the equivalent of "whose" for genderless pronoun

The Lonely One · Nov 26, 2008

I've basically been referring to a shadowed figure as "it." So if I wrote "a figure whose..." t'would be wrong, wouldn't it?

I'm spacing here -- what is the equivalent for "whose" when referring to an it.

"A figure that's face was invisible in hood..." that doesn't sound right either.

"A figure, the face of which was invisible in hood" sounds too clunky.

Help!

blacbird · Nov 26, 2008

The structure of the sentence is bothering you, methinks. Aim for straightforward and simple:

"The face of the figure was invisible in the hood."

Or some equivalent. "Eschew dependent clauses as much as possible" is a principle I've found useful. They commonly cause confusion and difficulty.

And the principle use of such in manuscripts I've seen has been to cram too much into a single sentence that should be broken into two or three sentences.

caw

Deleted member 42 · Nov 26, 2008

Whose is just fine. It's not gendered any more--and when it was gendered (a thousand or so years ago) it was a neuter.

The "grammar" argument for using which is, well, daft.

See this.

And see blacbird's post.

qwerty · Nov 26, 2008

Not too sure what "invisible in hood" means. Do you mean the figure is wearing a hood?

If the figure is a person, "whose" seems correct. But it's difficult to deal with an incomplete sentence without knowing the context. If it's something on the lines of: A figure whose face was invisible in a hood lurked in the shadows, I'd probably say: The face of the figure that lurked in the shadows was concealed by a hood.

But that would only apply if that's what you're trying to say.

The Lonely One · Nov 27, 2008

qwerty said:
Not too sure what "invisible in hood" means. Do you mean the figure is wearing a hood?

If the figure is a person, "whose" seems correct. But it's difficult to deal with an incomplete sentence without knowing the context. If it's something on the lines of: A figure whose face was invisible in a hood lurked in the shadows, I'd probably say: The face of the figure that lurked in the shadows was concealed by a hood.

But that would only apply if that's what you're trying to say.

"hood" is being used differently here. Not as a single thing, as in, "a hood," but as in an abundance of material over the face, sort of like: "invisible in (a lot of) hood."

Here's the complete sentence(s) so yous guys can scope it out and debate my poor writing.

"He looked, he saw: the snake was no snake at all, but a tail! It reached out from dark robes worn by a figure (whose) face hid invisible in hood – a figure, a face and a tail that unequivocally did not belong to Deuce Triggers."

P.S. HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

The Lonely One · Nov 27, 2008

Medievalist said:
Whose is just fine. It's not gendered any more--and when it was gendered (a thousand or so years ago) it was a neuter.

The "grammar" argument for using which is, well, daft.

See this.

And see blacbird's post.

So wait, "whose" can work for objects that aren't people?

girlyswot · Nov 27, 2008

The Lonely One said:
So wait, "whose" can work for objects that aren't people?

Yes.

qwerty · Nov 27, 2008

The Lonely One said:
"hood" is being used differently here. Not as a single thing, as in, "a hood," but as in an abundance of material over the face, sort of like: "invisible in (a lot of) hood."

Sorry, you've lost me here.

The Lonely One said:
"He looked, he saw: the snake was no snake at all, but a tail! It reached out from dark robes worn by a figure (whose) face hid invisible in hood – a figure, a face and a tail that unequivocally did not belong to Deuce Triggers."

And here I don't see how it can be established that a face that can't be seen can be identified as not being the face of Deuce Triggers.

Hopefully someone else will be along to help.

Anna Magdalena · Nov 27, 2008

As others have said, there's nothing wrong with whose. In addition, you're making things complicated and clouding the meaning. It's also a very clumsy and overcomplicated passage. Hidden means something can't be seen. So does invisible. You don't need both. And you can't say 'in hood' nor can tails 'reach'. And I agree that if the face was hooded how could the watcher know without a doubt who the figure was or wasn't?

How about: As he looked, he saw that the snake was not a snake. It was a tail that extended from a dark-robed figure whose face was hooded. It wasn't Deuce Triggers.

The Lonely One · Nov 27, 2008

qwerty said:
Sorry, you've lost me here.

And here I don't see how it can be established that a face that can't be seen can be identified as not being the face of Deuce Triggers.

Hopefully someone else will be along to help.

It makes more sense in context. He thought the figure was Deuce Triggers for the beginning of the scene, but the dude doesn't have a tail; the tail just kind of made him know

The Lonely One · Nov 27, 2008

Anna Magdalena said:
As others have said, there's nothing wrong with whose. In addition, you're making things complicated and clouding the meaning. It's also a very clumsy and overcomplicated passage. Hidden means something can't be seen. So does invisible. You don't need both. And you can't say 'in hood' nor can tails 'reach'. And I agree that if the face was hooded how could the watcher know without a doubt who the figure was or wasn't?

How about: As he looked, he saw that the snake was not a snake. It was a tail that extended from a dark-robed figure whose face was hooded. It wasn't Deuce Triggers.

Good point on the invisible/hid thing, however I disagree stylistically on a number of things: first, I believe that fiction can be nonliteral sometimes, and what you're referring to as "clumsy" may just be my style; "in hood" is meant to convey the hood as being like liquid (e.g. "in water"), concealing the face. And why the heck can't tails reach? Arms can reach, tails are just another appendage. And yes, as I said above, it is out of context but it makes sense for the MC to know the figure isn't who he thought because of the tail.

The Lonely One · Nov 27, 2008

girlyswot said:
Yes.

Which was the answer I was looking for all along. Thanks.

Deleted member 42 · Nov 27, 2008

Now, we will decline who in all six cases (yep, who/whose/whom--those are left over declensions from Middle English).

Dale Emery · Nov 27, 2008

The Lonely One said:
I've basically been referring to a shadowed figure as "it." So if I wrote "a figure whose..." t'would be wrong, wouldn't it?

I'm spacing here -- what is the equivalent for "whose" when referring to an it.

"A figure that's face was invisible in hood..." that doesn't sound right either.

"A figure, the face of which was invisible in hood" sounds too clunky.

Help!

A person is a who even if its gender is unknown. So if the figure is a person, who is perfectly fine.

It it has a face, its whoness depends on the context. An arbitrary dog might be a what. My dog is definitely a who.

Dale

MagicMan · Nov 27, 2008

The Lonely One said:
Good point on the invisible/hid thing, however I disagree stylistically on a number of things: first, I believe that fiction can be nonliteral sometimes, and what you're referring to as "clumsy" may just be my style; "in hood" is meant to convey the hood as being like liquid (e.g. "in water"), concealing the face. And why the heck can't tails reach? Arms can reach, tails are just another appendage. And yes, as I said above, it is out of context but it makes sense for the MC to know the figure isn't who he thought because of the tail.

I found the sentence difficult to read, and even more difficult to understand. Start the book with that sentence and I would not make it to sentence two. Just my opinion, but if you want readers, give them something to read.

Smiles
Bob

The Lonely One · Nov 27, 2008

The Lonely One · Nov 27, 2008

Please feedback here (the sentence is included in a passage posted here in SYW):

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3005132#post3005132

The shock and awe have worried me...

the equivalent of "whose" for genderless pronoun

The Lonely One

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

blacbird

Deleted member 42

qwerty

exiled Brit

The Lonely One

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

The Lonely One

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

girlyswot

qwerty

exiled Brit

Anna Magdalena

Your friendly cynic

The Lonely One

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

The Lonely One

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

The Lonely One

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

Deleted member 42

Dale Emery

is way off topic

MagicMan

The Lonely One

Why is a raven like a writing desk?

The Lonely One

Why is a raven like a writing desk?