英语语法:203 Whose for Inanimate Objects
时间:2019-01-02 作者:英语课 分类:英语语法 Grammar Girl
Grammar Girl here.
Today's topic, “whose” was written by guest writer Bonnie Trenga.
First, for those of you who didn't listen all the way to the end of last week's show and were outraged 1 that I used the words irregardless and cogitate 2; it was a joke; although apparently 3 some of you didn't think it was very funny. It followed the section about depression and was meant to show that I was depressed 4. A depressed Grammar Girl uses poor grammar. Get it? If you had listened to the end or checked the website, you would have heard my note that it was a joke. Sorry for any confusion.
A listener named Mike Murphy wrote in with this message:
"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” 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 5 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.”
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 6 fashion.
In short, Mike is perfectly 7 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).
Some sticklers 8 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 9 of ‘whose’ inanimate; good writing is surely difficult enough without the forbidding of things that have historical grammar, and present intelligibility 10, 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 11 by using “of which,” but I can’t manage to create a palatable 12 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 13 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 14 (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.”
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 15 of “who is.”
This podcast was written by Bonnie Trenga, the author of The Curious Case of the Misplaced Modifier. You can find more of her work and a link to her book at............
That's all. Thanks for listening.
- Members of Parliament were outraged by the news of the assassination. 议会议员们被这暗杀的消息激怒了。
- He was outraged by their behavior. 他们的行为使他感到愤慨。
- I need a few days to cogitate the problem.我需要几天的时间来思考这问题。
- He sat silently cogitating.他静静地坐着沉思。
- An apparently blind alley leads suddenly into an open space.山穷水尽,豁然开朗。
- He was apparently much surprised at the news.他对那个消息显然感到十分惊异。
- When he was depressed,he felt utterly divorced from reality.他心情沮丧时就感到完全脱离了现实。
- His mother was depressed by the sad news.这个坏消息使他的母亲意志消沉。
- We are animate beings,living creatures.我们是有生命的存在,有生命的动物。
- The girls watched,little teasing smiles animating their faces.女孩们注视着,脸上挂着调皮的微笑,显得愈加活泼。
- His observations gave rise to an animated and lively discussion.他的言论引起了一场气氛热烈而活跃的讨论。
- We had an animated discussion over current events last evening.昨天晚上我们热烈地讨论时事。
- The witnesses were each perfectly certain of what they said.证人们个个对自己所说的话十分肯定。
- Everything that we're doing is all perfectly above board.我们做的每件事情都是光明正大的。
- They infuriate word sticklers by presenting a and leaving the reader to decide which is correct. 它们会提出一堆解释让读者自己判断哪个是正确的,令人大为光火。 来自互联网
- The prohibition against drunken driving will save many lives.禁止酒后开车将会减少许多死亡事故。
- They voted in favour of the prohibition of smoking in public areas.他们投票赞成禁止在公共场所吸烟。
- Further research on the effects of different characteristics on intelligibility is necessary. 不同的特征对字码可懂度的影响力的进一步研究是必要的。 来自互联网
- Demand concisely intelligibility, word number 30 or so thanks! 要求简洁明了,字数30左右谢谢啦! 来自互联网
- He finished his speech with a quotation from Shakespeare.他讲话结束时引用了莎士比亚的语录。
- The quotation is omitted here.此处引文从略。
- The truth is not always very palatable.事实真相并非尽如人意。
- This wine is palatable and not very expensive.这种酒味道不错,价钱也不算贵。
- All too soon the stilted conversation ran out.很快这种做作的交谈就结束了。
- His delivery was stilted and occasionally stumbling.他的发言很生硬,有时还打结巴。
- Let me give you some history about a conundrum.让我给你们一些关于谜题的历史。
- Scientists had focused on two explanations to solve this conundrum.科学家已锁定两种解释来解开这个难题。
- The contraction of this muscle raises the lower arm.肌肉的收缩使前臂抬起。
- The forces of expansion are balanced by forces of contraction.扩张力和收缩力相互平衡。
- The administrative burden must be lifted from local government.必须解除地方政府的行政负担。
- He regarded all these administrative details as beneath his notice.他认为行政管理上的这些琐事都不值一顾。