I have a wardrobe whose doors are mirrors

[ROBINDESBOIS]

Is it ok?

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by ROBINDESBOIS

Is it ok?

No - the whose usually refers to people or possibly animals. Unless you have a very special relationship with your wardrobe you would say

I have a wardrobe with doors which are mirrors
I have a wardrobe with mirrors as doors

[ROBINDESBOIS]

Thaks

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by ROBINDESBOIS

Thaks

D nda

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Originally Posted by Perikles

No - the whose usually refers to people or possibly animals.

Interesting. My teachers told me that "whose" could be used either for people, animals or objects.
I'll keep your correction in mind from now on.

[Rusty]

The relative pronoun 'whose' is used to express possession and can be used with people and with things.
I see nothing wrong with the OP's sentence.

The police are looking for a man whose face is masked, driving a blue car.
The police are looking for a blue car whose driver is wearing a ski mask.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Rusty

The relative pronoun 'whose' is used to express possession and can be used with people and with things.
I see nothing wrong with the OP's sentence.

The police are looking for a man whose face is masked, driving a blue car.
The police are looking for a blue car whose driver is wearing a ski mask.

Sorry, I must have been half asleep, these two sentences are of course quite correct. There is something about the OP's sentence which jars with me, but not the 'blue car whose driver' which is the same construction.

For some reason, I would never say 'I have a wardrobe whose doors are mirrors'. One reason is that I don't actually have a wardrobe with doors which are mirrors (and I never lie) , but I can't justify it grammatically.

[tk421]

When it comes to grammar - What Rusty says now and always

Thank you for the time you took correcting my short message.

If i ever make a comment that seems opposed to grammatical importance in language it will be in reference to the spoken word and not the written. Your understanding of grammatical rules is something I admire and appreciate very much.

[AngelicaDeAlquezar]

Thank you, Rusty and Perikles.

[poli]

Personally, I would avoid using whose when it's applied to inanimate things unless it's unavoidable, and, as Rusty showed, sometimes it can't be avoided.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Perikles

For some reason, I would never say 'I have a wardrobe whose doors are mirrors'. One reason is that I don't actually have a wardrobe with doors which are mirrors (and I never lie) , but I can't justify it grammatically.

Originally Posted by poli

Personally, I would avoid using whose when it's applied to inanimate things unless it's unavoidable, and, as Rusty showed, sometimes it can't be avoided.

'Whose' is the only derivative of 'who' that can be used with both animate and inanimate antecedents. This may explain why it's hard to 'justify' or why it seems it needs to be avoided.
(For those who don't know, 'animate' refers to people and sometimes pets. 'Inanimate' refers to everything else. An 'antecedent' is the word we're referring back to.)

Besides the OP's example of 'whose' being used with an inanimate antecedent (and my previous example), here are more.

I bought the tree whose price had been greatly reduced.
The house whose roof had collapsed in the storm was vacant.
There is the table whose legs are wobbly.
A language like English whose grammar depends heavily on the use of word order and function words is said to be analytic.

I like what Grammar Girl says.

"Although some people don't like it, whose is the only English word we have to refer to inanimate antecedents.

'Whose' is the only possessive relative pronoun in English. It is the possessive form of 'who' and 'which'.

Originally Posted by AngelicaDeAlquezar

Thank you, Rusty ...

You're welcome.

[poli]

Originally Posted by Rusty

'Whose' is the only derivative of 'who' that can be used with both animate and inanimate antecedents. This may explain why it's hard to 'justify' or why it seems it needs to be avoided.
(For those who don't know, 'animate' refers to people and sometimes pets. 'Inanimate' refers to everything else. An 'antecedent' is the word we're referring back to.)

Besides the OP's example of 'whose' being used with an inanimate antecedent (and my previous example), here are more.

I bought the tree whose price had been greatly reduced.
The house whose roof had collapsed in the storm was vacant.
There is the table whose legs are wobbly.
A language like English whose grammar depends heavily on the use of word order and function words is said to be analytic.

I like what Grammar Girl says.


'Whose' is the only possessive relative pronoun in English. It is the possessive form of 'who' and 'which'.

You're welcome.

I agree with you, but I thing most English speakers avoid it because it sounds a little stilted much of the time. It certainly isn't wrong.
Examples: The tree I bought was greatly reduced
The house with the collapsed roof from the storm was vacant
That's the table with the wobbly legs.
In a language like English, grammar depends heavily on word...
The second example is the only one where the use of whose would be less awkward

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by poli

I agree with you, but I thing most English speakers avoid it because it sounds a little stilted much of the time. It certainly isn't wrong.

I'm glad you said that, I was beginning to wonder about myself. I think possibly my aversion is because I am used to an analytical habit necessary for dealing with translations into other languages, and 'whose' is somehow unclear for me. As an example, a quotation from Latin: 'The farmer plants many trees, the fruits of which he shall never see'. I don't think any classicist would write 'whose fruits', even if that is not incorrect.