[ThinkDifferent]

Keegan said pronouns should only refer to nouns and in this case Morrison's name is used as an adjective.

I'm not buying that. If "Tom's job requires him to travel" is wrong, what's the correct form? There's no ambiguity with the pronoun.

[ZinGirl]

If "Tom's job requires him to travel" is wrong, what's the correct form?

Clearly, Tom should be on welfare...thus sparing us this confusion.

[Mark Felton]

"Tom's job requires him to travel"

better? = "Tom's job requires that he travel"

[SAJ]

And you are entirely accurate in your demurral.

In English, nouns are frequently converted into adjectives ('Bill's bicycle is red.') by the addition of the appropriate possessive, and modifiers (pronouns and adjectives) into nouns (e.g. 'Stupid is as stupid does.' -- 'stupid' is obviously an adjective, but equally obviously the subject of this sentence and therefore a noun here by usage. Similarly, 'I love her.' -- 'her' is clearly the direct object of the sentence and therefore a noun in this usage).

To insist that using a pronoun as the direct object of a verb is somehow an 'error', as this 'professor' would have it, is absolutely laughable, and just about what one ought to expect from many (most?) of today's would-be 'grammarians'.

[Nevermore]

I agree 100%. Even if Morrison's name is used as an adjective, Morrison is still a "noun"! It is perfectly clear and just as unambiguous as "Her genius enables Morrison...". So a pronoun may be used and adjective, but it may not refer to another noun used as one? A "rule" such as this is pointless!

[Sir Gawain]

I'm not buying that. If "Tom's job requires him to travel" is wrong, what's the correct form? There's no ambiguity with the pronoun.

We hear and understand based on context and past speaking patterns. The rule is, you should be able to strip a sentence down to its bare mininum and it still make sense. The ambiguity is: Who is Tom's job requiring to travel? We can't assume it's Tom (although we do when we hear it spoken).