Why is whose called a relative pronoun?

Holmes said:
Actually, I'm doing no such thing.

And I have already explained to you that the possessive morpheme has the syntactic status of determiner, that the possessive morpheme is the head of "whose," and that therefore "whose" has the word class (POS) of determiner (in surface structure, where it appears as one word form). You keep muddling up determiner and pronoun.

No. John's is a DP (Determiner Phrase), not an NP. The head of "John's" is "'s." If it is treated as a single word rather than as a morphosyntactic complex, its word class (POS) is determiner.
Click to expand...

It is clear from your use of terms like 'specifier', 'surface structure' and 'possessive morpheme' that you are basing your analyses on X-Bar theory, which is ridiculous on a site like UE,

This is not a website for debate about arcane theoretical concepts and formalisms, which are quite unsuitable on UE since questioners are often relative beginners and thus unlikely to have even heard of X-Bar, let alone understand it.

As far as labeling is concerned, do you actually understand the difference between word (or phrase) class and function? I suspect you don't, which might explain why you talk of "muddling up determiner and pronoun". NP is a phrase class, while determiner is a function. Thus, "whose" and "John's" are genitive NPs functioning as determiners.

I suggest you stick to traditional descriptive grammar in future.
 
PaulMatthews said:
It is clear from your use of terms like 'specifier', 'surface structure' and 'possessive morpheme' that you are basing your analyses on X-Bar theory, which is ridiculous on a site like UE,
Click to expand...
I have moved this thread to the linguistics forum, where more arcane discussion is possible.
PaulMatthews said:
I suggest you stick to traditional descriptive grammar in future.
Click to expand...
I suggest you be a little more open to the opinions of others.
 
Last edited:
5jj said:
I have moved this thread to the linguistics forum, where more arcane discission is possible.
Click to expand...

I've just noticed that. Nevertheless, we are still responding to the OP's question

5jj said:
I suggest you be a little more open to the upinions of others.
Click to expand...

Not when they are demonstrably flat wrong and/or inappropriate I won't.

And I suggest you correct your spelling errors. :)
 
Last edited:
Why have you deleted my perfectly reasonable last answer (was #25)?
 
  • Deleted by 5jj
  • 11 minutes ago
  • Reason: Does not advance the thread.
 
PaulMatthews said:
As far as labeling is concerned, do you actually understand the difference between word (or phrase) class and function?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. Do you?
PaulMatthews said:
This is not a website for debate about arcane theoretical concepts and formalisms, which are quite unsuitable on UE since questioners are often relative beginners and thus unlikely to have even heard of X-Bar, let alone understand it.
Click to expand...
You will notice that I only started talking in generative-grammar terms after you entered the thread and sought to disagree with my analysis. Big boys get big concepts.
PaulMatthews said:
NP is a phrase class, while determiner is a function.
Click to expand...
This is the heart of our disagreement. I disagree with you on this precise point. Determiner is a lexical category, a part of speech, a word class.

I';l respond more later when I have time.
 
Holmes said:
Yes, I do. Do you?
Click to expand...

Of course I do.
Holmes said:
You will notice that I only started talking in generative-grammar terms after you entered the thread and sought to disagree with my analysis. Big boys get big concepts.
Click to expand...

And how does that grammar help the OP, who only wanted to know what word class "whose" belongs to.


Holmes said:
This is the heart of our disagreement. I disagree with you on this precise point. Determiner is a lexical category, a part of speech, a word class.
Click to expand...

If, according to you, "whose" and "John's" are determiner phrases, then what, according to you, is their function?
 
Last edited:
For Quirk et al, determiner is the lexical category and determinative is the grammatical function.
For Huddleston and Pullum, It's the other way round.

Hey ho.
 
5jj said:
For Quirk et al, determiner is the lexical category and determinative is the grammatical function.
For Huddleston and Pullum, It's the other way round.

Hey ho.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of that, but it's irrelevant in this thread, which is about the word class vs function of "whose" and "John's.
 
PaulMatthews said:
I'm aware of that, but it's irrelevant in this thread,
Click to expand...

You noted in post #21 determiner is a function
Holmes noted in post #27; Determiner is a lexical category, a part of speech, a word class.
 
PaulMatthews said:
Not when they are demonstrably flat wrong and/or inappropriate I won't.
Click to expand...
I see nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. In fact, it's a common expression.
 
Last edited:
PaulMatthews said:
And how does that grammar help the OP, who only wanted to know what word class "whose" belongs to.
Click to expand...
It can be helpful to know that "whose" is a morphosyntactic phrasal complex consisting of a relative (or interrogative) pronoun plus a determiner, with the determiner as the head of the phrase. The word class of "whose" is the same as the one to which "John's" belongs -- if indeed "John's" and "whose" may be said to be single words at all!
PaulMatthews said:
If, according to you, "whose" and "John's" are determiner phrases, then what, according to you, is their function?
Click to expand...
These determiner phrases contain the complement of the determiner head, namely, the possessee denoted by the NP complement of the phrasal morpheme. Normally, DPs function as substantives. They can function as sentence subjects, direct objects, complements/objects of prepositions, indirect objects, etc.

The function of the DP "John's jacket" in the sentence "John's jacket is dirty" is sentence subject. Similarly, the function of the DP "whose jacket" in "The man whose jacket is dirty is named John" is subject of the relative clause "whose jacket is dirty."

The function of the DP "John's jacket" in the sentence "Mary likes John's jacket" is direct object of "likes" in the VP "likes John's jacket." Similarly, the function of the DP "whose jacket" in "The man whose jacket Mary likes is named John" is direct object of "likes" in "whose jacket Mary likes."

The function of that DP in the sentence "She put the phone underneath John's jacket" is object of the preposition "underneath." Similarly, its function in "The man whose jacket she put the phone underneath is named John" is object of the preposition in the relative clause "whose jacket she put the phone underneath."

And so on, ad infinitum.
 
Last edited:
5jj said:
I just wanted you to tell me what linguistic properties of adjectivehood are, and by whom they are recognised
Click to expand...
OK, 5jj, here we go. Assuming you recognize that "whose" is the same type of word as "my," "their," "our," "John's," etc., I shall simply use "my" as suitable for this refutation of the notion that such words are adjectives. Everybody will please recall the OP's use of the phrase "possessive adjective" in post #1. The following properties of adjectives are recognized to varying extents in Zandvoort's A Handbook of English Grammar (1965; see sect. 551), Quirk et al.'s A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985; see pp. 402-404), Declerck's A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English (1991),Huddleston and Pullum's The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002; see pp. 529-533). The words in question fail on ALL counts. If something has NO properties of a given type of thing, it is absurd to suppose that it is a thing of that type.

1) Accepts Attributive Use between Determiner and Noun
the big ball
*the my ball

2) Accepts Predicative Use after Seem, Become, etc.
The ball seems big.
*The ball seems my.

3) Accepts Use after the Direct Object in the Object-Complement Construction
I consider it big.
*I consider it my.

4) Accepts Premodification by Very
The ball is very big.
*The ball is very my.

5) Accepts Use with Comparative Suffixes or in the Analytic Comparative Construction
This ball is bigger than that one.
*This ball is my-er than that one.
*This ball is more my than that one.

6) Accepts Use in the Predicative Adjunct Construction
The dog died big.
*The dog died my.

7) Accepts Use in Resultative Constructions with Enough and Too
This ball is too big to fit in my locker.
This ball is big enough to impress my friends.
*This ball is too my to be given to my sister.
*This ball is my enough to make me seem selfish.

8) Accepts Use after Pronouns beginning with Some-, Any-, No-
He has something big in his hand.
*He has something my in his hand.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 5jj
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
whose idea was it for you to go there
Replies
3
Views
184
5jj
5jj
M
five of whose six occupants perished
Replies
3
Views
203
teechar
teechar
T
A man whose cat ________ by dog _________
Replies
6
Views
1K
emsr2d2
emsr2d2
U
...the room which/whose door is broken.
Replies
3
Views
279
emsr2d2
emsr2d2
M
we will see whose words will fulfill
Replies
14
Views
2K
mrmvp
M
Back
Top