What is a dish whose component parts you all like individually, but put together as a dish you think is nasty?
What is a dish whose component parts you all like individually, but put together as a dish you think is nasty?
You're viewing a single thread.
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.
outside of completely rewriting the question.
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.