Is the 'he' ambiguously?

I suppose it is, but nobody would think that. Look at the context, which is more likely, Bong being knocked out or Wee passing out from exhaustion after punching Bong repeatedly?

Thanks, izzythepush.

I agree with you that the sentence is not ambiguous.

You should'nt say that.

And you wouldn't say this.

We watched Wee bong Bong into unconsciousness.

Consider this

Mr Bong fell to the ground and Wee persistently punched him until he became bored,

There is semantic meaning behind the grammar.

As a writer you make a pretty good physicist. That's a terrible sentence, people don't stop punching someone because they get bored.

There are plenty of other reasons why they'd stop, the opponent is sufficiently injured/immobilised, their anger subsides, they use up all their energy, they have second thoughts or someone stops them. Boredom doesn't come into it.

Sentences need to be believable and yours isn't remotely so.

The point I was making is about semantic understanding. This gramatical construct depends an understanding of the meanings of words in able to determine the referent of the pronoun.


If you can come up with a better sentence to demonstrate this point, I am all for it.

This is a problem we face in machine language understanding. I can give you some of the textbook examples of this point; none of them have anything to do with punching.

The cookies are ready to eat.

The point you were making is meaningless because you don't know the first thing about writing.