Yes, Justine, the possessive pronoun “his” can be used as a subject in the sense of “that which belongs to him.” That possessive pronoun is equivalent to the meaning of the adjective “his,” as in “As to the matter of expertise in viral immunology,
his is definitely superior to that of Dr. Barcelon’s.” However, the writer or speaker must always make sure that the antecedent noun of “his” is obvious or clearly indicated so as not to cause confusion.
That is the problem with several parts of the passage that you presented: we don’t know beforehand or aren’t sure what the antecedent subject “his” refers to. Of course, we can easily avoid this problem by identifying or specifying that subject beforehand, as in this example: “If you are referring to Dr. Cruz on the matter of expertise in viral immunology,
his is definitely superior to that of Dr. Barcelon’s.”
In several respects, however, the following statement using the pronoun “his” in that columnist’s passage can confuse a lot of readers:
“With every speech, (the public official) seems ready to undermine the hard work of health care and other essential workers; with every impromptu remark, the best of his own appointees. His have not been words of wisdom. His has not been a steady hand.”Why?
Problem 1: The statement “... with every impromptu remark, the best of his own appointees” borders on the nonsensical, as it fails to connect logically to the preceding clause. As a result, the phrases “with every impromptu remark” and “the best of his own appointees” that are linked to that preceding clause just float there like rudderless, pilotless seacraft.
How clear and much more forceful that parallel statement could have been if the following italicized grammar elements had been prudently provided: “
With his every speech, (the public official) seems ready to undermine the hard work of health care and other essential workers;
with his every impromptu remark, he seems ready as well to undermine the best efforts of his own appointees.”
Problem 2: The two sentences that follow, “
His have not been words of wisdom'“ and “
His has not been steady hand,” are clearly valid attempts to use the possessive pronoun “his” for dramatic effect and rhetorical flourish by not using a specific following noun or pronoun. Both of them are unable to achieve that goal, however. How clear and forceful those two statements could have been if the grammar elements that I have italicized in the revised construction that follows had been duly provided (or, if they had in fact been initially provided, were not intentionally omitted to create a desired elliptical flourish that sadly turns out to be ill-advised): “
His words have not been words of wisdom.” “
His hand has not been steady hand.”
In sum, that whole problematic and confusing passage could have become the much clearer and more powerful statement below that shows a clearer understanding of how elliptical constructions work and a surer hand in doing them:
“With his every speech, (the public official) seems ready to undermine the hard work of health care and other essential workers; with his every impromptu remark, he seems ready as well to undermine the best efforts of his own appointees. His words have not been words of wisdom. His hand has not been a steady hand.”As to your second grammar question, Justine, my answer is “No.” The grammar and syntax problems in that passage that you asked me to critique aren’t examples of
failed inverted sentence construction but of
failed elliptical construction. The latter is, as I think you know very well in English grammar, the streamlining technique of making a sentence or clause more concise by omitting from it one or more obligatory words that are understood in the context of the remaining elements.
I trust that this critique has adequately clarified the matter for you and other Forum readers.
