this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
120 points (93.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43376 readers
1477 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Non native english speaker here, not trying to have an argument but to learn.
Is it correct to use "whose" in this context?
I kinda thought "whose" was meant to refer to a person and not an object, but really I don't know.
Though I'd use something like "of which" or whatever else instead.
(Or just do what I do and rephrase it so you don't need to bother with this syntax to begin with.)
"What is a dish where each individual component you like, but when combined together become a dish you think is nasty?"
I'm not a native English speaker either but I've spoken English from a young age. "Whose" is used to denote belonging, not necessarily personhood, which can be confusing as "who" does denote personhood. There isn't really a "whose" equivalent for objects so it's used for any noun which another noun belongs to.
Yeah, you shouldn't use who's for objects, as in the one "who is" doing something; that should be "that's" or "which is. But for possession like this case "that's" doesn't work at all. "Of which" or "for which" might work in this sentence, but I don't think any native speaker would be confused by whose here
In this context, "whose" works fine, on the basis that almost no other options work at all outside of completely rewriting the question.
I personally would just switch it out for "with" instead; it does slightly reframe the phrase but doesn't change the question itself.
Doesn't require much rewriting tbh
"the component parts of which"
that's fair!
"Whose" should probably be "thats". But a native English speaker will occasionally personify things and so the meaning would be the same, but you are correct.
"Thats" is dialectal.