3

Is it possible to use whose as the possessive form of which?

  • Based on classic films -- whose screenplays were mostly dramatic --
    Bordwell exposed his theory of the hero.

Is that correct?

John Lawler
  • 107,887
user116664
  • 31
  • 2
    This is commonly how it's done informally, yes. – Robusto Jun 16 '15 at 14:43
  • By the way, it's possessive with four s's. – sjsyrek Jun 16 '15 at 14:52
  • I deleted my answer since examples to the contrary were provided. It still feels wrong to me despite the attestations, but I don't want to muddy the waters for the OP. A style guide may provide better guidance than historic examples, though. – sjsyrek Jun 16 '15 at 15:01
  • @Avangion: there are some dialects which only use whose for people, but this is not the case for standard English grammar. – Peter Shor Jun 16 '15 at 15:01
  • Well I'm all for broad usage being more important than rules. I suppose there's a reason it feels wrong to me, but then the diversity of the language is what likely makes these sorts of questions so hard to answer. Even "standard" is hard to pinpoint exactly. The American Heritage Dictionary has a panel of experts who up or down vote these things and then you're informed of the percentages. I don't know what it is for this one, but I'm sure it's in there. I would be a down voter, I guess. – sjsyrek Jun 16 '15 at 15:06
  • @Robusto: This is commonly how it's done formally, too. There's nothing "informal", "common", "impolite", or "incorrect" about this. It's like knowing that the possessive of the personal pronoun he is the personal pronoun his; in this case, the possessive of the relative pronoun which is the relative pronoun whose. No gender is expressed or implied by either relative pronoun, though Neuter is the best way to bet. – John Lawler Jun 16 '15 at 15:41
  • @JohnLawler: Yeah, I figured. My comment was just a drive-by because I'm at work and I was hedging my bets against the possibility that legions of Fowler-brandishing users were going to lay about me with truncheons. – Robusto Jun 16 '15 at 15:46
  • 1
    @Robusto: Come, we're armoured with righteousness; the Peeververein shall not triumph. – John Lawler Jun 16 '15 at 15:48
  • 1
    So, to partially vindicate myself, I looked up the usage note I knew just had to exist on this point. I guessed the result would be 60-40 or so in favor of you guys, that whose is OK to use to refer to inanimate objects. Turns out I was quite close. In case anyone is interested: https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Whose&submit.x=0&submit.y=0 – sjsyrek Jun 16 '15 at 17:44
  • PS - seriously not trying to be a pedant, it's clearly a matter of taste – sjsyrek Jun 16 '15 at 17:44

2 Answers2

2

1 the room the door of which is green

2 the room whose door is green

The first construction is a bit clumsy. The second is shorter and much more practical. That's why the second way is replacing the first.

rogermue
  • 13,878
  • 1
    Do you have any evidence that the second construction is newer than the first/becoming more common than the first? – herisson Jun 16 '15 at 21:08
  • That is quite another question. But I admit an interesting one. But I never had the idea to look into the historical side of this matter nor did I study the frequency of the two constructions today. But I take it for granted that the shorter one is more common. – rogermue Jun 16 '15 at 21:19
  • It seemed to be implied in your answer ("the second way is replacing the first") so if you don't know, you might want to reword that part. – herisson Jun 16 '15 at 21:21
  • As I seldom read the first constructon, but occasionally find the second I think I may use the formulation that I chose. By the way, what I write here is no professoral thesis. And I find you can formulate as carefully as you want you get a shot from some corner. – rogermue Jun 16 '15 at 21:27
  • The room with the green door? – sjsyrek Jun 17 '15 at 06:14
0

Yes, it is correct. See also http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/whose-for-inanimate-objects

According to grammar girl, whose is the only word we have to refer to inanimate antecedents.

Ilanysong
  • 721