Whose

Mr. George Washington Moon discountenances the use of whose as the po e ive of which . He says, "The best writers, when speaking of inanimate objects, use of which instead of whose ." The correctne of this statement is doubtful. The truth is, I think, that good writers use that form for the po e ive case of which that in their judgment is, in each particular case, the more euphonious, giving the preference, perhaps, to of which . On this subject Dr. Campbell says: "The po e ive of who is properly whose . The pronoun which , originally indeclinable, had no po e ive. This was supplied, in the common periphrastic manner, by the help of the preposition and the article. But, as this could not fail to enfeeble the expre ion, when so much time was given to mere conjunctives, all our best authors, both in prose and verse, have now come regularly to adopt, in such cases, the po e ive of who , and thus have substituted one syllable in the room of three, as in the example following: 'Philosophy, whose end is to instruct us in the knowledge of nature,' for 'Philosophy, the end of which is to instruct us.' Some grammarians remonstrate; but it ought to be remembered that use, well established, must give law to grammar, and not grammar to use." Profe or Bain says: " Whose , although the po e ive of who , and practically of which , is yet frequently employed for the purpose of restriction: 'We are the more likely to guard watchfully against those faults whose deformity we have seen fully displayed in others.' This is better than 'the deformity of which we have seen.' 'Propositions of whose truth we have no certain knowledge.'—Locke." Dr. Fitzedward Hall says that the use of whose for of which , where the antecedent is not only irrational but inanimate, has had the support of high authority for several hundred years.