Deciphering third person

[Tyrn]

Hi,

Richie volvió a mirar a Paul Bunyan, santo patrono de Derry, que había surgido a la existencia, según decían, porque allí se recogían los troncos cuando venían río abajo.

A sentence like this is my constant trouble. How am I supposed to tell whether Paul Bunyan or Derry, había surgido? Sometimes the context helps, very often not at all. I hope there is a rule of thumb I am ignorant of .

[Rusty]

I determined that it was Derry that they're talking about just by looking at the rest of the sentence. It talks about a place, not a person.

And, in the English version of the book you're reading, the author writes this sentence in clear detail: Richie looked back at Paul Bunyan, patron saint of Derry—Derry, which had come into being, according to the stories, because this was where the logs fetched up when they came down river.

I have certainly run across phrases that don't make sense. Everyone needs a frame of reference, some context that makes the simple words take on meaning. Context is key. Without it, we can't hope to know what any group of words mean.

[Tyrn]

I agree that this is not the worst case, though one has to read the sentence twice. In worst case there are two persons involved, and the action is spread over two sentences . As soon as I take a look at the English original, all falls into place, somehow. That's why I have an impression that I'm missing something with my Spanish grammar.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

It's not your grammar. The sentence is ambiguous and even native speakers have to read it twice to be sure.
We are taught that an elegant style in Spanish avoids repetition; yet the translator here not only avoided repetition, but cut the subject altogether! Which, if you ask me, it's rather unelegant.