Can the word whose be used for objects - Word и Excel - помощь в работе с программами

Whose is the possessive form of the relative pronoun who. Which and that, the relative pronouns used for animals and objects, lack a possessive form, so whose can be used for their possessive forms as well, as in «the movie, whose name I can’t remember.» Whose is appropriate for inanimate objects in all cases except when it might appear at the beginning of a question: while «Whose book is this?» is fine if the answer to the question is a living being, «Whose pages are torn?» doesn’t really make sense. Instead, a question about a book with torn pages might be «Which book has torn pages?»

English is a pretty impressive language, but sometimes it just doesn’t have the word you’re looking for. Writing handbooks will tell you that the relative pronoun that is used for animals, things, and sometimes collective or anonymous people («the book that won,» «infants that walk»); which is used for animals and things («the river which flows south»); and who is used for people and for animals, especially those treated like humans («the dog, who goes everywhere with its owner»). In addition, whose is the possessive form of who («she asked whose car it was»).

According to the rules, whose then only applies to people and animals, so what is the equivalent possessive for inanimate objects? Truth be told, English doesn’t have one, and writers from the medieval times onward have resorted to borrowing whose in such cases. The list of authors who have used whose for inanimate objects over the centuries includes such last-name notables as Shakespeare, Milton, Austen, and Fitzgerald.

The mannequin, whose judgmental pose seems to imply disapproval, doesn’t really care which word you use.

I could a tale unfold whose lightest word / Would harrow up thy soul …
— William Shakespeare, Hamlet, 1601

… the fruit / Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste / Brought death into the World …
— John Milton, Paradise Lost, 1667

On reaching the house, they were shown through the hall into the saloon, whose northern aspect rendered it delightful for summer.
— Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, 1813

I walked out the back way … and ran for a huge black knotted tree whose massed leaves made a fabric against the rain.
— F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby, 1925

It wasn’t until the 18th-century that the sticklers of grammar took notice of this centuries-long peccadillo, emphatically declaring whose to be the possessive only of the relative pronoun who while whispering their acknowledgment that English lacks an equivalent possessive for which and that. Their recommendation has been to use the construction of which for inanimate objects. This might work in some cases, but for the most part, it ends up sounding clumsy or stilted.

For example, compare the following pairs of sentences using whose and then of which.

He was watching the movie whose title I couldn’t remember earlier.
He was watching the movie, the title of which I couldn’t remember earlier.

The car whose windshield is cracked is his.
The car, the windshield of which is cracked, is his.

Of note is how whose creates a smooth flowing sentence compared to of which. It is no wonder writers have chosen not to listen to the sticklers and to use whose in such cases.

Another recommendation for when the possessive for an inanimate object might be called for is simply to construct the sentence without the possessive.

He was watching the movie with the title that I couldn’t remember earlier.

The car with the cracked windshield is his.

The avoidance of whose certainly works, but the fact is it is easier to borrow whose to convey possession for an inanimate object than to work around it.

The persistent borrowing has resulted in filling the gap in modern English grammar, making the notion that you can’t use whose for lifeless things outmoded, like the rules against splitting an infinitive and ending a sentence with a preposition. If you want to use whose in reference to an inanimate object, go ahead; if you choose to rewrite a sentence to avoid using whose, feel free to do that too. In regard to of which: it seems a good choice when a formal or literary tone is desired.

Before closing, the one instance in which whose cannot be used for an inanimate object should be mentioned—and that is in the interrogative case. When whose appears in the beginning of a question, such as «Whose keys are these?,» it can only function as a pronoun for a person or animal.

If you are asking which container a lid belonged to, you would not say, «Whose lid is this?,» because whose in such instances can only refer to a living being. Rather, you would say something like «Which container does this lid belong to?»

You should also pause to ask yourself the important question, «Why am I speaking to containers in the first place?»

Источник

The word «whose» is used in several different grammatical ways. For some of these (see my original answer below), it has been grammatical to use it for inanimate objects, at least since the days of Shakespeare. For others (see my update), it is only used for people or animals.

ORIGINAL ANSWER:

Many people seem to believe that you cannot use whose for inanimate objects, but I don’t believe this was ever proscribed except by out-of-control grammarians. Consider the following quotes from Shakespeare (selected from many more quotes where whose refers to an inanimate object) and more recent authors:

Hamlet I.v

I could a tale unfold whose lightest
word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze
thy young blood,

Two Gentlemen of Verona, III.ii

By wailful sonnets, whose composed rhymes
Should be full-fraught with serviceable vows.

Timon of Athens IV.iii

The sea’s a thief, whose liquid surge resolves
The moon into salt tears:

Jane Austen also used whose to refer to inanimate objects:

Pride and Prejudice (1813)

On reaching the house, they were shown through the hall into the saloon, whose northern aspect rendered it delightful for summer.

Also F. Scott Fitzgerald:

The Great Gatsby (1925)

I walked out the back way … and ran for a huge black knotted tree whose massed leaves made a fabric against the rain.

Not to mention Pat Conroy:

South of Broad (2010)

… as I walk down Church Street, whose palmetto trees are rattling and whose oaks shake with the ancient grief of storm.

UPDATE: I just realized that whose is used in several different grammatical ways. In some of these ways, I would never use whose for anything but a person or animal. In particular, one of whose‘s uses is as an interrogative pronoun, as in:

Whose shoes are these?
Whose are these shoes?

If you had some leaves, and were asking which tree they fell off of, you cannot say:

*Whose leaves are these?
*Whose are these leaves?

You have to say something like

Which tree’s leaves are these?

But when it is a relative pronoun that immediately follows its antecedant, whose can be used for inanimate objects:

The tree whose leaves look like hands ….

This may be part of the cause of the confusion about whether whose can only be used for people or animals.

Источник

Today, Joe brought my attention to a strange quirk of the English language: we use “whose” for inanimate objects. It sounds so weird when you use the phrase like, “I placed the iPhone whose screen is broken in the bin,” but it’s technically grammatically correct.

Whose for Inanimate Objects

“Whose” sounds most natural when it’s used for animate objects, like people and animals, and other things that breathe and possess the life force.

Apparently there are folks out there who share the opinion that “whose” for inanimate objects shouldn’t be used because it sounds weird.

But think about it: what else are we going to use?

Whose Has ALWAYS Been Used for Inanimate Objects

We’ve talked about the fact that the English language is always changing and evolving, but this particular piece of usage hasn’t evolved since the fourteenth century.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage says the eighteenth century was when grammar nitpickers started to cast aspersions on “whose” and inanimate objects, which basically means that we as casual linguists will never be content with what we have.

“Whose” vs. “Of Which”

So what do we do to resolve this apparent tension? Some have suggested replacing “whose” with the even less user-friendly “of which”. That might work in some cases, but for the most part, it just sounds stilted and awkward and unnecessarily formal. Compare these two sentences:

That table, whose legs are uneven, has been in my family for decades.

That table, the legs of which are uneven, has been in my family for decades.

Then again, you could always take my favorite approach to grammatical conundrums, and rewrite the sentence completely to avoid the issue entirely:

That table with the uneven legs has been in my family for decades.

No more problems of inanimateness! Any of the three techniques above are technically correct, though. Just be sure your language flows smoothly, no matter which way you approach the dilemma. And, as a PSA, if you choose to go with “whose”, make sure you’re not using “who’s”, which is the contracted form of “who is” and completely wrong for this purpose.

Which do you think sounds better, “whose” or “who’s”? Let us know in the comments section.

Need more grammar help? My favorite tool that helps find grammar problems and even generates reports to help improve my writing is ProWritingAid. Works with Word, Scrivener, Google Docs, and web browsers. Also, be sure to use my coupon code to get 25 percent off: WritePractice25

Coupon Code:WritePractice25 »

PRACTICE

Let’s cement this rule into our writing by composing ten sentences using “whose” for inanimate objects. When you’ve finished your ten sentences, post them in the comments section!

Liz Bureman

Liz Bureman has a more-than-healthy interest in proper grammatical structure, accurate spelling, and the underappreciated semicolon. When she’s not diagramming sentences and reading blogs about how terribly written the Twilight series is, she edits for the Write Practice, causes trouble in Denver, and plays guitar very slowly and poorly. You can follow her on Twitter (@epbure), where she tweets more about music of the mid-90s than writing.

Источник

Hi,

Is it correct to say the door whose color is black…? Can whose refer to things?

Thank you

I would say:
The door is black or the black door, but if forced to used a pronoun I’d never use who is/whose.

The door which/that is black.

Hi there

It would be more usual to say ‘the black door’, ‘the door that is black’ or, more formally, ‘the door, the colour of which is black’. What’s the context?

It is perfectly legitimate to use whose in a relative clause, as it is given in post #1: …the door, whose colour is black… Here is another example, and its source:

She knew the family

whose house we bought

. «Whose» shows possession of house. http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/who_whom.html

Yes, it’s correct.

An example is:
The house, whose windows are broken, is the oldest.

I think it is not that common to use WHOSE when you want to refrer to things but it is correct.

Yes, it’s correct.

An example is:
The house, whose windows are broken, is the oldest.

I think it is not that common to use WHOSE when you want to refrer to things but it is correct.

Yes, an easy way to think of it is that, like in this example, the windows belong to the house.

I like what the OED has to say about whose applied to things:

usually replaced by of which, except where the latter would produce an intolerably clumsy form

Different people have different levels of tolerance for the clumsiness of an of which clause, but eventually we all break down and use whose.

English is a language, the complicated grammar rules of which I do not understand. :cross:

English is a language whose complicated grammar rules I do not understand. :tick:

It is perfectly legitimate to use whose in a relative clause, as it is given in post #1: …the door, whose colour is black… Here is another example, and its source:

She knew the family

whose house we bought

. «Whose» shows possession of house. http://www.englishpage.com/minitutorials/who_whom.html

The door does metaphorically ‘possess’ a black colour, but the house does not possess the people.
Whose here points to ‘the family‘ (who own the house).

Your example would be more appropriate were we to say:
The family whose door is always open…
He is the one whose door is painted black…

Yes, it wasn’t a very good example, but at least it showed the acceptability of the possessive pronoun; the link provides some helpful, general information, too.

I like what the OED has to say about whose applied to things:

Different people have different levels of tolerance for the clumsiness of an of which clause, but eventually we all break down and use whose.

English is a language, the complicated grammar rules of which I do not understand.

English is a language whose complicated grammar rules I do not understand.

That’s hilarious! I’m afraid I seem to have quite a low level of tolerance, and would only use ‘whose’ for people, or particularly engaging / disarming animals.

That’s hilarious! I’m afraid I seem to have quite a low level of tolerance, and would only use ‘whose’ for people, or particularly engaging / disarming animals.

I am a little aardvark whose relatives are elephants and manatees,
but a litte aardvark never hurt anyone

I have no problem using «whose» as a possessive pronoun for things other than people (and animals), and I think its use is widespread and accepted (OED appears to confirm as much).

The «of which» clause might be a counsel of perfection, and I’m not saying I don’t like it — or never use it — but there is a limit to how often I would use it, and in what circumstances. It’s a construction whose day has perhaps passed…(trying saying that with an «of which» clause!)

Just out of curiosity I did a search for “the door, whose” and it produced many, many interesting ‘hits’. Even Charles Dickens gets a mention.

With inanimate objects I avoid using «whose» as much as possible. My first preference is to use an adjective («the black door»), or failing that, a «which» or «that» clause («the door that is black», «door, which is black, …»).

If the result comes out clumsy, I try to find a better way to express the thought.

With inanimate objects I avoid using «whose» as much as possible. My first preference is to use an adjective («the black door»), or failing that, a «which» or «that» clause («the door that is black», «door, which is black, …»).

If the result comes out clumsy, I try to find a better way to express the thought.

Another counsel of perfection, but if you had to choose between the following three statements, when chatting with a friend over a drink, which would most people use?

— I prefer a restaurant whose tables aren’t placed too close to each other
— I prefer a restaurant in which the tables aren’t placed too close to each other
— I prefer a restaurant that doesn’t have its tables placed too close to each other

I like what the OED has to say about whose applied to things:

Different people have different levels of tolerance for the clumsiness of an of which clause, but eventually we all break down and use whose.

English is a language, the complicated grammar rules of which I do not understand.

English is a language whose complicated grammar rules I do not understand.

How about avoiding both problems with «English is a language with complicated grammar rules I do not understand,» or, «I do not understand the complicated grammar rules of the English language.»

Another counsel of perfection, but if you had to choose between the following three statements, when chatting with a friend over a drink, which would most people use?

— I prefer a restaurant whose tables aren’t placed too close to each other
— I prefer a restaurant in which the tables aren’t placed too close to each other
— I prefer a restaurant that doesn’t have its tables placed too close to each other

I «a restaurant where the tables ….» acceptable in this case?

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2008

It is perfectly correct to use «whose» as the genitive form of «which» (that is, it is perfectly correct to use «whose» to show possession by inanimate things), and there is no reason at all to avoid using «whose» this way. This use is entirely standard, and has been part of the English language for centuries. Consider these uses:

King James Version/Authorized Version translation of the Bible (1611):
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

Samuel Johnson, Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland: [Glasgow] is the only episcopal city whose cathedral was left standing in the rage of Reformation.

John Henry Newman, Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England: Protestants cannot be expected to do justice to a religion whose professors they hate and scorn.

There is no foundation whatsoever for suggesting that this usage is anything less than perfectly correct, grammatical, standard, literary English.

During one of the tests I came across a multiple-choice sentence similar to the one below:

«The tiger …. tail is very beautiful, …..»

Will «whose» work here? (The tiger whose tail …)

If otherwise, what is the best alternative here without changing the construction?

Last edited: Nov 21, 2008

Yes, whose works in that position.

Another counsel of perfection, but if you had to choose between the following three statements, when chatting with a friend over a drink, which would most people use?

— I prefer a restaurant whose tables aren’t placed too close to each other
— I prefer a restaurant in which the tables aren’t placed too close to each other
— I prefer a restaurant that doesn’t have its tables placed too close to each other

I would use either of the last two. I understand that «whose» is grammatically acceptable; it just sounds bad to me, I avoid using it, and when editing written work I remove it. Those are my principles and if you don’t like them, well, I have others.

Wildman suggested «I prefer a restaurant where the tables aren’t placed too close to each other.» That would also be my preferred construction.

It is perfectly correct to use «whose» as the genitive form of «which» (that is, it is perfectly correct to use «whose» to show possession by inanimate things), and there is no reason at all to avoid

There is no foundation whatsoever for suggesting that this usage is anything less than perfectly correct, grammatical, standard, literary English.

Except that it sounds and reads funny to some folks.

Related to posts 19 and 20, you must beware the use of commas in relation to «whose» in defining clauses, dmitry. In your test example, «beautiful» is followed by a comma, which suggests to me that «tiger» should also have a comma after it — «The tiger, whose tail is very beautiful, remains an endangered species». Without a comma, the meaning is quite different: «The tiger whose tail is very beautiful was shot and wounded by a hunter yesterday». In the former, the «whose» detail relates to the entire species; in the latter, the «whose» detail defines a particular beast.

I would use either of the last two. I understand that «whose» is grammatically acceptable; it just sounds bad to me, I avoid using it, and when editing written work I remove it. Those are my principles and if you don’t like them, well, I have others.

Wildman suggested «I prefer a restaurant where the tables aren’t placed too close to each other.» That would also be my preferred construction.

Oh Lord, I would love you as an editor :rolleyes:

If I were to say I don’t like your principles, what are your others?

Except that it sounds and reads funny to some folks.

Clearly, they should have gone to Sunday school more often

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2008

Related to the last two posts, you must beware the use of commas in relation to «whose» in relative clauses, dmitry. In your test example, «beautiful» is followed by a comma, which suggests to me that «tiger» should also have a comma after it — «The tiger, whose tail is very beautiful, remains an endangered species». Without a comma, the meaning is quite different: «The tiger whose tail is very beautiful was shot and wounded by a hunter yesterday». In the former, the «whose» detail relates to the entire species; in the latter, the «whose» detail defines a particular beast.

If I am not mistaken, these are relative and non-relative clauses, respectively (perhaps, vice versa if I have confused the clause’s names)

The point is that in the first sentence «The tiger, whose tail is very beautiful, remains an endangered species» we can neglect the part «tail is very beautiful» and the sentence will make sense because the species is discussed in general.

However, in the second sentence «The tiger whose tail is very beautiful was shot and wounded by a hunter yesterday» we cannot do the same because then it will not be clear what particular beast was shot.

El escoces’s commentary is very essential

And you have clearly understood relative and non-relative defining clauses very well, dmitry!

If I am not mistaken, these are relative and non-relative clauses, respectively

Dmitry, I think you might be thinking of nonrestrictive and restrictive clauses.

I concur with GWB. There is no problem that I can see in using «whose» for inanimate objects.

Dmitry, I think you might be thinking of nonrestrictive and restrictive clauses.

Well, these concepts in terms of clauses are new for me. However, as Collins dictionary says

1) nonrestrictive clause denotes a relative clause that is not restrictive
2) restrictive clause, vice versa.

I presume it is the same as I have outlined.

King James Version/Authorized Version translation of the Bible (1611):
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

Clearly, they should have gone to Sunday school more often

I spent a lot of time in Sunday School when I was a lad. I had string of those perfect attendance bars that was about four inches (10 cm) long.

I memorized and recited more KJV than I care to remember, including all of Genesis 1. And despite being thoroughly grounded in the KJV I don’t use «whose» with inanimate objects.

Clearly, they should have gone to Sunday school more often

Lol. At the risk of eternal damnation, I must admit the good book is not the first reference I go to for the most effective, efficient and correct ways to convey the language.

«Whose» for inanimate objects is used all the time, it’s not just from the KJV.

How about The Economist?
«In one of a series of occasional articles on America’s larger small cities, we look at Phoenix, an instant megalopolis that has flowered incongruously in Arizona’s desert and whose breakneck growth has suddenly faltered …

Or The Guardian (UK)
So let’s gloss over the obvious point that if the modern British Christmas has a religious element at all, it is mostly of a religion whose temples are Meadowhall and the Trafford Centre

I understand that «whose» is grammatically acceptable; it just sounds bad to me, I avoid using it, and when editing written work I remove it.

I can’t imagine why it sounds bad to you, or why you avoid it, and in my opinion it is completely unjustified to remove it when editing the written work of others. As noted above, writers who are commonly considered masters of English prose have not hesitated to use it.

I can’t imagine why it sounds bad to you, or why you avoid it, and in my opinion it is completely unjustified to remove it when editing the written work of others. As noted above, writers who are commonly considered masters of English prose have not hesitated to use it.

When the document is being issued under my signature as my work with me bearing responsibility for the product (either personally or as an office of the company), I edit it to my standards.

[edited to remove a longer, more philosophic reply that was off topic]

Last edited: Nov 22, 2008

When the document is going under my signature as my work with me bearing responsibility for the product (either personally or as an office of the company), I edit it to my standards.

I hope this last post isn’t an example of your editorial standards Baz

Another counsel of perfection, but if you had to choose between the following three statements, when chatting with a friend over a drink, which would most people use?

— I prefer a restaurant whose tables aren’t placed too close to each other
— I prefer a restaurant in which the tables aren’t placed too close to each other
— I prefer a restaurant that doesn’t have its tables placed too close to each other

None of the above fo me.

I’d say » —- this place. It’s too cramped.»

I can’t imagine why it sounds bad to you, or why you avoid it, and in my opinion it is completely unjustified to remove it when editing the written work of others. As noted above, writers who are commonly considered masters of English prose have not hesitated to use it.

I’m not going to argue with you on the technical correctness. But it sounds or reads strange to a lot of people, and can distract from the message. If the message to the reader is the bottom line (which it is for me as a writer and editor), it’s better to find another correct way to say it with less potential for distraction from what you’re trying to convey.

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2008

Naturally, «whose» comes from «who», which relates to people. But because «which» does not have a genitive, many people use «whose» instead.

It’s one of those occasions when a word that does one job has been conscripted into another. An error becomes a variant, and makes its way towards being a rule.

I hope this last post isn’t an example of your editorial standards Baz

Nope — I don’t edit here (or at other message boards) as carefully as I do professionally. Rigorous editing is very time consuming. And it’s a lot easier to do when you’re getting paid for it.

I’m not going to argue with you on the technical correctness. But it sounds or reads strange to a lot of people, and can distract from the message. If the message to the reader is the bottom line (which it is for me as a writer and editor), it’s better to find another correct way to say it with less potential for distraction from what you’re trying to convey.

That’s the same way I view it.

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2008

Naturally, «whose» comes from «who», which relates to people. But because «which» does not have a genitive, many people use «whose» instead.

It’s one of those occasions when a word that does one job has been conscripted into another. An error becomes a variant, and makes its way towards being a rule.

Now we’re going round in circles. There is NO WAY on Earth that «whose», used in relation to things rather than people, is an error that has simply come to be accepted.

Trisia

At the risk of spoiling some people’s fun, may I gently remind you that the topic of the thread is the following:

Hi,

Is it correct to say the door whose color is black…? Can whose refer to things?

Thank you

Thank you for sticking to it.

The question, by Lau_85 in post #1 was, “Is it ok to use ‘whose’ when it relates to inanimate objects”, and the answer is “Yes” even though (1) some people don’t like the sound of it, (2) some people prefer not to use it, (3) some people will not use it, (4) some people find it funny, and (5) some people edit it out.

But it is perfectly ok.

At the risk of spoiling some people’s fun, may I gently remind you that the topic of the thread is the following:

Thank you for sticking to it.

Sorry, I’m new. I was working toward a point that is relevant to the discussion, I think.

It seems like an example of over-correction to avoid «whose» for inanimate objects. Not only is it perfectly correct usage, it also dates back centuries and is obviously widely used today in perfectly respectable well-edited publications.

But, getting back to the original question, although it is not incorrect to say «the door whose color is black» that is not an idiomatic way to say it. We would usually just say the ‘black door» or the «door that is black» and omit any use of the word «color.»

Now we’re going round in circles. There is NO WAY on Earth that «whose», used in relation to things rather than people, is an error that has simply come to be accepted.

Are you saying it wasn’t an error or that it hasn’t been accepted?

I’ve seen it in many contexts in all sorts of BrE.

Are you saying it wasn’t an error or that it hasn’t been accepted?

I’ve seen it in many contexts in all sorts of BrE.

I haven’t expressed myself clearly. If I understood your previous post correctly, you were suggesting that many people now use «whose» for inanimate objects because «which» doesn’t have a genitive, and that this «error» proceeded to become a variant and now perhaps a rule. If that is what you were saying, I was merely disagreeing with that view. I don’t think this use of «whose» is or ever was an error, that’s what I was trying to say!

It seems like an example of over-correction to avoid «whose» for inanimate objects. Not only is it perfectly correct usage, it also dates back centuries and is obviously widely used today in perfectly respectable well-edited publications.

But, getting back to the original question, although it is not incorrect to say «the door whose color is black» that is not an idiomatic way to say it. We would usually just say the ‘black door» or the «door that is black» and omit any use of the word «color.»

Bravo to your perspective of practicality and helpfulness.

I haven’t expressed myself clearly. If I understood your previous post correctly, you were suggesting that many people now use «whose» for inanimate objects because «which» doesn’t have a genitive, and that this «error» proceeded to become a variant and now perhaps a rule. If that is what you were saying, I was merely disagreeing with that view. I don’t think this use of «whose» is or ever was an error, that’s what I was trying to say!

Thank you.

This has been a most interesting discussion. As this thread seems to be wrapping up I leave it with a greater understanding of the use of «whose» in my native tongue. I’m always ready to learn and apply, so I just may become more flexible in my editing and usage. When I see «whose» being used with an inanimate object, I certainly will not act as reflexively as I have prior to this thread.

Thanks to all who contributed.

Lau_85

asks Is it correct to say the door whose color is black…? Can whose refer to things?
My answer is:

Yes, it is.
Yes, whose can refer to things. It is the same as «of which».
Exs.
Here is the door whose lock will not work.
Here is the door the lock of which will not work.
It is even recommended by grammarians not to use the «of which» construction, but the «whose» one, which, on the other hand, is simple and clear.

Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2010

I like (to know) what the OED has to say about whose

Here it is:

OED
whose
II rel. adj.2 Subjective genitive.

a Of whom; belonging or pertaining to whom. ME.

b Of which; belonging or pertaining to which. Usu. replaced by the—of which, except where an unacceptably clumsy construction would result.

[ Excerpted from Oxford Talking Dictionary ]

Thank you very much for your help, so I can conclude from all of this that whose can be used for referring to inanimate things; but in certain contexts it can be less commun or less appropriate.

Many thanks!!!!!!!

I think most of us avoid using «whose» as the genitive possessive form of «which». I naively propose using «thats».

correct: «The table whose leg is broken is red.»
correct: «The table, the leg of which is broken, is red»

proposed: «The table thats leg is broken is red»

«Thats», actually, isn’t a word. But seriously, we use «that’s» often enough that «thats» sounds much better than «whose».

different usage, but correct: «The table that’s over there is red.»
sounds right, but technically wrong: «The table thats leg is broken is red»

Don’t you agree that it sounds much better than «whose» and less exacting than «of which»?

Источник

This short video breaks a common myth. It explains where and how, the term, «whose», can be used for things and objects on GMAT sentence correction.

Can “Whose” be Used for Things or Objects on GMAT

There is a persistent grammatical myth that the word «whose» can only be used to refer to people and not inanimate objects. However, this common assumption is incorrect, and buying into it can trip you up in your GMAT sentence correction. In this short article, we will take a look at the usage of the word «whose» to understand where and how the word «whose» can be used to refer to things and objects.

To begin with, you must understand that when it is used as an interrogative pronoun, the word «whose» can indeed be followed by a person as well as a thing but it must refer to a person. Let us consider two examples of the word «whose» being used as an interrogative pronoun.

Direct example:

Whose mother is inquiring?

Indirect example:

Whose bike is creating the noise?

In both of these sentences, the word «whose» is used as an interrogative pronoun; this means that it is used to ask the question «To who does this belong?» At first glance, the main difference between these sentences seems to be that in the first example the word «whose» refers to a person, and in the second example, it refers to an object. However, a closer reading of these sentences will show that both instances of the word «whose» actually refer to a second entity. In the first example, the word «whose» actually refers to the mother’s child and in the second example, the word «whose» refers to the bike’s owner, who will be a person, not the bike itself. Thus, from these examples, we can see that when the word «whose» is used as an interrogative pronoun, it will always refer to a person, even if it is followed by a thing because «whose» will always be used to refer to someone who has some form of relation to whatever follows it.

However, the usage of the word «whose» is not limited to interrogative pronouns; «whose» can also be used as a relative pronoun, one used to connect a clause or phrase to a noun or pronoun. When the word «whose» is used as a relative pronoun, it can be followed by a person or a thing and refer to either one. Let us take a look at two examples of such usage:

Example 1.

The lady whose child is crying needs hot water.

Example 2.

The bike whose silencer is dysfunctional is creating the noise.

In sentence one, «whose» clearly refers to a person and in sentence two, it refers to the bike. As both of these sentences are grammatically correct, we can see that there is indeed a situation in which the word «whose» can refer to things and objects as well as people. To summarize, when the word «whose» is used as an interrogative pronoun, it can only refer to a person; however, when it is used as a relative pronoun, the word «whose» can indeed refer to things and objects.

This article has deliberately been kept brief; for a more elaborate explanation, please refer to Experts’ Global’s Stage One Sentence Correction videos.

Источник