Which/whose

Question

In the key I have the answer to these questions: WHOSE. I want to know if it would be definitely correct to answer: "WHICH" to the following exercises (especially considering CAE exam in British Council):
1. Paris is a city .. art galleries are one one of its biggestattractions.

2. Africa, .. culture is extremely diverse, is a huge continent.

Mark

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]In the key I have the answer to these questions: WHOSE. I want to know if it would be definitely ... CAE exam in British Council): 1. Paris is a city .. art galleries are one one of its biggest attractions.[/nq]
It would definately be incorrect.
You could choose these wordings:
Paris is a city which has art galleries that are some of the biggest attractions.
[nq:1]2. Africa, .. culture is extremely diverse, is a huge continent.[/nq]
Africa, which is culturally extremely diverse, is a huge continent.

Yours,
Dan S.
Reporting to you from South Bend
-The first step to beating an addiction is to admit that you believe in addictions.

Usenet · Answer

For the first of those rewrites, you would want "Paris is a city that has art galleries that are one of its biggest attractions," since the "that" clause is restrictive and the strong preference is "that" for restrictives and "which" for non-restrictives (as in the Africa example). Compare:
Wild geese, which fly high, are a menace to aviation. (all do) Wild geese that fly high are a menace to aviation. (some do)

Of course, the resultant doubling-up of "that" in the recasting is grossly infelicitous: the original casting was satisfactory. Faced with multiple instances of "that", some writers shrug and insert a "which", as in "Paris is a city that has art galleries which are one of its biggest attractions," but it is better practice to recast the sentence so that the doubling simply disappears (without a faked-up "which").
For the original poster's better understanding:
Relative clauses (clauses whose subject is a relative pronoun that, which, who, whom, whose, what, and a few other less-common ones) can be either "restrictive" or "non-restrictive". A restrictive clause "restricts" its antecedent noun phrase in some way, that is, it sets forth some defined, limited subset of the thing (as "that fly high" defines a particular subset of the category "wild geese"). Correspondingly, a non-restrictive relative clause comments on, but does not actually restrict the noun phrase it modifies (as "which fly high" describes but does not select from "wild geese"); the content of a non-restrictive can be stricken from the sentence without materially affecting its meaning ("Wild geese (, which fly high,) are a menace to aviation").
The difference is obviously crucial. Curiously, the making of the distinction has had a spotty history. Once, not so long ago, both types were handled in the same way: simply set off as parenthetical material by a comma pair. (John Dryden: "All, that can bring my country good, is welcome.") The reader was usually left to tell what was what by context and intuition. After the mid-point of the 19th century, a newer method came in: the elimination of the commas for restrictives. But, since such clauses often terminate their sentences, in effect the entire job of specifying the character of the clause was frequently left to the presence or absence of a single comma as one stylist put it, "a flyspeck on the page."
Feeling that to be a weak mechanism, some writers began also making a distinction between the relative pronouns used in such clauses, as described above: "that" for restrictives" and "which" for non-restrictives. By the time Fowler wrote the original Modern English Usage (1926) the practice was common, though far from universal; though it is often erroneously described as something he dreamt up, he was only pleading for the more nearly universal adopting of an existing custom.
To this hour, his advice is not universally followed, but it is widely followed, especially by writers of sound craftsmanship. It is also much recommended, as there is everything to be said for it and nothing to be said against it (saving an occasional multiplying of instances of "that", which only wants modest recasting).

Rarely if ever will you find variations in non-restrictive clauses practically no one will write or say something like "Wild geese, that fly high, are a menace to aviation": to any civilized ear, such a sentence practically screams for "which". The same holds true when speaking of persons: "who" is almost invariable (This man, who broke all records, was a modest fellow.")
It is in restrictives that one too often sees a "which" where a "that" would sit far more comfortably: things like "Wild geese which fly high are a menace to aviation," are deplorably common. When one sees such a thing, one is unsure whether a comma was omitted or whether the writer is careless of wise convention, and is thus left feeling at risk as to one's interpretation of the intended sense (which one must assume to be restrictive).

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]It would definately be incorrect. You could choose these wordings: ... Africa, which is culturally extremely diverse, is a huge continent.[/nq]
[nq:1]For the first of those rewrites, you would want "Paris is a city that has art galleries that are one ... thus left feeling at risk as to one's interpretation of the intended sense (which one must assume to be restrictive).[/nq]
I don't disagree. However, I was trying to show, grammatically, how the OP could use 'which', or more importantly, why it wasn't allowable in the original sentences. But, thank you.

Yours,
Dan S.
Reporting to you from South Bend
-The first step to beating an addiction is to admit that you believe in addictions.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]In the key I have the answer to these questions: ... .. art galleries are one one of its biggest attractions.[/nq]
[nq:1]It would definately be incorrect.[/nq]
Your grammar is better than your spelling. "Which" is definitely wrong. "Whose" is indeed the only correct answer. There is no need to write around it.
[nq:1]You could choose these wordings: Paris is a city which has art galleries that are some of the biggest attractions.[/nq]
The original with "whose" is better.
[nq:2]2. Africa, .. culture is extremely diverse, is a huge continent.[/nq]
[nq:1]Africa, which is culturally extremely diverse, is a huge continent.[/nq]
No worse than the original with "whose."
I think everything Eric Walker wrote (in a separate post) is at least not incorrect. Just don't sell "whose" short.

Bob Lieblich
Not from Indiana

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1] Bob Lieblich Not from Indiana[/nq]
Does my .sig file annoy you? I post elsewhere where they are commonplace.

Yours,
Dan S.
Reporting to you from South Bend
-The first step to beating an addiction is to admit that you believe in addictions.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2] Bob Lieblich Not from Indiana[/nq]
[nq:1]Does my .sig file annoy you? I post elsewhere where they are commonplace.[/nq]
.sig lines identifying where you post from are quite acceptable. They help when you use "here" in a post.
Bob's just pointing out that he doesn't know what is bent south where you live. (It's the St Joseph River, Bob)

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2] Bob Lieblich Not from Indiana[/nq]
[nq:1]Does my .sig file annoy you? I post elsewhere where they are commonplace.[/nq]
I never even looked at your .sig file and had no idea you were from Indiana. Besides, some of my best friends are Hoosiers (mostly from Valpo). So what was I up to? I was making a bad pun on "whose" and "Hoosier." Strictly for my own amusement, of course no sane person could have figured it out.
I realize this sounds too farfetched to be true, but truth is stranger than diction.

Bob Lieblich
Who lost out in the competition to purchase the Toll Road

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Does my .sig file annoy you? I post elsewhere where they are commonplace.[/nq]
[nq:1].sig lines identifying where you post from are quite acceptable. They help when you use "here" in a post. Bob's just pointing out that he doesn't know what is bent south where you live. (It's the St Joseph River, Bob)[/nq]
As my post in response to Dan S. indicates, I'm more than a little bent myself. I like Tony's explanation better than mine and hereby adopt it as my official response. Okay, so I'm being a bit what shall we call it? disingenuous(?) I work for the Bush Administration.
No insult intended, and I hope no harm done.

Bob Lieblich
Downright twisted

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Bob's just pointing out that he doesn't know what is bent south where you live. (It's the St Joseph River, Bob)[/nq]
[nq:1]As my post in response to Dan S. indicates, I'm more than a little bent myself.[/nq]
Umm..hokay. Didn't know that...
NTTAWWBMTALB.

Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]On 29 Nov 2006, Robert Lieblich wrote[/nq]
[nq:2]As my post in response to Dan S. indicates, I'm more than a little bent myself.[/nq]
[nq:1]Umm..hokay. Didn't know that... NTTAWWBMTALB.[/nq]
VKOY(1)
I was speaking metaphorically, not urologically.
(1) Very kind of you.

Bob Lieblich
Who has given up on escaping this thread with dignity intact

Which/whose

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions