Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: CHAT: which's

From:And Rosta <a.rosta@...>
Date:Wednesday, February 26, 2003, 0:41
> Andreas Johansson scripsit: > > > >To say that 'which's' seems odd in that context would be an > > >understatement. I'm not sure what the rules are about contractions, but > > >that seems totally against them > > > > It does? What, specifically, makes it odd in the above context? In what > > contexts would you expect it? > > "Which's" is never acceptable in standard English. Poking around on Google, > I find it in one of three contexts: > > 1) There's a poem out there entitled "The Which's Ballad" by William > Bell Scott, where it is clearly an eccentric spelling of "Witch's" > > 2) Non-native users (as indicated by the nature of the other errors > they make) sometimes use it for "which is" > > 3) Occasionally native speakers use it as a replacement for the standard > possessive relative pronoun "whose" (which is just an eccentric-but- > standardized spelling of "who" + "'s") when the antecedent is > inanimate. "Who" is never applied to inanimates, and there is a > Sprachgefuehl against applying "whose" to inanimates either, > notwithstanding it is standard > > Here's an example of this usage: "Those commas in between signify > each field you don't need to export but which's column you need > to preserve." > > But the right thing for non-native speakers is simply never to use it
There is nothing specifically wrong with _which's_ as a morphological string: "the book the cover of which's bottom corner is dogeared". Rather, there is a rule of phonological expression that changes _which_ to _who_ when it is argument of the determiner _'s_, which is something that affects most other personal pronouns (me, us, you, him, them, but not it, her or one). --And.


Nik Taylor <yonjuuni@...>