Whichever one of you

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Grablevskij

A plumber is a person whose job it is to repair pipes.
It is to repair pipes that is a plumber's job.

A plumber is a person whose job is to repair pipes.
To repair pipes is a plumber's job.

Is is just an emphatic construction with a subject "it"?

Emphatic, no. Ellipsis, yes.

A person whose job (that it) is to repair pipes is a plumber.

[Grablevskij]

This is rather a complicated question for me.

Principal clause
A plumber is a person --> what person?
attributive defining clause
whose job --> ???
object clause?
that it is to repair pipes.

Nothing is clear, sorry.
I can not ask questions from main clauses to the subordinate ones.
Therefore I can not see any sense, I have to confess.

Maybe I am caught in an endless loop with this plumber.
Could you find another example of such elipsis and reveal it to me please?
Or explain from another point of view.

Michael

[Casiopea]

OK. No worries.

First, let's take a look at how our example sentence was formed.

Two clauses become one:

1. A plumber is a person.
2. Her job is to repair the pipes.

Conjunction
A plumber is a person and her job is to repair the pipes.

Here the phrase her job functions as the subject of the verb (is), but when we relativize it (give it an adjectival function), its position in the structure changes and with it its syntactic function. That is, whose job doesn't function as a subject but as a head, which is why expletive-it is inserted here:

Relative
A plumber is a person whose job it is to repair the pipes.

Does that help?

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Casiopea

Emphatic, no. Ellipsis, yes.

A person whose job (that it) is to repair pipes is a plumber.

That should read:

A person whose job it is to repair the pipes is called a plumber.

[Teia]

Hi Bob and Casiopea

Can I use whichever when I refer to people?
If I take into consideration your reply to the post [ and I am sure you are right], than the answer to my question is affirmative. However, I am confused. I have not had the slightest idea that whichever can be used when talking about people. I have always thought that whoever is the pronoun used for people. Would you be so kind and help with this problem?
That`s a huge lack from my part, or, how should I say it better?

Thank you very much.

[Grablevskij]

subject verb

A plumber is a person, /and her job is to repair the pipes/.
A plumber is a person /whose job is to repair the pipes/.
A plumber is a person, /and her job it is to repair the pipes/.

Or should I place / between job and it? How many subordinate clauses here?
Don't you try to say that there are two?

I still can not catch the idea, and you will be tired of this question soon.
But! Is a plumber is usually a woman in your country?
That is pretty funny .
Ok, let's stop joking.

We have two subjects, the first is a notional word "job" and the the second one is a substitute for "job". I have never heard about "head" as a part of a sentence. If you will send me some link to read, I will be grateful.

I can understand that it is very often used as a formal subject in impersonal statements.
It is raining.

But I think it is not our case.

Why should I put a formal subject here if I have a real one (job)?

Michael

[Grablevskij]

Can I use whichever when I refer to people?

Which is used for asking for a specific choice from a limited number of possibilities (both persons and things).

You can not ask "who of you", but you have to say "which of you".

Michael

[Teia]

Originally Posted by Grablevskij

Can I use whichever when I refer to people?

Which is used for asking for a specific choice from a limited number of possibilities (both persons and things).

You can not ask "who of you", but you have to say "which of you".

Michael

Thank you.
My question referred to the usage of whichever vs. whoever, not to who or which, although who of you is used, as well:

Who of you know any one with special powers? - Yahoo! Answers India

ps. I`m not sure if this usage is Standard English, though.

[Grablevskij]

The rules for use of compound pronouns (formed with some-, any-, no- and others) are the same.

Michael

[Teia]

Originally Posted by Grablevskij

The rules for use of compound pronouns (formed with some-, any-, no- and others) are the same.

Michael

What about that?


Read the Summary in the link below, please:
"...The most common distribution of the forms is therefore as follows (though variations may be heard)...."

English relative clauses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which might be one of those variations the author is speaking about.