Whichever one of you

[Grablevskij]

Whish used in questions to ask sb to be exact about one or more people or
things from a limited number:
Which of the patients have recovered?

Whichever of you gets here first will get the prize.

These examples are from Oxford Advanced English Learners.

And, please, have a look at the attached file. It is the answer for your question. This is the very Martin Hewgins's book.

The grammar rules for whichever and which are the same.

[Teia]

Originally Posted by Grablevskij

Whish used in questions to ask sb to be exact about one or more people or
things from a limited number:
Which of the patients have recovered?

Whichever of you gets here first will get the prize.

These examples are from Oxford Advanced English Learners.

And, please, have a look at the attached file. It is the answer for your question. This is the very Martin Hewgins's book.

The grammar rules for whichever and which are the same.

Hi Michael

Thank you for the attached file. I am sure you are right but, as you know, whoever learns or studies a foreign language [ as I myself do ], needs more than one confirmation for his/her misunderstanding. And you have just provided the confirmation I am talking about.

Thank you again.

Teia

[Grablevskij]

You are welcome.

Michael

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Grablevskij

subject verb

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

But it's ungrammatical, right? First, there are two subjects there, job and it, and a verb can have only one subject.

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

Second, whose job can't be separated. That is, whose can't modify person and job then function as the subject of the verb is. The pronoun whose and its object job function together. They can't be separated structurally, but semantically the phrase itself can be (re)defined:

Question
Whose job is the job to repair the pipes? <redundant>
Whose job is it to repair the pipes? <reference>
Whose job is (it) to repair the pipes? <ellipsis>

Statement
... whose job it is to repair the pipes. <inversion>
... whose job (it) is to repair the pipes. <ellipsis>
... whose job the job is to repair the pipes. <reference>
... whose job it is to repair the pipes. <expletive>

In short, the very fact that it (expletive or referential) can be inserted after whose job tells us that that phrase isn't functioning as the subject of the verb is.

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

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

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

[Grablevskij]

Dear Casiopea,

thank you. But I still can not catch the idea. I have already read everything about formal subject it that there is in my book.

Inversion is just a stylistic method in which the verb is placed before subject. It does not help me.

There is no other way out but reading about it in a book. If anybody can suggest where can I find this information in the Internet, I would be very grateful. Or if anybody can scan something from a textbook and post here. Or maybe a lot of similar examples can help.

Michael

[Casiopea]

Michael, one more try. Make it easy on youself. Consider that there can be and are two possibilities here,

...whose job it is...
...whose job is...

The difference between the two is in what the sentence was constructed from:



#1 a plumber's job functions as the subject:

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

=> A plumber is a person whose job is to repair the pipes.

#2 a plumber's job doesn't function as the subject:

1. A plumber is a person.
2. It is a plumber's job to repair the pipes.

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

Does that help, at least a little?

[Grablevskij]

We had:

It is his job to repair pipes

his job was an object.

But now we have:

It is his job to repair pipes ---> whose job it is to repair the pipes.

Yes, I understand that.
But let us scrutinize this subject:

whose job it is to repair the pipes.

What part of a sentence is "it"?

Michael

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Grablevskij

But let us scrutinize this subject:

whose job it is to repair the pipes.

What part of a sentence is "it"?

It belongs to the blue clause, it is to repair the pipes, where it functions as the subject of the verb is.


Our example sentence
A plumber is a person whose job (it) is ...

We know that the (pro)noun closest to the verb acts as its subject, so distance or proximity cancels out whose job as the subject of the verb is. So, you see, the question isn't what role does the pronoun it play--we know it's the subject. The question is, or rather, the questions are, what function does the phrase whose job play in the structure if it is the subject, and why is it inserted in the first place?

First, we know that relative pronouns can function as either subjects or objects:

This is the house whose roof is leaking. <subject>
This is the house whose roof I repaired. <object>


Second, we know that sentences containing expletive it relocate or displace the subject of the sentence:

1a. To repair the pipes is a plumber's job. <subject>
1b. It is a plumber's job to repair the pipes. <subject>

2a. A plumber's job is to repair the pipes. <subject>

2b. It is a plumber's job to repair the pipes. <subject>

Note, there's no difference semantically between 1b and 2b. Remove the expletive and the resulting sentences are semantically vacuous:

A plumber's job is to repair the pipes. <subject>
To repair the pipes is a plumber's job. <subject>

But they are different structurally. The bold phrases function as subjects. Everything after the BE verb functions as a subject complement (as objects, if you will).

Third, for the sake of brevity, take examples 2a and 2b and make them into relative clauses (RC).

2a. A plumber's job is to repair the pipes. <subject>
RC: ... whose job is to repair the pipes. <subject>

Syntactically, nothing spectacular happens here. Whose job replaces the subject a plumber's job and takes over its position and function as the subject of the RC verb is.


2b. It is a plumber's job to repair the pipes. <subject>
RC: ... whose job it is to repair the pipes. <subject compl.>

Syntactically, something spectacular happens here. Whose job replaces and takes over the function of the phrase a plumber's job, a subject complement. That's the difference between 2a's RC and 2b's RC. Whose job is a subject complement (an object, if you will); moreover, and here's why the subject pronoun it is added, the subject complement is moved out of the verb phrase to the head of the RC, where it is disconnected from the verb phrase. Structurally, whose job appears to function as the subject of the verb is because it's sitting right next to it, but semantically it's not the subject, it's a subject complement, and so, in order to maintain that semantic connection, a boundary marker, an empty subject (it) is inserted between whose job and the verb is, telling us that whose job isn't the subject of the verb even though its position in the structure makes it appear that way.


In short,

1c. A plumber is a person whose job is ... <subject>
2c. A plumber is a person whose job it is ... <subject compl. + boundary marker>


What are your thought?

[Grablevskij]

Thank you. I will try to read something on the subject.

Michael