Usage Question

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 51694
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Usage Question

Postby Snarfyguy » 17 Feb 2017, 17:34

My understanding is that the word "whose" is not to be used with things, but only people. So

"Although violation of an internal rule whose adoption is mandated by a Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) regulation might constitute negligence per se under certain circumstances (see, e.g.,[caselaw]), no FRA regulation required [our client] to adopt Rule 406.5."

should be

"Although violation of an internal rule, the adoption of which is mandated by a Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) regulation, might constitute negligence per se under certain circumstances (see, e.g., [caselaw]), no FRA regulation required [our client] to adopt Rule 406.5."

Or is this a hair too thin to split?
Jimbo wrote: And if there is war with Russia, a lot of people will die, maybe the east coast will vanish, but still and all, shit will work out.

User avatar
Charlie O.
Posts: 37186
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:53
Location: In-A-Badda-La-Wadda, bay-beh

Re: Usage Question

Postby Charlie O. » 17 Feb 2017, 17:37

The "whose" question aside, the second was actually a bit clearer to me. Personally, I would put "the adoption of which is mandated by a Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) regulation" between parentheses rather than between commas, but I don't know what the context is, so I don't know if that's appropriate.
Image

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 58259
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: Usage Question

Postby sloopjohnc » 17 Feb 2017, 19:53

Snarfyguy wrote:My understanding is that the word "whose" is not to be used with things, but only people. So

"Although violation of an internal rule whose adoption is mandated by a Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) regulation might constitute negligence per se under certain circumstances (see, e.g.,[caselaw]), no FRA regulation required [our client] to adopt Rule 406.5."

should be

"Although violation of an internal rule, the adoption of which is mandated by a Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) regulation, might constitute negligence per se under certain circumstances (see, e.g., [caselaw]), no FRA regulation required [our client] to adopt Rule 406.5."

Or is this a hair too thin to split?


You are correct and correct. Using which can be a little more cumbersome and awkward but it is grammatically correct.
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. . .

User avatar
pcqgod
Posts: 15144
Joined: 11 Apr 2010, 07:23
Location: Texas

Re: Usage Question

Postby pcqgod » 17 Feb 2017, 20:39

I concur with sloop.
Where would rock 'n' roll be without feedback?

User avatar
Harvey K-Tel
Long Player
Posts: 38404
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:20
Location: 1220 on your AM dial

Re: Usage Question

Postby Harvey K-Tel » 17 Feb 2017, 20:49

It doesn't matter. Trump's pick to head up the FRA owns 45% of Boeing. Trains are history, baby!
If you've got nothing to do, don't do it here.


Return to “Nextdoorland”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Jimbo and 1 guest