Re: CHAT: which's

John Cowan wrote:

> Nik Taylor scripsit:
>
> > They do?  I don't think I've ever heard "which's" used for "whose" from
> > a native speaker.  It just sounds hideous to me.
>
> To me too, but corpus evidence (viz. Google) is awfully convincing.
>
What were some of the citations???
Nevertheless, even if 20,000,000 say it is right, it is still wrong.  I
grant you I'm a pedant, but in my long & varied life, I've never encountered
it in print. Aargh.  I wonder what Fowler has to say on the subject, Strunk
and White, the Chicago Manual; even that marvel of modern academic
turgidity, the MLA manual.

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..."

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.  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).
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.....)

Replies