you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 9 points 2 years 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?"

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [โ€“] [S] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 years 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments