# "Whose" used with inanimate objects



## Lau_85

Hi,

Is it correct to say _the door whose color is black..._? Can _whose_ refer to things?

Thank you


----------



## Aardvark01

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.


----------



## Broccolicious

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?


----------



## johndot

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


----------



## Kora_

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.


----------



## beccamutt

Kora_ said:


> 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.


----------



## kitenok

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.


----------



## Aardvark01

johndot said:


> 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...


----------



## johndot

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.


----------



## Broccolicious

kitenok said:


> 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.


----------



## Aardvark01

Broccolicious said:


> 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


----------



## El escoces

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!)


----------



## johndot

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.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

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.


----------



## El escoces

Basil Ganglia said:


> 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


----------



## wildman

kitenok said:


> 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."



El escoces said:


> 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?


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

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 Sco_t_land_: _ [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.


----------



## Dmitry_86

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?


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Yes, _whose_ works in that position.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

El escoces said:


> 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.


----------



## wildman

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> 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.


----------



## El escoces

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.



Basil Ganglia said:


> 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?



wildman said:


> Except that it sounds and reads funny to some folks.


 
Clearly, they should have gone to Sunday school more often


----------



## Dmitry_86

El escoces said:


> 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


----------



## El escoces

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


----------



## kitenok

> 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.


----------



## kalamazoo

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


----------



## Dmitry_86

kitenok said:


> 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.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> 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._





El escoces said:


> 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.


----------



## wildman

El escoces said:


> 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.


----------



## kalamazoo

"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


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Basil Ganglia said:


> 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.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> 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]


----------



## El escoces

Basil Ganglia said:


> 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


----------



## wildman

El escoces said:


> 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."



GreenWhiteBlue said:


> 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.


----------



## Kevin Beach

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.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

El escoces said:


> 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. 



wildman said:


> 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.


----------



## El escoces

Kevin Beach said:


> 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:



Lau_85 said:


> 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.


----------



## johndot

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.


----------



## wildman

Trisia said:


> 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.


----------



## kalamazoo

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."


----------



## Kevin Beach

El escoces said:


> 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.


----------



## El escoces

Kevin Beach said:


> 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!


----------



## wildman

kalamazoo said:


> 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.


----------



## Kevin Beach

El escoces said:


> 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.


----------



## Basil Ganglia

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.


----------



## losilmer

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.


----------



## losilmer

kitenok said:


> 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 ]


----------



## Lau_85

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!!!!!!!


----------



## w44566

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"?


----------



## beccamutt

w44566 said:


> Don't you agree that it sounds much better than "whose" and less exacting than "of which"?


 
Sorry, but no.    As you said yourself, _thats_ is not a word, and as such it sounds horrible to my ears!


----------



## Basil Ganglia

beccamutt said:


> w44566 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you agree that it sounds much better than "whose" and less  exacting than "of which"?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but no.    As you said yourself, _thats_ is not a word, and as such it sounds horrible to my ears!
Click to expand...

I agree totally with beccamutt.  

Awkward constructions such as these can almost always be fixed with better syntax, e.g., "the red table that has a broken leg".


----------



## kalamazoo

How about just saying "The red table with a broken leg...".   We really probably don't need the "whose" construction anyway a lot of the time.


----------



## cuchuflete

w44566 said:


> 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"?



Welcome to the forums, w44566.

I don't think your offer is one I'll accept.  I find the proposed non-word usage clumsy.
Despite your opening assertion, many people are comfortable using whose to associate
items or attributes with whatever they belong to or are a part of.

_The sentence whose syntax is contorted will not benefit from the insertion of neologisms.

_Of course I'd rather say, _The sentence with contorted syntax...,_ but substituting _thats _for _whose_ is no improvement.


----------



## iskndarbey

If I heard anyone saying "The table thats leg is broken off", I would be sorely tempted to take the broken table leg and beat them about the head with it.


----------



## kalamazoo

I think what people actually say is "The table that iits leg is broken off is around the corner."  Grammatical? Not at all.  Colloquial?  Yes.  To be avoided at all costs by non-native speakers? Yes.

(Think: "Which table?" "The table that its leg is broken off.")

Sorry.


----------



## Kevin Beach

kalamazoo said:


> I think what people actually say is "The table that iits leg is broken off is around the corner."  Grammatical? Not at all.  Colloquial?  Yes.  To be avoided at all costs by non-native speakers? Yes.
> 
> (Think: "Which table?" "The table that its leg is broken off.")
> 
> Sorry.


I've never heard anybody say it, grammatical, colloquial or not!


----------



## cuchuflete

Kevin Beach said:


> I've never heard anybody say it, grammatical, colloquial or not!


  A resounding "Ditto!" to that.  Further, it's not grammatical, or colloquial.  I have never heard anything quite that awkward, not even in the great state of Michigan.


----------



## kalamazoo

I know what you mean, but I suspect you have actually heard it without even really noticing what it was.  I find a number of things on WR forums that are like that - they look just awful when they are written down, but you actually might hear them go by in speech without really even noticing them.


----------



## sunyaer

This is one of the most interesting threads I have found in this forum. There are so different opinions on a common word in English among native speakers. I used to think that English native speakers should have consistent usage for a common word such as the one being discussed here.


----------



## kalamazoo

Here's a highly academic use of the structure:
And yet, if a jargon does adhere to rules, even just the one that its users foreground its metaphoricity, then it constitutes a genre of discourse, since it demarcates itself from other discourses, other jargons, and requires, however tacitly, that its users recognize that “it is supposed to be what it is destined to be by virtue of its _telos_.”7 Those of us who exchange ideas, who formulate questions that can be extended into debates, through the almost unavoidable use of a jargon recognize its _telos_ through an understanding of just how the ...

It should read 'If a jargon does adhere to rules, even just the one WHOSE users foreground its metaphoricity...."


----------



## sunyaer

kalamazoo said:


> I think what people actually say is "The table that iits leg is broken off is around the corner."Grammatical? Not at all.  Colloquial?  Yes.  To be avoided at all costs by non-native speakers? Yes.
> 
> (Think: "Which table?" "The table that its leg is broken off.")





Kevin Beach said:


> I've never heard anybody say it, grammatical, colloquial or not!



How often do you hear native speakers say "The table that iits leg is broken off is around the corner."

It seems some native speakers, at least in this forum, claim that they have never heard this usage, and/or have strong objection to it.


----------



## Kevin Beach

sunyaer said:


> How often do you hear native speakers say "The table that iits leg is broken off is around the corner."
> 
> It seems some native speakers, at least in this forum, claim that they have never heard this usage, and/or have strong objection to it.


Again, I have never heard that expression, or anything like it. The conventional and colloquial usage in BrE would be "The table with its leg broken off is round the corner".

My comments are not based on preference or objection, but on experience.


----------



## PaulQ

A: "How did you repair our table?"
B: "I stuck another leg on it"
A: "Where did you get it from"
B: "I broke it off another table. The table that its1 leg is broken off is around the corner." 

1 its refers to "our table"


----------



## Archstudent

I would never hesitate to use whose for an inanimate object.   However in the spoken form of the language I believe most people would phrase it another way.

The black door.

The general rule to stick to (outside of some cases in creative writing perhaps) - and I think anyone would agree with this - is to construct the sentence in the most efficient way possible - and by efficiency I mean the amount of meaning per word.  This practice will only enhance the quality of your written work.  So if you can equally say the black door, or the door whose colour is black, you should always choose the black door.

However, there are other examples where it can be used to avoid the need of two sentences, and actually makes your writing more efficient.

Example.

The company, whose profits had been falling for years, was now in a better financial situation.
This is better than:
The company was in a better financial situation.  Its profits had been falling for years.
or:
The company's profits had been falling for years, however it was now in a better financial situation.

The other exception is using it as a poetic device in creative writing.  That is to say using it to deliberately modify the meter/rhythm of a phrase.  It could be used, for instance, to convey the impression of an afterthought or lyricism, or possibly anthropomorphic effect.

eg.

The sun, whose long rays stretched out over the valley, had finally begun to dip.


----------



## sunyaer

I am very interested in knowing that, in an unprepared speech or daily speaking, how often you would hear something like:
“The door, hm…, whose color is black, needs repair.”


----------



## JulianStuart

Way less frequently than "The door, hm, .. the black one, needs repair"


----------



## JustKate

Quite often, Sunyaer. The reason is that in this construction, which is a pretty common one, there aren't many alternatives. _Whose_ is the only thing that fits (that I can think of, anyway). You can write around it ("The door, which is painted black, needs repair"; "The door that is painted black needs repair"; "The black door needs repair"), but _whose_ is for most people (including me) acceptable enough in reference to an inanimate object that not very people are going to go to much trouble to avoid it in ordinary speech.

Edit: I used to have an editor, though, who was a _*nut*_ on the subject of not using _whose_ in this way. When I worked for him, I might have given you a different answer, but this was long enough ago that his influence has waned and no one else who's edited me had the same prejudice. So far!


----------



## Kevin Beach

The reason why "whose" came to be used for non-human objects is probably that the previous equivalent for them was "of which". Therefore it would have been:

"The door of which the colour is black"

As with so many modernisms, it was less cumbersome to extend the meaning of "whose". Just as it is becoming common to extend the meaning of They, Them, Their and Theirs to the singular, because there is no common pronoun for the third person singular.


----------



## JulianStuart

Kevin Beach said:


> As with so many *modernisms*, it was less cumbersome to extend the meaning of "whose". Just as it is becoming common to extend the meaning of They, Them, Their and Theirs to the singular, because there is no common pronoun for the third person singular.



With the citations earlier in the thread of the KJV, Shakspere, Johnson, Newman et al., perhaps we can even call this an archaism by now - or at least something that has been in transition a very long time.  There seem to be many examples of such things and the majority are no longer rejected by the minority; however, this one is hanging in there, no matter its age - perhaps the hypercorrection urge is so strongly felt because of the _who_.  (By the way, on the subject of such transitions, our "its" (possessive) was for a long time "it's" but there's no minority supporting that one  )


----------



## yuechu

I found an interesting usage/example of this type of "whose" from "Introducing Sinclair Ross's As for Me and My House" today:
"...he [George Woodcock] returned in 1949 to Canada, on whose Pacific Coast he has lived ever since."

I was originally posting this since I thought that it couldn't be reworded (and indeed, it can't be reworded using the methods (in standard English) mentioned above, I don't believe) but I suppose one could simply say: "...to Canada's Pacific Coast where... "


----------



## kalamazoo

And there's always "whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous night, o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming"  from the Star Spangled Banner


----------



## dadane

Grammatically, a country is often treated the same as a person.

There are plenty of thread links in here http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=527025.


----------



## JulianStuart

dadane said:


> Grammatically, a country is often treated the same as a person.
> 
> There are plenty of thread links in here http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=527025.


The thing with the broad stripes is a flag, not a country   Maybe the personification reaches to national flags?


----------



## dadane

It was a reply to post #71. But as we're on the subject, since when couldn't you use the pronoun 'she' when referring to a flag?


----------



## JulianStuart

dadane said:


> It was a reply to post #71. But as we're on the subject, since when couldn't you use the pronoun 'she' when referring to a flag?


Ahh, that would explain your comment, even though it followed directly after the flag post.  I was the one who suggested the "personification" could extend to flags!  Either way, I think people's reticence to use "whose" for inanimate things is simply that the first three letters says to them "person", even though the use of the word for "of which" is quite common and well-pedigreed.


----------



## dadane

JulianStuart said:


> Ahh, that would explain your comment, even though it followed directly after the flag post. I was the one who suggested the "personification" could extend to flags! Either way, I think people's reticence to use "whose" for inanimate things is simply that the first three letters says to them "person", even though the use of the word for "of which" is quite common and well-pedigreed.



Indeed. Countries and, for that matter, flags to which one has a patriotic connection are very bad examples. This is the point I was original trying to make, I just made it very badly.


----------



## Chasint

JulianStuart said:


> With the citations earlier in the thread of the KJV, Shakspere, Johnson, Newman et al., perhaps we can even call this an archaism by now - or at least something that has been in transition a very long time.  There seem to be many examples of such things and the majority are no longer rejected by the minority; however, this one is hanging in there, no matter its age - perhaps the hypercorrection urge is so strongly felt because of the _who_...


Yes, I too believe that the reluctance to use 'whose' with inanimate objects comes from hypercorrectionism.

According to Merriam-Webster it has been in use since at least the 12th century. 

*Origin of WHOSE*
Middle English _whos,_ genitive of _who, *what 
*_First Known Use: before 12th century
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whose


----------



## Hildy1

If you google "the city whose" or "the country whose", you will get millions of hits. Although this does not in itself prove anything, many of the texts come from respectable sources.

If someone doesn't like using "whose" with the name of a thing as antecedent, that person can by all means find another way to express the idea. That doesn't mean that everyone has to avoid a perfectly correct construction.


----------



## Chasint

Hildy1 said:


> If you google "the city whose" or "the country whose", you will get millions of hits. Although this does not in itself prove anything, many of the texts come from respectable sources.
> 
> If someone doesn't like using "whose" with the name of a thing as antecedent, that person can by all means find another way to express the idea. That doesn't mean that everyone has to avoid a perfectly correct construction.


I think you are more tolerant than I am! 

I'd prefer to persuade people to use the traditional form that has been in use for centuries and is still used by educated people today. Here is what Fowler says:

“Let us, in the name of common sense, prohibit the prohibition of ‘whose’ inanimate; good writing is surely difficult enough without the forbidding of things that have historical grammar, and present intelligibility, and obvious convenience, on their side….” The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage. Third edition. New York: Oxford, 1996, p. 563.


----------



## Hildy1

Thanks for the Fowler reference, Biffo; it's a good one.


----------

