- whose
- Two small problems here. One is the persistent belief that whose can apply only to people. The authorities appear to be unanimous that there is nothing wrong with saying, "The book, a picaresque novel whose central characters are . . ." rather than the clumsier "a picaresque novel the central characters of which are ..."The second problem arises from a failure to discriminate between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses (discussed under that, which). Consider: "Many parents, whose children ride motorbikes, live in constant fear of an accident" (Observer). By making the subordinate clause parenthetical (i.e., setting it off with commas), the writer is effectively saying, "Many parents live in constant fear of an accident, and by the way, their children ride motorbikes." The writer meant, of course, that the parents live in fear because their children ride motorbikes; that notion is not incidental to the full thought. Thus the clause is restrictive and the commas should be removed. Gowers cites this example from a wartime training manual: "Pilots, whose minds are dull, do not usually live long." Removing the commas would convert a sweeping insult into sound advice.The same problem often happens with who> as in this sentence from my old stylebook at The Times: "Normalcy should be left to the Americans who coined it." Had the writer meant that normalcy should be left only to those Americans who participated in its coining, the absence of a comma would be correct. However, we must assume he meant that it should be left to all Americans, who as a nation, and as an incidental matter, coined it. A comma is therefore required. (In fact we didn't coin the word. It is several hundred years older than the United States and belongs to the English, who coined it. See normalcy.)
Dictionary of troublesome word. Bill Bryson. 2013.