# Real and unreal sentences using "both of whose".



## Qomi

> She has* a boyfriend,* *both of whose* houses are in Nişantaşı.


Hi to all. I saw that sentence in a grammar book. There seems to be an inconsistency between the bold parts. I think it should have been:

She has *two friends*, *both of whose *houses are in Nişantaşı. or
She has a boyfriend, *whose *house is in Nişantaşı.

Is my correction correct?  Thanks in advance.


----------



## mplsray

Qomi said:


> Hi to all. I saw that sentence in a grammar book. There seems to be an inconsistency between the bold parts. I think it should have been:
> 
> She has *two friends*, *both of whose *houses are in Nişantaşı. or
> She has a boyfriend, *whose *house is in Nişantaşı.
> 
> Is my correction correct?  Thanks in advance.



The sentence you found in the book would be correct if the boyfriend in question does indeed own two houses in Nişantaşı.


----------



## Qomi

mplsray said:


> The sentence you found in the book would be correct if the boyfriend in question does indeed own two houses in Nişantaşı.


 
OK, I got it. Thanks a lot.


----------



## bibliolept

Note that "She has a boyfriend, *whose *house is in Nişantaşı" would be correct if you omitted the comma.


----------



## JulianStuart

bibliolept said:


> Note that "She has a boyfriend, *whose *house is in Nişantaşı" would be correct if you omitted the comma.



I may be in a minority but I would use the comma, or not, to distinguish two possible senses for the same words - so it could be correct either way.

"She has a boyfriend, whose house is in Nişantaşı"
= An additional piece of information about her only boyfriend.


"She has a boyfriend whose house is in Nişantaşı"
= To distinguish from the other boyfriend who has a house somewhere else.


----------



## johndot

I can’t think of a good reason why, but this sentence just doesn’t seem right. 


> She has* a boyfriend,* *both of whose* houses are in Nişantaşı.


Even allowing for the fact that there may be more ‘lead-in’ information in the preceding paragraph of the text, I still can’t make it work.
 
But change it to this, and it’s fine:
 
She has a boyfriend whose two houses are in N.


> from *bibliiolept *post #4
> Note that "She has a boyfriend, *whose *house is in Nişantaşı" would be correct if you omitted the comma.


 I think it’s better with the comma, in this instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses


----------



## Qomi

bibliolept said:


> Note that "She has a boyfriend, *whose *house is in Nişantaşı" would be correct if you omitted the comma.


 
I agree with you, bibliolept. The comma should be omitted. As known, comma is used in non-restrictive relative clauses. Non-restrictive means that we know which boy is mentioned. The determiner *"a" *already suggests that there is only one boyfriend. This makes non-restrictive relative clause unnecessary. 

Study that examples:

My uncle, who is an architect, works at that factory. (I have got only one uncle, and he is working as an architect.)
My uncle who is an architect works at that factory. (I have got more than one uncle and I mention the architect one.)

However,

"She has *an* uncle, who is an architect." would be wrong because of *"an". *The speaker already suggests that she has only one uncle, which means that there is no need to use "unrestrictive relative clause". Comma shouldn't be used.


----------



## JulianStuart

Qomi said:


> I agree with you, bibliolept. The comma should be omitted. As known, comma is used in non-restrictive relative clauses. Non-restrictive means that we know which boy is mentioned. The determiner *"a" *already suggests that there is only one boyfriend. This makes non-restrictive relative clause unnecessary.
> 
> Study that examples:
> 
> My uncle, who is an architect, works at that factory. (I have got only one uncle, and he is working as an architect.)
> My uncle who is an architect works at that factory. (I have got more than one uncle and I mention the architect one.)
> 
> However,
> 
> "She has *an* uncle, who is an architect." would be wrong because of *"an". *The speaker already suggests that she has only one uncle, which means that there is no need to use "unrestrictive relative clause". Comma shouldn't be used.



"She has an uncle..." does not, _on its own_, mean she has only one uncle.

The following is perfectly possible, is it not?
"She has an uncle who is an architect, another uncle who is a doctor and an aunt who is a lawyer." No commas here, I think.


----------



## Qomi

JulianStuart said:


> "She has an uncle..." does not, _on its own_, mean she has only one uncle.
> 
> The following is perfectly possible, is it not?
> "She has an uncle who is an architect, another uncle who is a doctor and an aunt who is a lawyer." No commas here, I think.


 
Oh, yes. That's right. Because, "a/an" can also be used as an "indefinite pronoun". Then, it should have been "She has *one* uncle..." which makes certain that she has only one uncle.


----------



## FromPA

johndot said:


> I can’t think of a good reason why, but this sentence just doesn’t seem right.Even allowing for the fact that there may be more ‘lead-in’ information in the preceding paragraph of the text, I still can’t make it work.


 
I agree with Qomi and Johndot that this sentence doesn't make sense as it is written.   It implies that you aready know that this guy had two houses when the guy isn't even named - he's simply referred to a "a boyfriend."


----------



## Qomi

FromPA said:


> I agree with Qomi and Johndot that this sentence doesn't make sense as it is written. It implies that you aready know that this guy had two houses when the guy isn't even named - he's simply referred to a "a boyfriend."


 
What's your suggestion about the correct alternative, FromPA?


----------



## FromPA

Qomi said:


> What's your suggestion about the correct alternative, FromPA?


 
 "She has a boyfriend who has two houses in N."


----------



## JulianStuart

Qomi said:


> Oh, yes. That's right. Because, "a/an" can also be used as an "indefinite pronoun". Then, it should have been "She has *one* uncle..." which makes certain that she has only one uncle.



If you want to make sure the sentence says there is only one uncle, you *must* use the word *only*!
You can use "one" to mean one of two or more.
"She has *one *uncle who is an architect, *another* uncle who is a doctor and an aunt who is a lawyer."


----------



## iskndarbey

FromPA said:


> I agree with Qomi and Johndot that this sentence doesn't make sense as it is written.   It implies that you aready know that this guy had two houses when the guy isn't even named - he's simply referred to a "a boyfriend."



Why would we need to know his name? "She has a boyfriend, John, both of whose houses are in Nisantasi." I expect this sounds just as bad to you, although both sentences are perfectly valid if a bit confusing at first glance.


----------



## Wishfull

Qomi said:


> Hi to all. I saw that sentence in a grammar book.
> _She has* a boyfriend,* *both of whose* houses are in Nişantaşı._
> There seems to be an inconsistency between the bold parts. I think it should have been:
> 
> She has *two friends*, *both of whose *houses are in Nişantaşı. or
> She has a boyfriend, *whose *house is in Nişantaşı.
> 
> Is my correction correct?  Thanks in advance.


 
Hi.
What if the original sentence wants to express that;
Both her (one) house and his (one) house are in Nişantaşı?

Both they live in Nişantaşı.

How do you correct?


----------



## FromPA

Wishfull said:


> Hi.
> What if the original sentence wants to express that;
> Both her (one) house and his (one) house are in Nişantaşı?
> 
> Both they live in Nişantaşı.
> 
> How do you correct?


 
That's an interesting interpretation that I hadn't even considered. The problem with the sentence is that there is no antecedent that corresponds to "both of whose."   It would make more sense if the prior phrase referred to the both of them together - e.g., "She and her boyfriend, both of whose houses are in N..."


----------



## johndot

iskndarbey said:


> Why would we need to know his name? "She has a boyfriend, John, both of whose houses are in Nisantasi." I expect this sounds just as bad to you, although both sentences are perfectly valid if a bit confusing at first glance.



FromPA’s remark about the lack of a name was probably an oblique reference to the ‘something’ in the sentence that was missing—which made it strange or unworkable. As I see it, the opening clause has been left dangling.


----------



## iskndarbey

johndot said:


> FromPA’s remark about the lack of a name was probably an oblique reference to the ‘something’ in the sentence that was missing—which made it strange or unworkable. As I see it, the opening clause has been left dangling.



I agree that it feels like something is missing, since the fact that the boyfriend owns two houses, an unusual detail, is being introduced as a matter of course, and upon first reading one is tempted to look for an antecedent for 'both of whose' as we expect two houses to imply two people. That said, the sentence is grammatically correct.


----------



## FromPA

johndot said:


> FromPA’s remark about the lack of a name was probably an oblique reference to the ‘something’ in the sentence that was missing—which made it strange or unworkable. As I see it, the opening clause has been left dangling.


 
There is definitely something in the sentence that is missing.  My point about the unnamed boyfriend was intended to point out the inconsistency between the phrase "She has a boyfriend," which implies that this is someone being introduced into the narrative for the first time, and the following phrase, "both of whose houses are in N",  which implies that you already knew that he had two houses.  

I think the answer lies in the interpretation provided by Wishful - the author meant to say that both the girl and the boyfriend have houses in N. But no matter which interpretation you give it, it's a badly written sentence.


----------



## roccodaone

Qomi said:


> My uncle, who is an architect, works at that factory. (I have got only one uncle, and he is working as an architect.)
> My uncle who is an architect works at that factory. (I have got more than one uncle and I mention the architect one.)



Did you get it from the Callan method? Just curious.

I also agree with JulianStuart's definition. That's how I would understand the sentences.

"She has* a boyfriend,* *both of whose* houses are in Nişantaşı." for me sounds awkwardly, but it's grammatically correct. The boyfriend has two houses, both are in Nişantaşı.


----------



## iskndarbey

FromPA said:


> There is definitely something in the sentence that is missing.  My point about the unnamed boyfriend was intended to point out the inconsistency between the phrase "She has a boyfriend," which implies that this is someone being introduced into the narrative for the first time, and the following phrase, "both of whose houses are in N",  which implies that you already knew that he had two houses.
> 
> I think the answer lies in the interpretation provided by Wishful - the author meant to say that both the girl and the boyfriend have houses in N. But no matter which interpretation you give it, it's a badly written sentence.



Badly written, but not ungrammatical. Compare "She has a boyfriend, both of whose parents are named Wilbur." This raises no concerns, beyond the fact of the oddly named mother, given that we expect everyone to have two parents. We certainly don't expect everyone to have two houses, however, so when we encounter the original sentence, we feel like we should have been presented with this information independently.


----------



## JulianStuart

(Be prepared to stretch your imagination) _* Unless *_this is from a chapter describing all the people she knows who have two houses - and the locations of those houses is the current subject of the text -  Nişantaşı is a part of town that is affluent - and this chapter informs us of _her _place in the hierarchy of urban Turkey    (There's the beginnings of a book here I think)

For some acquaintances one house is in Nişantaşı and the other is in Ankara, for other acquaintances one house is in Nişantaşı and the other is in Izmir, but "She has a boyfriend, *both* of whose houses are in Nişantaşı"  implying that her boyfriend is richer than those acquaintances.


----------



## johndot

That’s a great scenario, JulianStuart, and maybe, one day, you’ll finish the book! But in the meantime, may I ask whether it was a Freudian slip that caused you to leave out the punctuation in the crucial phrase? It’s not a stand-alone sentence as you’ve written it above.


----------



## JulianStuart

For some acquaintances one house is in Nişantaşı and the other is in Ankara, for other acquaintances one house is in Nişantaşı and the other is in Izmir, but she has a boyfriend, *both* of whose houses are in Nişantaşı,  implying that her boyfriend is richer than those acquaintances.

If that doesn't fix it, then I'm not sure what you feel is missing  - the comma was in the right place in #22 but a full stop got lost in pasting after Nişantaşı.  Does removing the quotes make it a (long but) stand-alone sentence for you?


----------



## johndot

No. Or rather, yes!
 
What I mean is, because the phrase is now cocooned in a complete, full-flowing sentence—it’s ok.
 
_But_, it’s as a completely free-standing sentence that, to me, it just doesn’t work. I’m sure it’s not just the unusualness of the syntax... there’s something else, and I wish I could put my finger on it.


----------



## JulianStuart

I was  trying more to get the right context for the sentence than the grammar it ended up in.

She knows some people who have one house in Nişantaşı and another in Ankara, and she has a couple of friends who have one house in Nişantaşı and another in Izmir, but she has a boyfriend, both of whose houses are in Nişantaşı.

Is that a little tidier?  I'll be taking pre-orders for the book soon


----------



## Qomi

<?>, I took that sentence from a grammar book: "*All about grammar". *


----------



## Wishfull

*I have a friend, both of whose wives went to the same college.*

Hi.
If you read this sentence without no more context, which do you think?
A.This sentence doesn’t make sense at all.
B.The friend have two wives. Polygamy.
C.None of above.

I think this sentence might be written by a non-native, who doesn't know English. And the meaning might be; I have a *male* friend. Both my wife and *my friend's* *wife* went to the same college.

Thank you in advance.

edit; I am sorry, I made typo in the original post.
So I editted the bold portion.


----------



## cyberpedant

"A." 2 friends might make sense.


----------



## Michel09

Wishfull said:


> *I have a friend, both of whose wives went to the same college.*
> 
> Hi.
> If you read this sentence without no more context, which do you think?
> A.This sentence doesn’t make sense at all.
> B.The friend have two wives. Polygamy.
> C.None of above.
> 
> I think this sentence might be written by non-native, who doesn't know English. And the meaning might be; I have a friend. Both my wife and his friend went to the same college.
> 
> Thank you in advance.



Hello,

You cannot say I have _a_ friend, and then say _both_.  Both implies two persons or objects.  _A_ friend means simply one person, thus, you cannot say this in English.  As suggested, if you say you have two friends, you could use the latter.


----------



## shanya

*"both of whose wives" *that ain't english. But well I also thought both of his and his friend's wife went to the same college...


----------



## Wishfull

Michel09 said:


> Hello,
> 
> You cannot say I have _a_ friend, and then say _both_. Both implies two persons or objects. _A_ friend means simply one person, thus, you cannot say this in English. As suggested, if you say you have two friends, you could use the latter.


 
I'm sorry, I made typo in my original post. friend/wife.
So I editted my original post. Sorry.


----------



## Michel09

shanya said:


> *"both of whose wives" *that ain't english. But well I also thought both of his and his friend's wife went to the same college...



I agree.  You could say : I have two friends _whose_ wives went to the same college.


----------



## Wishfull

Thank you, everyone.
So you don't think about the answer B.
Polygamy. ( marrige of one male to many females ).


----------



## cyberpedant

If it were indeed a case of polygamy, it would have to read "...a friend whose two wives...."


----------



## Nunty

On the face of it, based solely on the sentence as given, I don't see how it can be anything other than one friend with two wives. It may not fit the cultural reference of some of us, but I see no way to interpret the sentence _*as given*_ differently.


----------



## Wishfull

cyberpedant said:


> If it were indeed a case of polygamy, it would have to read "...a friend whose two wives...."


 
OK. I got it. Thank you, cyberpedant.

So it is better to say,
"I have a friend whose two houses are in H." 
than
"I have a friend, both of whose houses are in H." 

Thanks again.


----------



## cyberpedant

You've got it! The second sentence would cause considerable consternation!


----------



## Loob

I agree with Nunty. The sentence as written implies the friend has two wives.

So my answer is (B).

I don't have a problem with the construction "both of whose...".


----------



## Nunty

I agree that the sentence is not well expressed, but it would not be impossible in spoken language.  Here is an imaginary context:

Paloni: Men with more than one wife choose them from different colleges.

Almoni: Nonsense! I have a friend, both of whose wives went to the same college.

It is not grammatically correct, but it is quite comprehensible and people do talk that way sometimes.

If the question was about the correct way to express the thought, it was poorly written.


----------



## Loob

Now I disagree with Nunty  I think "both of whose" is grammatically correct.

_I have a friend.  Both of his wives went to the same college._
>
_I have a friend,  both of whose wives went to the same college._


----------



## Nunty

Loob could be right. She's better at grammar than I am.

At best, however, I think "both of whose" is less than optimal. I would not use it in formal writing.


----------



## Michel09

Loob said:


> Now I disagree with Nunty  I think "both of whose" is grammatically correct.
> 
> _I have a friend.  Both of his wives went to the same college._
> >
> _I have a friend,  both of whose wives went to the same college._



  In agreement. "Both of whose" is gramatically correct and natural, for me.


----------



## Wishfull

*I have a friend, both of whose mouths smell very bad.*

Hi. I’m too persistent, but would you mind my third (maybe last) attempt?
If you read the sentence without no more context, which do you think?

A.The sentence makes no sense.
B.The friend is a monster or someone who has two mouths.

The first, “house”, the second “wife” , and this time “mouth”, which plural becomes unrealistic.

Thank you very much.


----------



## cycloneviv

I could be going mad (again), but I think a third possible meaning is most likely:

My friend has been married twice, to one woman at a time. Both of his wives, one of whom is now his ex-wife, went to the same college.


----------



## Sallyb36

I would think both A and B - either it makes no sense, or he is a monster with 2 mouths.


----------



## Wishfull

cycloneviv said:


> I could be going mad (again), but I think a third possible meaning is most likely:
> 
> My friend has been married twice, to one woman at a time. Both of his wives, one of whom is now his ex-wife, went to the same college.


 
Oh, how clever you are!

I couldn't think about it. I think it is perfect.
So the correct answer is C.

Thank you, everyone.
This thread shows me many things.
I thought answer A is depend on meaning and answer B is depend on the grammatical consideration.
If a sentence is grammatically correct, but not make sense, how do you think about the sentence?
( I will post another thread.)
Thanks again.


----------



## Nunty

Wishfull, if you use the indefinite article _a_ then you are talking about one person, place or thing. If you say "I have a friend" you are talking about only one person. How on earth could you say that one person has two mouths?

Maybe if you just tell us what you are trying to find out we could help you. Please do not play games with us.


----------



## zeynepy

I'm not a native english speaker but I want to add another choice to yours=)

C) He is talking about one person who has 2 mouths. The first mouth might have the real meaning but he might mean something else with the second mouth, maybe another part of that person's body which also smells bad


----------



## Wishfull

Nunty said:


> Wishfull, if you use the indefinite article _a_ then you are talking about one person, place or thing. If you say "I have a friend" you are talking about only one person. How on earth could you say that one person has two mouths?
> 
> Maybe if you just tell us what you are trying to find out we could help you. Please do not play games with us.


 
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1408686
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1413169

Hi. I am serious.
In this case, if the sentence is judged as grammatically correct, we have to consider "fiction story".
Once one thinks of "fiction story", almost anything will be correct.

I want to learn how native-English persons judge the sentence.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Nunty

Please tell us specifically what you hope to find out. If you are experimenting with a grammatical form, please tell us what your thoughts are. If you are just trying to see what people do with grammatically correct nonsense sentences, this is the wrong forum. Thank you.

Nunty, moderator


----------



## Wishfull

zeynepy said:


> I'm not a native english speaker but I want to add another choice to yours=)
> 
> C) He is talking about one person who has 2 mouths. The first mouth might have the real meaning but he might mean something else with the second mouth, maybe another part of that person's body which also smells bad


Thank you for your reply. It is funny.
BUT I'm sorry, I'm so serious.
I thought I used "heart", because one person has one heart, the organ. 
But I didn't. If it is referred to mental word, there is possibilty of two hearts. 
So I used mouth, which one person has just one.......

But as you said, it might be two, and my attempt is going to another track....

I don't want to ask you "riddle", because this is WordReference forum.


----------



## Wishfull

Nunty said:


> Please tell us specifically what you hope to find out. If you are experimenting with a grammatical form, please tell us what your thoughts are. If you are just trying *to see what people do with grammatically correct nonsense sentences*, this is the wrong forum. Thank you.
> 
> Nunty, moderator


 
Hi. Thank you moderator. 
Sorry this is wrong forum. 
Please close and delete this thread.
Verry sorry to those who took their important time to my wrong thread.


----------



## las_rosas_rojas

I think removing or moving the "both" allows it's actual meaning to come out. As in:
*I have a friend, both of whose wives went to the same college. (original)*
*I have a friend whose wives went to the same college.                (no both)*
*I have a friend whose wives both went to the same college.       (both moved)*


----------



## Valvs

I believe that the problem with the phrase "both of whose wives" is logical rather than grammatical. You can only say "both wives" if you reasonably sure that the person you are talking to already knows that there are *two* wives. That is why Wishful's sentence may sound odd or even absurd.
However, let's suppose we are reading a hypothetical book about a culture where every man is supposed to have exactly two wives, no more, no less. In the context of such a book, would the sentence still sound incorrect? I don't think so. 
I know I am stretching it a bit, but I am just using this example with the hypothetical book to demonstrate that the sentence is _grammatically_ correct. Whether or not it will make sense in a different context depends largely on the context.


----------



## Cagey

I agree that there is nothing exceptional about the construction "both of whose". If it is used in contexts that express unexpected ideas, we may wonder whether it is correct, or whether we understand it properly.

If it is used to talk about things that are known to come in pairs, I don't think people would find it strange._ I have a friend both of whose parents speak shqip_.**  *​It is also a striking way introduce an odd fact:
_ He met a friendly Martian, both of whose heads were covered with curly blond hair. 
_​[_***_Another name for the Albanian language. I just learned it today.]


----------



## kalamazoo

I think the sentence is okay. And I would assume that either the friend has two wives at once (polygamy) or (more likely) that he has had two wives in his lifetime as a result of being married two times (and divorced at least once).  So it would as so often depend on context.


----------



## iskndarbey

Valvs said:


> I believe that the problem with the phrase "both of whose wives" is logical rather than grammatical. You can only say "both wives" if you reasonably sure that the person you are talking to already knows that there are *two* wives. That is why Wishful's sentence may sound odd or even absurd.
> However, let's suppose we are reading a hypothetical book about a culture where every man is supposed to have exactly two wives, no more, no less. In the context of such a book, would the sentence still sound incorrect? I don't think so.
> I know I am stretching it a bit, but I am just using this example with the hypothetical book to demonstrate that the sentence is _grammatically_ correct. Whether or not it will make sense in a different context depends largely on the context.



I agree completely -- this sentence is not particularly well written, but any problems it has are due to cultural expectations rather than grammatical errors. Literally, it means that your friend either has two wives now (as do many people around the world) or has been married twice to two different people, and that both of his wives attended the same college.

Whether the author of the sentence intended this meaning is of course open for debate, but, intentionally or not, they have formed a perfectly grammatical sentence.

Consider the grammatically identical sentence "I have a friend, both of whose parents went to the same college." This still isn't the most natural way to phrase the idea, but it should raise no grammatical red flags for anybody given that having two parents is more normal than having two wives.

(Sorry for the repetition, just saw now that Cagey made the same point I did.)


----------



## iskndarbey

If we had said "I have a friend. Both of his wives went to the same college." I think everybody would agree that the only interpretation possible is that your friend himself has or has had two wives. The original sentence is the same, but people see ambiguity because 'whose' can be used with either a singular or plural antecedent whereas 'his' is obviously only singular. When we see 'both of whose wives', two wives being something we expect to be attached to two different people, we automatically look for a plural antecedent to 'whose', and, not finding one, wrongly conclude that the sentence is ungrammatical.


----------



## johndot

This thread deals with exactly the same topic as a recent one (originally entitled *She has a boyfriend, both of whose houses are in Nişantaşı.* and latterly *both of whose)**.*

When I was participating in that thread I maintained that the sentence structure was, if not wrong, unnecessarily awkward, and I stuck to that opinion despite some valiant attempts (notably by JulianStuart) to convince me otherwise by rephrasing the long title into something ‘credible’. It didn’t work!

Between then and now I’ve given further thought to _why_ this structure (X has a Y, both of whose Zs are xxx) seems to me to be ‘not right’, and I think I’ve managed to drag up from the dim distant past the reason. The hazy memory I have is of a sentence, somewhere in a grammar book, which I can remember verbatim; the paragraph referred to relative pronouns, and it stated that “_whose_ should always be placed next to or as near as possible to the noun to which it relates _in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion_.” Needless to say, I cannot find confirmation of that rule. Goggle has let me down.

Nevertheless, it makes sense, doesn’t it? If the topic sentence here is changed slightly, we have *I have a friend, whose two wives went to the same college.*

And I can live with that.

Edit: *las rosas rojas* has made very similar suggestions, both of which are much, much better than the original.


----------



## kalamazoo

We have kind of a double whammy here, with a somewhat awkward construction and a somewhat puzzling meaning. THe puzzling meaning makes us notice the awkard construction more. If the sentence said "I have a friend both of whose children went to Harvard," I don't think we would be worrying about the grammar.


----------



## Cagey

(Response to johndot in post #25.)

I have no objection to expressing a stylistic preference for "whose two" over "both of whose", and basing it on the reasoning you offer. 

1) However, "both of whose" is also grammatically acceptable.  It can be used to emphasize the inclusiveness, for instance in this example taken from the web:Can a child, _both of whose_ parents are rH positive, be rH negative?​It seems to me that the following does not express the idea as strongly:Can a child, _whose_ parents are rH positive, be rH negative?​To me, the following seems more redundant than emphatic.Can a child, _whose two _parents are rH positive, be rH negative?​2) In the following sentence, "both of whose" seems necessary for clarity. "Whose" by itself would suggest that only the latter influenced her, because of the convention you cite above.[Her tutors were] Eduard Fraenkel and Donald MacKinnon, _both of whose_ influence is evident in her later work. ​ Sources of quoted sentences: 
1) If two parents are rh positive, can their child be rh negative?<br ...
2) Widdows, The moral vision _of_ Iris Murdoch


----------



## cyberpedant

I would put it this way:
Can a child whose parents are _both _rH positive be rH negative?
[Commas left out on purpose as this is a restrictive clause.]
The "both of whose..." version still, even after all the above, seems somewhat imprecise to me.


----------



## johndot

Cagey said:


> (Response to johndot in post #25.)
> 
> I have no objection to expressing a stylistic preference for "whose two" over "both of whose", and basing it on the reasoning you offer.
> 
> 1) However, "both of whose" is also grammatically acceptable.  It can be used to emphasize the inclusiveness, for instance in this example taken from the web:Can a child, _both of whose_ parents are rH positive, be rH negative?​It seems to me that the following does not express the idea as strongly:Can a child, _whose_ parents are rH positive, be rH negative?​To me, the following seems more redundant than emphatic.Can a child, _whose two _parents are rH positive, be rH negative?​2) In the following sentence, "both of whose" seems necessary for clarity. "Whose" by itself would suggest that only the latter influenced her, because of the convention you cite above.[Her tutors were] Eduard Fraenkel and Donald MacKinnon, _both of whose_ influence is evident in her later work. ​ Sources of quoted sentences:
> 1) If two parents are rh positive, can their child be rh negative?<br ...
> 2) Widdows, The moral vision _of_ Iris Murdoch



First of all, we have to ignore *2)* because the subject is plural and doesn’t therefore fit the template of _X has a Y, both of whose Zs are xxx_
 
Secondly the examples in *1)* don’t fit the template either!
*a) *Each example is a question, which changes word order anyway;
*b)* none of the opening phrases is an independent clause, as is the case in the topic sentence;
*c)* in the topic sentence, _whose_ is relative to the object in the main clause rather than, in these examples, to the subject (a child);
*d)* as others have said earlier, part of the reason that the topic sentence is bizarre is the _unusualness_ or unexpectedness of “two wives”; in the case of a child though, you _do_ expect two parents.
 
Given these ‘alterations’, it would be strange indeed if you couldn’t make the relative pronoun work one way or another!


----------



## Cagey

My objection was to what I understood to be a generalized claim that "both of whose" should not be used.  I was presenting examples in which it seemed to me that "both of whose" was an acceptable and reasonable choice.  Obviously there are other ways to say the same things if you wish.  

If I misunderstood you, and you were speaking about the one specific sentence and your own stylistic preferences, I have no objections.  I apologize for my misunderstanding.


----------



## johndot

I think more than anything what baffled me (and others) in this and the other thread was just how much the given sentences seemed odd to so many people—and inexplicably so. Really strange!


----------



## JulianStuart

I think they are both somewhat unusual situations.  In order for them to appear even somewhat "normal" as one reads them, one needs to construct unusual scenarios that the reader would have been aware of.  In the earlier thread that johndot refers to, my hypothetical book chapter was specifically about people who own two houses in Turkish cities.  In _this_ thread, in a hypothetical book about people who have (or have had) two wives, a particular friend had two wives (probably in succession in the least weird scenario) and the narrative is trying to emphasise the peculiarity that they both went to the same college (VALVS post #20).
I think the grammar of "both of whose" is acceptable: 

She has a boyfriend, both of whose houses are in Nişantaşı. 

She has a friend, both of whose wives went to Cornell U.

If the context is presented before the "offending" sentences occur, then they read OK.  There may be many better ways to express the same thought, but it is the scenarios that are weird rather than the grammar.  This seems like deja vu for the third time


----------



## Peterrobertini7

Cagey said:


> My objection was to what I understood to be a generalized claim that "both of whose" should not be used.  I was presenting examples in which it seemed to me that "both of whose" was an acceptable and reasonable choice.  Obviously there are other ways to say the same things if you wish.
> 
> If I misunderstood you, and you were speaking about the one specific sentence and your own stylistic preferences, I have no objections.  I apologize for my misunderstanding.



Accordibg to 'Practical English Usage' 'both' and 'both of' are possible before a noun with a determiner (the, my, his, these). We can drop THE or a possessive after 'both' and OF is not used in this case.

both (of) these oranges are bad
she has eaten both (of) (the)chops

so Both of whose... is followed by a preposition+a possessive relative word 'WHOSE'.


----------



## johndot

Thinking about it some more, and especially in the light of one of *Cagey*’s examples in post #62:


> Can a child, _both of whose_ parents are rH positive, be rH negative?


I think I’ve hit upon the reason some sentences seem ‘awkward’ while others do not (or at least, less so). I actually said this in an earlier post, but worded it differently, so I didn’t realise the implications:
I have no trouble accepting _‘both of whose_’ opening a relative clause _when it pertains to the subject of the main clause,_ but I *do* have trouble accepting _‘both of whose’_ opening a relative clause _when it pertains to the object of the main clause:_
 
*subject*: His friend, both of whose houses are massive, is rich.
*object*: He has a friend, both of whose houses are massive.
 
That I think is where the trouble lies. Why would anyone bother to say the *object* sentence like that, when it’s easier to say simply: “He has a friend who has two massive houses.” Or, to stress the ‘two’: “He has a friend and _both_ of his houses are massive.” And if, because it’s so much simpler, everyone phrases that sort of sentence in just that way, no wonder it sounds strange when suddenly it’s said in an unnecessarily convoluted fashion.
 
And another thing:
 
(This point, too, I was trying to put my finger on earlier.) When I say the *object* sentence above, “He has a friend, both of whose houses are massive...” I get to the end and feel that I want to add something; I feel that the sentence isn’t complete... unless... what about “He has a friend, both of whose houses are massive, _who is stinking rich!_
 
Yes, that’s better. That’s a finished sentence. That works for me.


----------



## justfitz

I am trying to figure out this sentence for an editing job.  I've read a bunch of posts regarding "both of whose" and would like some feedback on this sentence:

*My two sisters, both of whose presence in my memories has kept me on course.

*I just think this is wrong: firstly, the writer is talking about two presences--not one. After that I am not sure-- I think the problem is that the writer is referring to the _two sisters_ with the word "both" when it should be the two presences (which just sounds weird).  I am thinking of rewriting the sentence as:  *My two sisters whose presence in my memories has kept me on course*. Presence here referring to _their presence_ (collective...?) what do you think.  Do I loose meaning or clarify meaning with this rewrite? Is it grammatical? Does it pervert or lose the intention of the original? Corrections and opinions welcomed!


----------



## Loob

Hello justfitz - welcome to the forums

Your part-sentence reminds me of one of the examples quoted by Cagey in post 62: _[Her tutors were] Eduard Fraenkel and Donald MacKinnon, both of whose influence is evident in her later work. _

I felt uncomfortable with the 'tutors' example and I feel even more uncomfortable with your 'two sisters' one.

I think it's because I want {need?} "both of whose X" to be 'translatable' as "both of his/her etc X", and not as "the X of both of them".

Cagey's 'child' sentence works for me because:
_Can a child, both of whose parents are rH positive, be rH negative?_
= (more or less)_ Can a child be rH negative if *both of his* parents are rH positive?_

But
_[Her tutors were] Eduard Fraenkel and Donald MacKinnon, both of whose influence is evident in her later work_
_=_
_[Her tutors were] Eduard Fraenkel and Donald MacKinnon and the influence *of both of them* is evident in her later work_
(I wouldn't say 'both of their influence'.)

And (expanding your part-sentence randomly, to make it a full sentence)
_I pay tribute to my two sisters, both of whose presence in my memories has kept me on course._
_= _
_I pay tribute to my two sisters: the presence *of both of them* in my memories has kept me on course._
(I wouldn't say 'both of their presence'.)

Now I've written all this, I think what I've said boils down to "I don't like _both of whose_ with a following singular noun"

Which is what you suggested in your post



I _much_ prefer your suggested re-write!


----------



## justfitz

Thanks Loob. The parallel with Cagey's tutor example is clear. I think I'm going with my rewrite.


----------



## johndot

> My two sisters, both of whose presence in my memories has kept me on course.



The reason this sentence is so strange is simply that the subject clause _My two sisters_ hasn’t got a predicate.


----------



## Loob

johndot said:


> The reason this sentence is so strange is simply that the subject clause _My two sisters_ hasn’t got a predicate.


Is that the only reason, johndot?  In my post, I expanded justfitz's part-sentence by inserting "I pay tribute to" at the beginning. 

Does the following sound OK to you:
_I pay tribute to my two sisters, both of whose presence in my memories has kept me on course_
_?_

It doesn't to me, as I said...


----------



## justfitz

The whole sentence would be: *I'd like to thank my two sisters, both of whose presence in my memories has kept me on course.*
Do you think that's ok?
I was thinking of changing it to: *I'd like to thank my two sisters, whose presence in my memories has kept me on course.*
Still awkward...open to suggestions. Thanks.


----------



## johndot

My comment was on the sentence as it stood. If you make _My two sisters_ the object of _I pay tribute to_ or _I would like to thank_ then at least the sentence is complete—otherwise you would have to add an object clause to the original.
 
Having done that its necessary to make _presence_ plural (to go with _both_), but that doesn’t really run off the tongue, does it?
 
I just don’t understand why the phrase _both of whose_ is being treated as not only desirable but necessary. Why not:
 
“I’d like to thank my two sisters; their presence in my memory has kept me on course.”


----------



## Loob

Hi again johndot: I'd go with your re-write or with justfitz's.  Both work for me...


----------



## justfitz

I agree that the phrase is _not good_, generally. I would never write it...I just got stuck editing it!


----------



## juandiego

Hello everybody.

I'll intend to analyze it without examples, just the intrinsic concepts of the terms. I think it's about a logical problem (semantical) rather than grammatical.

*Both* means one and the other. In other words, all, though just two.

I don't see any problem in the concept _"two of whose"_ because it singles a precise number out of a bigger one.

I wonder whether the problem is precisely that _both_ and _whose_ are redundant because either the former and the latter are referring to the same number of items considered; the whole pack.

According to this line of reasoning, the same happens in case of _"all of whose"_. So, in my opinion, the first term can be whatever number wanted but never something implying all the things for which would be enough with the relative _"whose"_ by itself.

(Excuse my English)


----------

