How do I find an interesting example of it? Is it grammatical? Is it bad? It’s a right node-raising construction ( see Wikipedia ), which is easy to explain in a positive version

*It is both revenue to, and administered by, this agency.

I mark this with asterisk to mean that I find it unacceptable. It would come, using the right node-raising rule, from:

*It is both revenue to this agency and administered by this agency.

a revenue to this agency

and it is administered by this agency. (*Both) Is revenue to this agency and that, in turn, from:

using a Conjunction Reduction, assuming that “revenue to this agency” and “administered by this agency” are of same grammatical category. is not the same? Which is worse is that these two expressions are not

of the same category, so that the reduction is not permitted.

What makes you excited about speaking out? Where does rational decision come from? You can have “backwards” pronominalization (where the antecedent follows the pronoun) in case the antecedent commands the pronoun but the pronoun does not command the antecedent. Where your pronoun is within a clause that contains the antecedent but is also within a clause that does not contain the antecedent, then that is so in cases in which the pronoun is within an entire clause which has an antecedent that contains two separate sections containing a clause that has an antecedent on its own.

2], you can use my computer 1]. (The original example would be: 2]. (The original example was: 2], to use my computer 1]. (See screenshots and notes).

The antecedent “my computer” is within clause 1, and the pronoun “it” is within clauses 1, 2, and 3.

I don’t know about “correct”, but both sound okay to me. What is the sense of a singular “century” in your title? There are two “t”s, so there are two noun phrases in the phrase logically singular, since it refers to a single century. (The instance of “century” in the first noun phrase is elided by a process called “right node-raising”).

However, in the quote given in your question, you’ve just a single “the”, so here there is only one noun phrase, whose head noun should be plural, since it refers to two centuries.

It is a cat, is it?

I don’t know what “should” be. It’s just my best shot at describing my own pronunciation. (I’m a kind of Midwesterner.) The diacritic on the last t is meant to represent closing of the glottis. The preceding /t/s have both been flapped because they are at the ends of syllables and are between vowels. Any stress on the following vowel does not matter if they flap. They are at the end of this syllable because they are at the ends of words. While the lengthened vowel of “cat” reflects the following comma in the spelling.

I agree that it’s ambiguous, since there are two possible antecedents for “they”: “women” and “men”. Is this shock surprising? How does the pronominalization work? What is that question?

I posted an answer to an aforementioned question on Quora, in order to give some context for the question. William Cantrall discovered that the pitch agreement between antecedent and pronoun could sometimes determine the intended reference of a pronoun. What was described in a paper read to the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) in the late 60s?

I tried saying the phrase with falling pitch on “men” and “they”. I tried saying the example sentence. This still seems to me to be ambiguous. What should I do? Which are falling pitch on “women” and rising pitch on “men” and “they”, or the “they” should refer to “men”. What do you think of them?

What are you saying?

In the example, you is a resumptive pronoun. It should be omitted, since it is coreferential with the relative pronoun who of the relative clause, yet it cannot be omitted because of an island constraint. Do you recognise such constructions in English?