Who’s is a contraction of “who is” or “who has”. “Whose” is a question word we use to ask who owns something.
Both who’s and whose come from the pronoun that is who. Both words sound exactly the same when you are speaking, but the spelling is where the difference comes in. These two words are so similar that even the best writers can have a hard time remembering which is which.
The rules of when to use each word are pretty simple once you understand them, but until then the words can bring you a lot of confusion.
The words are homophones, but they can’t be used interchangeably as most people think. They have different meanings as who’s is two words crunched into one and whose is just one word.
Who’s Meaning and Use
Who’s is a contraction of the words who is or who has. The apostrophe in the word represents the letters that are missing from is and has when the two words are combined. You will use who’s when you would normally say who is or who has.
Examples
Who’s going to the dinner party?
Who’s seen that movie already?
Who’s picking you up from the airport?
Who’s the best person to help me with my math?
Whose Meaning and Use
Whose is considered to be a possessive pronoun. You will use this word when you are asking who owns something. For example, if you are asking who the nice car, you would say, “Whose nice car is that?”
You would also use this word when you find something, and you don’t know who it belongs to. Asking whose item it is will be the proper way to find out who owns it, not who’s.
Examples
Whose kitten is this?
Whose car are we taking?
Whose shoes are in the middle of the floor?
Whose homework is this?
Determining which word you are supposed to use can be difficult, but it doesn’t have to be. Take a look at some of these examples that can help you out!
Example: Who is in third place?
Correct: Who’s in third place?
Incorrect: Whose in third place?
Example: Who owns these shoes?
Correct: Whose shoes are these?
Incorrect: Who’s shoes are those.
Example: Who is staying for dinner?
Correct: Who’s staying for dinner?
Incorrect: Whose staying for dinner?
Example: Who owns the car blocking the driveway?
Correct: Whose car is blocking the driveway?
Incorrect: Who’s car is blocking the driveway?
Remembering the Difference
Who’s and whose get mixed up just like the words it’s and its. It’s is a contraction of it is or it has, and its is the possessive form, just like who’s and whose. One simple way to keep these words apart is by remembering that possessive adjectives don’t usually have an apostrophe (mine, yours, theirs, etc.).
It can be overwhelming trying to remember the difference between these two words, but it doesn’t have to be. There are a few tricks that you can keep in mind to help you remember which to use when.
First, say what you are trying to say out loud. If you can say who is or who has and the sentence still makes sense, use who’s. If the sentence doesn’t make sense, use whose.
Next, think of what comes after the word. Whose is a possessive word and will usually be followed by a noun. If a noun comes immediately after the word, you should use whose. If there’s no noun, use who’s.
Finally, consider whether or not the word you are using is supposed to be a contraction. Who’s is a contraction, while whose is not. The apostrophe in the contraction stands for the missing letters, and whose doesn’t have any.
- Author
- Recent Posts
Conor is the main writer here at One Minute English and was an English teacher for 10 years. He is interested in helping people with their English skills and learning about using A.I tools at work.
Whose vs. who’s: which word is right for your sentence? One is a pronoun, and the other is a contraction. Here, we’ll show you how to remember the difference between these two homophones. Also, you’ll see plenty of examples so you never doubt when to use which.
Main Whose vs. Who’s Takeaways:
- Whoseand who’s are homophones but they are not interchangeable.
- Whose vs. who’s are both correct but have different functions.
- The easiest way to know if you’re using the correct word is to replace the word with who is/who has/who was. If the sentence still makes sense, then who’s is correct. If not, then whose is probably correct.
- On one hand, whose describes possession.
- Use whose when referencing ownership.
- On the other hand, who’s is a contraction of who is or who has.
- Use who’s to replace who is or who has in casual conversations where contractions are appropriate.
Whose vs. Who’s
When we see an apostrophe followed by the letter ‘s,’ we tend to associate this with ownership. And, most of the time, this rule holds true. However, almost every rule in the English language has an exception, and this one is no different.
For example, when it comes to it’s vs. its and whose vs. who’s, the word with the apostrophe ‘s’ is not the possessive one. Rather, it’s a contraction.
Whose and who’s are homophones, meaning these words sound the same. However, they have different spellings, meanings, and functions. On one hand, who’s is a contraction that links the pronoun who with the verb is or has. Like other contractions, it’s appropriate for casual conversations, but should be spelled out in formal writing.
Conversely, whose is a possessive pronoun, which expresses “to whom something belongs.” It often describes a person, but you can also use it for a pet or location.
- Whose definition:(pronoun) a question word used to determine which entity is responsible for an item
- Who’s definition:(contraction) who is; who was; who has
Whose is often a replacement for whoor whom. But, watch out; you may need to rephrase your sentence. You can’t necessarily swap the words.
How to Remember the Difference Between Whose vs. Who’s
Here’s the easiest way to remember the difference between whose vs. who’s. Since who’s is a contraction for the phrases who is and who has, try replacing the word with who is or who has.
If the sentence still makes sense and is it still grammatically correct, then choose the contraction who’s (with the apostrophe ‘s’). Otherwise, whose (without the apostrophe ‘s’) is probably the word you want.
Whose refers to possession, while who’s is a contraction that means who is or who has.
Who is Contraction in Grammar?
In English grammar, who’s (with the apostrophe ‘s’) is the contraction for who is, not the possessive pronoun whose (without the apostrophe ‘s’). Other examples of contractions, or shortened words made by combining multiple words, include don’t (do not), can’t (can not), you’ve (you have), and I’ll (I will).
Use the contraction who’s in casual speaking and writing. For more formal situations, it’s always best to spell out the contraction.
Whose vs. Who’s Sentences
Here’s how to use whose vs. who’s in a sentence:
An apostrophe and an ‘s’ usually indicate ownership or possession. However, who’s breaks this rule. It’s a contraction, not a possessive word.
Who’s or Whose Birthday?
The correct answer is: whose birthday. Why? Because whose is a possessive pronoun while who’s is a contraction of the phrases who is and who has. Therefore, the question is really: who does the birthday belong to?
Since this is a question about possession, we know that the possessive pronoun whoseis correct. Confirm this by replacing the word with who is (Who is birthday?). Since the sentence doesn’t make sense, we’re confident that whose is correct.
Whose Name or Who’s Name?
The correct way to phrase this is: whose name, notwho’s name. The real question is about who the name belongs to. In other words, this phrase is about possession. Since whose is a possessive pronoun, it makes more sense than who’s, which is the contraction for the phrases who is and who has.
You can easily check if whose is the correct answer by replacing the word with who is. Does the sentence still make sense? If so, then the contraction who’s is the correct word. If not, then the possessive pronoun whose is correct.
Who’s Idea of Whose Idea?
Here, the correct phrasing is whose idea, not who’s idea. The question is actually “to whom does this idea belong” or “who came up with this idea?” As a result, the phrase is about finding out who possesses the idea. Therefore, we need a possessive pronoun like whose instead of a contraction like who is.
You can check that whose is the correct answer by replacing the word with the phrase who is. If the sentence doesn’t make sense, then whose is correct. If the sentence does make sense, then who’s is correct.
Whose Fault or Who’s Fault?
Whether whose fault or who’s fault is correct depends on what you are trying to say. For example, if you are trying to understand which person the blame belongs to, then whose fault would be the correct way to phrase this. That is because whoseis a possessive pronoun, meaning we use it to show possession or ownership.
However, if there is a person named Fault and you are trying to understand who this person is, then who’s fault would be correct. This is because the who’s is a contraction of who is.
Who’s Phone or Whose Phone?
Whose phone is correct, not who’s phone. Because the phrase is about the person who owns or possesses the phone, we need a possessive pronoun.
One way to confirm that whose is correct is to replace the word with the phrase who is. If the sentence still make sense, then you need who’s, or the contraction of who is. However, if the sentence doesn’t make sense, then you need to use whose.
Who’s Son or Whose Son?
In this example, the correct phrasing is whose son, not who’s son. The reason is that the sentence refers to whom the son belongs. In other words, the sentence is about possession or ownership. So, we need to use a possessive pronoun.
Since whose is a possessive pronoun, it’s the correct choice. This is confusing because using an apostrophe + ‘s’ usually indicates possession. However, who’s is a contraction of who is, and not a possessive pronoun. As a result, you can check that whose is correct by replacing the word with who is. Since the sentence no longer makes sense, you know that who’s is incorrect.
More Whose and Who’s Sentence Examples
Here are examples of how to use whose vs. who’s in a sentence:
Ready for a Quick Whose vs. Who’s Quiz?
Whose vs Who’s Question #1
Correct!
Wrong!
The answer is FALSE. “Whose” describes possession, while “who’s” is a contraction for «who is» or «who has.»
Whose Question #2
A. Noun
B. Adjective
C. Pronoun
D. Adverb
Correct!
Wrong!
The answer is C. As a possessive pronoun, “whose” indicates that something belongs to someone.
Who’s Question #3
A. A contraction of who is
B. His or hers
C. Plural of who
D. A contraction of whose
Correct!
Wrong!
The answer is A. “Who’s” is a contraction of “who is.”
Whose and Who’s Question #4
Correct!
Wrong!
The answer is TRUE. Although both words sound alike, they are spelled differently.
Whose vs Who’s Question #5
Correct!
Wrong!
The answer is WHOSE. Whose is used to describe an entity that owns or possesses an item.
Whose or Who’s Question #6
Correct!
Wrong!
The answer is WHO’S. You can swap “who’s” for “who is” in the sentence.
Read More: Whoever vs. Whomever: How to Always Pick the Right one
Who’s is a contraction of «who is» (‘Who’s there?’) or «who has» (‘Who’s got the time?’). Whose shows possession («Whose shoes are these?»). In this case, as for it’s and its, the apostrophe stands for missing letters—not possession. Remember that possessive adjectives like my, your, his, her, and its do not have ‘s, and neither does whose.
We all know who is a good dog.
How to Use ‘Who’s’
Much like it’s and its, who’s and whose are two words that are confused very frequently. Let’s start by breaking it down simply:
Who’s is a contraction of who is or who has. It can be found at the beginning of a question:
Who’s [=who is] at the door?
Who’s [=who has] got the remote?
as well as with who functioning as a relative pronoun
a teacher who’s [=who is] admired by everyone
a teacher who’s [=who has] inspired thousands of students.
How to Use ‘Whose’
Whose is a possessive adjective meaning “of or relating to whom or which.” Grammatically speaking, we use the term possessive to refer to relationships beyond simple ownership. As with other words of possession, it can also be used to express association, agency, or the receiving of an action:
Whose sunglasses are these?
Jake, whose sister is an archeologist, is considering studying the subject as well.
The firefighter, whose brave actions saved dozens, was presented with a medal.
They live in a port city whose economy relies heavily on fishing.
a novel whose publication paved the way for a burgeoning genre
I ran into Mark, whose house I painted last year.
a building whose demolition had been in the works for years
The most well-known demonstration of possessive whose might be in the title of the comedy show Whose Line Is It Anyway?
Whose can also function as a pronoun meaning “that which belongs to whom”:
I found a hat, but I didn’t know whose it was.
We all submitted great ideas, but whose was the best?
Tricks for Keeping Them Separate
The confusion between whose and who’s is very similar to the confusion that occurs between it’s and its, where it’s serves as a contraction of it is and its as the possessive form of it. That is mainly due to the fact that we are inclined to interpret automatically any word ending in apostrophe-s as possessive. Instead of saying, “I really like the paintings of Bob,” you’re more likely to say, “I really like Bob’s paintings.”
So when we need a possessive form for who, it’s natural for one to gravitate toward the possessive-s form, so “an artist whose essays I really like” becomes “an artist who’s essays I really like.” But that would not be correct.
One thing to remember is that possessive adjectives usually don’t contain an apostrophe: my, your, his, her, its, our, their. Remembering that whose falls into the same category might help to steer you away from the apostrophe.
Ed Good
—
Grammar Tips
Font size:
The word who is the subjective or nominative case. It acts as a subject of a clause (The runner who won the race) or as a predicate nominative, that is, a pronoun linked to the verb to be or other linking verb (Who’s who).
The word whom is the objective case. It acts as the object of a verb (We invited whom?) or as the object of a preposition (the politician to whom he was indebted).
The word whose is the possessive case. It acts in place of a noun appearing in the possessive (the person whose views we admire).
The correct use of who-whom-whose is discussed thoroughly in the Parts of Speech section of Grammar.com. Click here for the beginning of that discussion.
Rate this article:3.5 / 3 votes
Email
Print
Have a discussion about this article with the community:
https://www.grammar.com/who-whom-or-whose
0 Comments
Notify me of new comments via email.
Citation
Use the citation below to add this article to your bibliography:
Style:MLAChicagoAPA
«who, whom, or whose.» Grammar.com. STANDS4 LLC, 2023. Web. 13 Apr. 2023. <https://www.grammar.com/who-whom-or-whose>.
Powered by CITE.ME
-
#1
Hi,
Is it correct to say the door whose color is black…? Can whose refer to things?
Thank you
-
#2
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.
-
#3
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?
-
#4
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
-
#5
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.
-
#6
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.
-
#7
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.
English is a language whose complicated grammar rules I do not understand.
-
#8
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…
-
#9
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.
-
#10
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.
-
#11
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
-
#12
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!)
-
#13
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.
-
#14
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.
-
#15
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
-
#16
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
-
#17
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.
-
#18
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
-
#19
Yes, whose works in that position.
-
#20
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.
-
#21
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.
-
#22
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
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
-
#23
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
-
#24
And you have clearly understood relative and non-relative defining clauses very well, dmitry!
-
#25
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.
-
#26
I concur with GWB. There is no problem that I can see in using «whose» for inanimate objects.
-
#27
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.
-
#28
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
![:D]( "Big Grin :D")
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.
-
#29
Clearly, they should have gone to Sunday school more often
![:D]( "Big Grin :D")
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.
-
#30
«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
-
#31
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.
-
#32
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
-
#33
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
-
#34
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
-
#35
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.
-
#36
I hope this last post isn’t an example of your editorial standards Baz
![:D]( "Big Grin :D")
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
-
#37
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.
-
#38
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.
-
#39
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.
-
#40
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.
-
#41
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.»
-
#42
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.
-
#43
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!
-
#44
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.
-
#45
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.
-
#46
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.
-
#47
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
-
#48
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 ]
-
#49
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!!!!!!!
-
#50
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»?