0
Anonymous Posted 20 years ago
Grammar

'Whose' or 'of which'

Is it considered correct to use 'whose' in a phrase such as the following:

The building whose front door is painted red.

I would have been more inclined to write:

The building of which the front door is painted red.

or

The building, the front door of which is painted red.

(OK there are less cumbersome ways of expressing this example anyway, but you can see why I'm asking.)

My view is based on the theory that "whose" really ought to refer to a person rather than an inanimate object. However, in the absence of an equivalent word based on "which", using the "whose" construction seems to be generally regarded as an acceptable and more convenient alternative. It's certainly more convenient!
  

Top answer

Hi, Generally speaking, you can say it either way. 'Whose' for things is common and correct. Best wishes, Clive

  • Hi, Generally speaking, you can say it either way.
  • 'Whose' for things is common and correct.
  • Best wishes, Clive
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

4 Answers
0
Hi,

Generally speaking, you can say it either way. 'Whose' for things is common and correct.

Best wishes, Clive
0
AnonymousIs it considered correct to use 'whose' in a phrase such as the following:

The building whose front door is painted red.

I would have been more inclined to write:

The building of which the front door is painted red.

or

The building, the front door of which is painted red.

(OK there are less cumbersome ways of
0
Yes, originally "whose" applied only to persons, but times are changing. Even though "to which"

is a bit clumsy, I still prefer for innate objects it to distinguish it from living beings.

brgds/Gilad
0
AnonymousYes, originally "whose" applied only to persons, but times are changing. Even though "to which"is a bit clumsy, I still prefer for innate objects it to distinguish it from living beings.brgds/Gilad

It's too bad English doesn't have the equivalent of French dont, which would solve our problem.

Related Questions