Maria says at that point, Maria would just use the name, probably.
Maria says Maria gets it, and Maria says it makes sense to Maria. Maria does think that noun repetition would be better (to Maria) than not putting anything - even if it would be funny to Maria.
Maria says at that point, would just use the name, probably.
Maria says gets it, and that it makes sense. Maria does think that noun repetition would be better than not putting anything - even if it would be funny to Maria.
“It” being a pronoun would only become a problem if the challenge was the following: “while talking about that person, you cannot use any pronouns”.
However, the current challenge is instead “you cannot refer to this person using any pronouns, because the person has none”. That means we can refer to things other than the person with pronouns. And that’s what Anarki_ does. If you don’t believe it yet, look at the spoilered text above, where I show what each of the pronouns is referring to.
Click Me! :D
Maria says gets it […]
Pronoun referring to: the removal of ex-wife’s pronouns by the ex-wife that the OP refers to.
[…] and that it makes sense.
Pronoun referring to: the same thing as last time.
[…] - even if it would be funny to Maria.
Pronoun referring to: not putting anything to refer to the ex-wife mentioned in the OP
As you can see, no pronouns refer to either Maria or to the ex-wife, but to actions and things said by these two persons. :D
Maria says at that point, Maria would just use the name, probably.
Maria says Maria gets it, and Maria says it makes sense to Maria. Maria does think that noun repetition would be better (to Maria) than not putting anything - even if it would be funny to Maria.
Ye exactly
Attempted to keep it making sense:
Maria says at that point, would just use the name, probably.
Maria says gets it, and that it makes sense. Maria does think that noun repetition would be better than not putting anything - even if it would be funny to Maria.
It is a pronoun too
Oh right
Assuming you aren’t joking…
“It” being a pronoun would only become a problem if the challenge was the following: “while talking about that person, you cannot use any pronouns”.
However, the current challenge is instead “you cannot refer to this person using any pronouns, because the person has none”. That means we can refer to things other than the person with pronouns. And that’s what Anarki_ does. If you don’t believe it yet, look at the spoilered text above, where I show what each of the pronouns is referring to.
Click Me! :D
Pronoun referring to: the removal of ex-wife’s pronouns by the ex-wife that the OP refers to.
Pronoun referring to: the same thing as last time.
Pronoun referring to: not putting anything to refer to the ex-wife mentioned in the OP
As you can see, no pronouns refer to either Maria or to the ex-wife, but to actions and things said by these two persons. :D
Found the divorce lawyer
“Your Honour, my client is not referring to their ex-wife by any pronouns, and stating otherwise would be false.”
I don’t know if “Maria says gets it” is a gramatically correct English phrase. In case it isn’t, I would either use…
…or get rid of the passive phrasing for clarity, like this…
Maria says something similar to the following: “Maria gets it. It makes sense.”
How does Maria refer to non Maria groups of non-Marias?