Whose x Which: para dizer "cujo(s)", "cuja(s)"

Avatar do usuário Rakell Grubert Pere 3385 3 6 65
Hello friends,

Can you help me?

I wrote a composition about stressfull experiences I had while travelling abroad and the following sentence is an extract from the text:

About 15 minutes later, it was announced that our next stop would be a city, whose name I can't remember, but that wasn't in our route back to Chur.

My teacher crossed the word "whose" out, and suggested that I write "which" instead. I asked her why and she said that the way she suggested is the way people say it and that it's much better to avoid using whose for things. Ok, I agree with the avoiding part, but it wouldn't be wrong If I insisted on writing it; it's still standard English, isn't it?

So, the phrase the way she suggested would be:

"About 15 minutes later, it was announced that our next stop would be a city, which name I can't remember, but that wasn't in our route back to Chur."

It sounds strange, doesn't it?

Should't it be: "About 15 minutes later, it was announced that our next stop would be a city, which I can't remember the name, but that wasn't in our route back to Chur"?

What do you think?
MENSAGEM PATROCINADA Você sabe como está o seu nível de inglês? Teste agora GRÁTIS em apenas alguns minutos.

Clique aqui para iniciar o Teste Online!
Avatar do usuário Flavia.lm 3885 1 9 86
Olá Rakell,

A escolha de "which" em vez de "whose" se deve ao fato de que "whose" é usado com pessoas e não coisas (no caso, cidade).

Concorco com a sugestão de sua professora. Tente ler "which" com sentido de "cujo":
... seria uma cidade, cujo nome não recordo, mas ela não estava...
Complemento...

Conversei com uma americana e perguntei justamente a utilização deste pronomes para ela. O que ela me disse sobre o "Whose" foi que ele é utilizado em alguma situação que se fala sobre uma coisa que está sobre posse de alguém! Pelo menos foi isso que eu entendi...rsrsrs

best regards
Avatar do usuário Rakell Grubert Pere 3385 3 6 65
Flavia.lm escreveu:Olá Rakell,

A escolha de "which" em vez de "whose" se deve ao fato de que "whose" é usado com pessoas e não coisas (no caso, cidade).

Concorco com a sugestão de sua professora. Tente ler "which" com sentido de "cujo":
... seria uma cidade, cujo nome não recordo, mas ela não estava...



Flávia, respeito sua opinião, mas a questão é que não existe um consenso sobre a não utilização de "whose" para coisas, alguns "grammarists" dizem que o uso é possível, correto e considerado "standard English", outros dizem que deve ser evitado e a frase, quando possível, reescrita, e ainda existem aqueles que condenam totalmente o uso para coisas. Uma ex-professora da Cultura Inglesa, e que costuma aplicar provas de FCE, disse que não há nada errado com a frase e eu lembro perfeitamente de ter usado whose para coisas também quando estudava na Cultura Inglesa. O próprio "Oxford Dictionary", o "The Free Dictionary", o Longman Dictionary e também alguns sites sobre gramática da língua inglesa trazem exemplos de "whose" para coisas também.

http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries ... nary/whose
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whose
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/whose
http://grammar.about.com/od/words/a/whosegloss.htm
http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/ ... e-pronouns
http://esl.fis.edu/grammar/rules/relative.htm
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/educat ... s?page=all

Aguardo o comentário dos demais Experts...
Avatar do usuário Donay Mendonça 50855 21 83 1181
Sobre "whose", "which" e a opinião da professora:

No trecho ''...would be a city, whose name I can't remember'', não há erro em se usar "whose". Sugiro apenas retirar a vírgula: ''...would be a city whose name I can't remember."

Referências sobre "whose" no contexto em questão:

1. Merriam-webster: used to show which person or thing you are talking about.

- the book whose cover is torn.
- o livro cuja capa está rasgada.

2. Oxford: used to say which person or thing you mean.

- It's the house whose door is painted red.
- É a casa cuja porta está pintada de vermelho.

3. Longman: used to show the relationship between a person or thing and something that belongs to that person or thing.

Solar energy is an idea whose time has come.
Energia solar é uma ideia cujo momento é agora.

4. Michaelis:

The house whose windows are open / a casa cujas janelas estão abertas.

Conclusões:

A professora se equivocou.
"Whose (cujo) pode ser usado em relação a coisas, objetos também, além de pessoas, é claro. Isso foi demonstrado nos dicionários acima.
"Which" não é usado como "cujo". Não me recordo de um substituto mais natural para "whose" na frase original da pergunta.


Bons estudos!
Avatar do usuário Henry Cunha 10000 3 16 177
Here's how I'd word it and punctuate it:

About 15 minutes later it was announced that our next stop would be a city, the name of which I can't even remember, that wasn't in our route back to Chur."

"Whose" isn't exactly wrong; just somewhat awkward. "The name of which" is how we get around that problem. The punctuation helps to keep the continuity of "a city,..., that...", which is the important connection.
Avatar do usuário Rakell Grubert Pere 3385 3 6 65
Henry, I think you brought another discussion to this topic:
Whose vs of which

See what The Grammar Girl says :

Whose Versus of Which

Some sticklers prefer you use whose to refer to animate antecedents only, but Fowler’s refers to this preference as a “folk-belief” (3). Fowler himself wrote in 1926, “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….” These folk-believers think you should substitute the phrase of which for whose. I’ve been trying to reword that Milton quotation by using of which, but I can’t manage to create a palatable sentence. I’m having the same trouble rewording both of Mike’s examples: “The car whose windshield wipers…” and “The tree whose leaves…”

In some cases, you might be able to use of which, but most of the time your sentence will sound stilted and your sentence flow will be ruined. The three major sources I referred to all agree that of which is not an ideal solution to the whose conundrum (1, 2, 3). The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style states, “This is one case in which the cure could be worse than the disease.” Funny how it didn’t state it this way: “This is one case whose cure could be worse than the disease.”

Should You Avoid Using Whose?

Sometimes, the best way to deal with this problem is to reword the sentence to avoid whose altogether. Let’s try this out on one of Mike’s sentences: “The car whose windshield wipers weren't working was driving in the fast lane.” You could rewrite this in a number of ways, but I like “Although the car’s windshield wipers weren’t working, it was driving in the fast lane.”

If you want to use whose to refer back to an inanimate antecedent, go ahead and use it. If, on the other hand, you choose to rewrite sentences to avoid using whose to refer to inanimate antecedents, check that your sentences flow nicely together. I do discourage you from using of which unless you’re sure the sentence doesn’t sound too awkward. And, of course, be sure to spell whose W-H-O-S-E, not W-H-O-apostrophe-S, which is a contraction of who is.

See also the way she answered a question about whose for things.

The car whose windshield wipers weren't working was driving in the fast lane. The tree whose leaves were falling seems to be dying. Whose seems like it must refer to a person or animal but not to a car or a tree, and it does not sound correct. Is it correct to use whose in this manner? And is there perhaps a better way to construct the above sentences?

Thanks for your question, Mike. If you used whose in those two sentences, you’d be in the same company as Shakespeare, Milton, and Wordsworth—all famous writers (1). You might, however, annoy a few modern complainers who think you should use whose to refer to people and animals only.

Whose to Refer to People and Animals
Whose is the possessive form of both who and which (2). It makes sense to say that whose is the possessive form of who because who is in the word. As you know, you use who to refer to a person or sometimes an animal, and this person or animal you’re referring to is called an “animate antecedent.” “Animate” refers to living people and animals (but not plants), such as my son, Jake, or his pet fish, Gary. An “antecedent” is a word that you’re referring back to. So in the sentence “Jake fed Gary, whose favorite food was dried worms,” “Gary” is the antecedent of whose.

Whose to Refer to Inanimate Objects
There is no dispute about using whose to refer to a person or animal. There is, however, some argument about whether it’s OK to use whose to refer to something that’s not a person or animal: a car or a tree, for instance. That’s what Mike was asking about: whether it’s OK to use whose to refer to what’s known as an “inanimate antecedent.” Cars and trees are not alive in the same sense as people and animals. Of course trees are living plants, but plants are considered inanimate. I guess they can’t talk or communicate in an animated fashion.

In short, Mike is perfectly right when he uses whose to refer to tree. Although some people don’t like it, whose is the only English word we have to refer to inanimate antecedents. Perhaps someone will invent a new word for this purpose, but as of now we’re stuck with whose. Going all the way back to the 14th century, you’ll find many literary examples of authors referring back to an inanimate antecedent (1). Fowler’s quotes Milton’s Paradise Lost: “Of man’s first disobedience, and the fruit Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste Brought death into the world…” (3).

From http://www.grammarbank.com/whose-of-which-of-whom.html

Of Which vs Whose

We can use “of which” instead of “whose” for the objects but “of which” is used in non-defining relative clauses.

This is the machine. I described its properties.
This is the machine whose properties I described.
This is the machine, the properties of which I described.

I stayed at a good hotel. It’s facilities are fabulous.
I stayed at a good hotel whose facilities are fabulous.
I stayed at a good hotel the facilities of which are fabulous.
Avatar do usuário Rakell Grubert Pere 3385 3 6 65
From Grammar.com

“Whose” and “Of Which”
When a possessive form is called for by the sentence, the word that has to bow out and rely on which to borrow a preposition to show possession. An example will show what I mean:
Congress passed the statute, the purpose of which was to lower taxes.
The words which and that have no possessive form. Here the of which is showing the state of the statute possessing a purpose. We cannot say, that’s purpose or which’s purpose. We have to use which, flip it over, and connect it to statute by using the of which form. The word that will not accommodate a preceding preposition.
Of course, if you write lots of reports crammed with lots of of whiches, you won’t further your career. So Miss Hamrick, Igor, and Amber made a deal with the personal relative pronouns. The who-whom-whose combo, with its possessive whose, agreed to allow that and which to borrow whose when they needed to show possession. Thus, it is grammatically correct to write:
Congress passed the statute, whose purpose was to lower taxes.
After all, who on earth would say:
It was an idea the time of which had come.
Nah.
It was an idea whose time had come.

http://www.grammar.com/whose-and-of-which/
Avatar do usuário Henry Cunha 10000 3 16 177
Wow, I wasn't really trying to introduce all that stuff! The funny part, for me, is that I can't remember the last time I consciously thought about this question, or dealt with it in my writing or reading. But you made me do it, Rakell... rsrs

No, I don`t really disapprove of the use of 'whose' inanimate in every case. My rule of thumb is to work around it if it sounds odd to me. And there is usually at least one good alternative. It's all in the re-reading and revising:

I can usually spot a sentence whose word choice isn't ideal.
I can usually spot a sentence's word choice that isn't ideal.
I can usually spot a sentence word choice that isn't ideal.

Incidentally, my use in the case of your original sentence was in a "non-defining relative clause", which the Grammarbank (above) approves of (see my next paragraph). The Grammargirl's explanation sounds a bit strange to me because, after approving of "the car whose windshield wipers," she proceeds to give a better option ("the car's windshield wipers"),-- and perhaps the best option is really "the car windshield wipers." Car becomes another adjective, and the "connectedness" is self-evident. (Why bother, for instance, with "my new HP computer's software"?) The possessive is implicit in such constructions.

So, to me, what you had in that sentence was really an interjection. We could go another step and revise in this fashion:

About 15 minutes later it was announced that our next stop would be a city -- which one I can't even remember -- that wasn't in our route back to Chur.

Incidentally, where the heck is Chur?? Sounds exotic.
MENSAGEM PATROCINADA Há quanto tempo você estuda inglês? Já passou por sua cabeça que você pode estar estudando de uma forma que dá pouco ou quase nenhum resultado? Que tal fazer um intensivo de inglês de 180 dias e recuperar o tempo perdido? Em 6 meses você pode elevar o seu inglês a um novo patamar.

Clique aqui para conhecer o curso!
Avatar do usuário Rakell Grubert Pere 3385 3 6 65
Henry Cunha escreveu:
Incidentally, where the heck is Chur?? Sounds exotic.


Chur is the capital of the Swiss canton of Graubünden, it is 120 kilometres by rail from Zürich, and it is the meeting-point of the routes from Italy over many alpine passes. This is the city where you can take the Bernina Express, a panoramic train, and one of the most spectacular ways to cross the Alps - Chur-St. Moritz-Tirano(Italy)


Imagem

Imagem

Imagem