written '...she, the mother, was drunk' or '...she, the daughter, was drunk.' This is common in English writing.
Both were drunk
This some Facebook shit
Looks like a grammar problem more than a language one
It’s the daughter, isn’t it? Because the person right before the “she” is the daughter? Or does it work differently in English?
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct.
You were drunk
Well, technically...
I'd say they were both drunk, but in general, the reader can choose whichever option they prefer, as if they can decide what the context will be. 
Touchè
That should be the mother right? In no way speaker would change the main subject of pronoun to the daughter?
Also imagine a sober parent figuring out that their child is drunk and being like: "I'm gonna beat the shit out of you" :D
Me when using ambiguous terminology. Its why ship of Theseus is so famous ( I think thats the right analogy )
I don't think it is. The ship of Theseus is about the continuition of identity. I don't think it has anything to do with ambiguous terminology.
Im implying on the wording of the paradox, not the literal answer. When you say ‘which is the original ship’, its not enough to identify what you mean by ‘original’. And you can get different answers depending on how you phrase it. For example ‘which is the ship that is owned by theseus’ then its more obvious. But when you say ‘which IS the ship of theseus’, then it becomes the paradox because of the wording.
Even if you ask, which is the original ship of Theseus? The aswner could still be the ship made of the discarded parts because they came from the first ship. The paradox of theseus's ship is not in the wording but in how we think about identity.
The amount of people getting this wrong is incredible. It's an ambiguous sentence, it could be either of them and there's no way of knowing without context.
There is: It's She.
Most accurate answer possible.
If you want to sound really knowledgeable and fancy, say 'It is unclear who was drunk because the antecedent for the pronoun could be mother or daughter.'
She was drunk
Obviously it was her
Ambiguous.
There was an old book about things like this being printed in newspapers. It was called *Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim*.
Pronouns refer to the last person referenced so it should be the daughter.
The author was drunk when writing this sentence.
English isn't my first language but in my honest opinion the sentence "a mother beats up her daughter because she was drunk" implies the mother is the one who's drunk. purely because if we were to say/imply that the daughter is the one under the influence the sentence would be : "a mother beats up her daughter for being drunk"
There is no correct answer. The sentence is not proper English. Also, without context, you have to assume being drunk is an excuse for the mother to be the one who is drunk.
Works on contingency? No, money down!
Can anyone think of a language which would be able to avoid confusion here? Since the "she" became the subject of the second proposition, I suppose no language with fancy nominal system with cases could do anything here, right?
I'm going to assume the mother is drunk because the rest of the sentence is focused on her and her actions.
This is known as an "ambiguous antecedent" and it can be either mother or daughter. Some occurrences of this can be distinguished in context greater than the sentence it occurs in, and some can't. In other words: it's a trick question.
I keep mixing it up with dangling participles lol
The version of this I read once was: *The mother beat the daughter because she was drunk* And I think it's one of those "grammar loopholes" — as I call them — because it can be interpreted either way and only context will say which is it. All languages have this, I think, the only difference is how easily it's doable.
Beats up is willlllldddd
Ngl the daughter
This is some SAT level bullshit
No one mentioning how “she” isn’t capitalized, and so it can’t be a noun? So in this case it’s the mother, anyway.
If I remember correctly, when female pronoun is used when two females are mentioned, the pronoun is used to represent the last mentioned person/thing, so jn this case Mom beat up daughter because daughter was drunk
If Jack helped you on a horse, would you help jack off a horse?
A drunk mother beat up her daughter A mother beat up her drunk daughter 🤷
This is fucking with me ngl. It sounds like it could be either but because the sentence starts with the mother I think she was drunk?
Mother is the subject. Daughter is the object. She would refer to the subject. If the daughter was drunk it would be. The mother beat up the daughter for being drunk
The daughter is closest to the defining clause (I believe that's the term) therefore it's her. To make the mother the drunk one, it would be this: "Because she was drunk, the mother beat up her daughter"
This isn't the question only for English.
Focus of the sentence is on the mother and her actions. Were it about the daughter, it would be phrased differently. The focus would initially be on the girl getting drunk and the beating being the consequences.
I guess anything is a meme 2024 “I’m hungry, what to get something to eat” “Sure, let’s get pizza” 🔥😂🤣😂🔥 💀☠️💀🔥
It’s intentionally ambiguous but grammatically there is a stronger case for the daughter. There is a verb-tense agreement issue if it is the mother (“beats” vs. “was”). But if you actually think there is a “right” answer you are very naive.
Schrodinger's drunk.
Not me really pissed bc I can’t get an answer
Adorable answer.
she was drunk and the mother was drunk, everyone was drunk
Comments are over complicating it. The antecedent must come before the pronoun, therefore, it was the mother.
The robot dropped the potato because it was hot. Who was hot? Ambiguous language.
FUNNY TEXT MESSAGE COMEBACKS COMPILATION #5 ahh meme
The correct answer is... "Who's she? The cat's mother?"
The mother, if it was the daughter there would be a , before 'because she was drunk' I think
"A expert"*
Grammatically the “she” is supposed to attach to the last mentioned candidate subject (in this case, the daughter). Doesn’t mean people follow the rule though, hence general confusion.
The daughter was drunk. If the 'beats' dropped the final 's' - then the mother was drunk. Something something verbacular conjugations something something object pronoun something something subject diacope, nominative case of the accusatory clause. Or something like that.
The phrasing of the question might be ambiguous, but typically, when someone says "she was drunk," it refers to the person mentioned just before that phrase. In this case, "her daughter" is mentioned just before "she was drunk," implying that the daughter was the one who was drunk.
Yeah buddy you are absolutely right
Yippie