Why is whose called a relative pronoun?

[PaulMatthews]

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.

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.

 

[5jj]

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,

I have moved this thread to the linguistics forum, where more arcane discussion is possible.

I suggest you stick to traditional descriptive grammar in future.

I suggest you be a little more open to the opinions of others.

 

[PaulMatthews]

I have moved this thread to the linguistics forum, where more arcane discission is possible.

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

I suggest you be a little more open to the upinions of others.

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

And I suggest you correct your spelling errors.

 

[5jj]

Nor when they are flat wrong, I won't.

Then you are likely to find your posts deleted. We expect members to respond in a civilised manner.

And I suggest you correct your spelling errors.

Pot - kettle.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Why have you deleted my perfectly reasonable last answer (was #25)?

 

[5jj]

• Deleted by 5jj
• 11 minutes ago
• Reason: Does not advance the thread.

 

[Holmes]

As far as labeling is concerned, do you actually understand the difference between word (or phrase) class and function?

Yes, I do. Do you?

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.

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.

NP is a phrase class, while determiner is a function.

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.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Yes, I do. Do you?

Of course I do.

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.

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

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.

If, according to you, "whose" and "John's" are determiner phrases, then what, according to you, is their function?

 

[5jj]

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.

 

[PaulMatthews]

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.

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.

 

[5jj]

I'm aware of that, but it's irrelevant in this thread,

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.

 

[Tarheel]

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

I see nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. In fact, it's a common expression.

 

[Holmes]

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

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!

If, according to you, "whose" and "John's" are determiner phrases, then what, according to you, is their function?

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.

 

[Holmes]

I just wanted you to tell me what linguistic properties of adjectivehood are, and by whom they are recognised

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.