reference

I believe The Wall Street Journal. This is because of the reference to 1995, and it seems the "adverse commentary" has been more recent.

Hmm...

Isn't it:

adverse commentary=antagonistic views=>that which warned something
+
the jounral the commentary appeared in=The Wall Street Journal

?

It's hard to say. But the antecdent for the which refers to actions in 1995. If this article appeared recently, and it makes reference to adverse commentary, it would seem strange that it does not comment that this adverse commentary appeared 11 years ago.

If this is quoted from a recent article, I maintain that it refers to RECENT adverse commentary. The Wall Street Journal

Grammar GeekIf this is quoted from a recent article, I maintain that it refers to RECENT adverse commentary.

For your information, it's not from a recent article. It has these sentences in the same article.

It's likely that your living-room will have a television set and a video, and your kitchen a washing machine and tumble drier, maybe also

I think I'd take the WSJ as the antecedent too – the "warning" is "the frugal behaviour of downshifters could undermine the economy", which phrase is part of the "adverse commentary".

MrP

Hi,

I think I, too, agree with all this learned analysis.

My initial reaction as a reader was that it was the WSJ, and the initial reaction is often the best one. I think, too, that someone who writes this kind of sentence would most likely express it another way if the other meaning was intended.

best wishes, Clive

My reaction was instantaneous. Given the choice of whether a commentary would "solemnly warn" or whether the Wall Street Journal would "solemnly warn", I chose the Journal without a second thought. The people who write the Journal can warn literally; the commentary can only warn figuratively.

Maybe we instinctively choose the antecedent of a relative pronoun on the basis of our

CalifJim The people who write the Journal can warn literally; the commentary can only warn figuratively.

Our preference may be for a literal interpretation over a figurative one when both are possible.

Why do you think it's figurative when it literally says 'adverse commentary'??

MrPedanticthe "warning" is "the frugal behaviour of downshifters could undermine the economy", which phrase is part of the "adverse commentary".

Why do you think the antecedent is the WEJ when the warning is part of the adverse commentary??

Well, you've got me, Clive, Mr. P, and California Jim all in agreement that it's the WSJ. So if you don't want to accept our opinions, by all means, accept your own. But I do wonder why you ask us if you systematically disagree with every single one of us.