Re: CHAT: which's

Roger Mills wrote:
> Possible exs IMHO:
> "...a metal whose properties are unknown..."
> "...a metal of which the properties are unknown..." or
> "...a metal the properties of which are unknown..."
> *******"...a metal which's properties are unknown..."
I say it's possible. That doesn't *mean* anything, but still. Once upon
a time, people complained about 'the house is being built' (preferring
'the house is building', to which I respond either 'building what?' or
'a house can't build!').

> As for Andreas' original "which's" for "which is", my suspicion is that
> "which" simply does not enter into written contractions-- even though in its
> unstressed pronunciation [WitS@z] it might appear to be one.  Same with
> "which're" = which are--- it just isn't done.
In Standard Written English. In pronounced and Colloquial Written
English, it may well be (because _are_ = /@/ => <'re>), in my dialect at
least. This happens irrespectively of the word before so long as it
isn't a normal pronoun. (so /hu;@/=who're, but /ju;@/='you were';
you're=/jo:, j@/).

> OTOH something like
> "wouldn't've", also reflecting the usual pronunciation [wUdn=t@v]-- might
> well occur in a novel or story that was trying to indicate colloquial or
> relaxed speech ("wouldn't of..." would be an alternative writing but
> probably wouldn't get past a good editor).
Or even a bad one. I doubt they could be called an editor if they let
that through.

> But I believe there is (or at least was) a general rule in proper written
> work against piling contraction on contraction. (I seem to recall a recent
> "I'ven't"?? in one of A's posts, which also got commented on.....)
'I'ven't' is wrong anyway, and shows us all that Andreas isn't an
English native. The closest equivalent I would pronounce as
/ai"(h|j)&v@n/ (choice of /h/ or /j/ obviously made based on if I'm
speaking 'properly' or nomally).

Tristan.

Reply