this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
125 points (93.7% liked)

Asklemmy

44149 readers
1468 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 months ago (3 children)

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?"

[โ€“] communism@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Silentiea@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

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

[โ€“] Sarmyth@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"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.

[โ€“] MadBob@feddit.nl 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

"Thats" is dialectal.

[โ€“] HatchetHaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

outside of completely rewriting the question.

Doesn't require much rewriting tbh

"the component parts of which"