whose functions I am familiar with/ familiar with functions of

[Vladv1]

This is an app whose functions I am familiar with/This is an app that I am familiar with the functions of. Which sounds better and why? The examples are mine.

 

[Annabel Lee]

This is an app whose functions I am familiar with/This is an app that I am familiar with the functions of. Which sounds better and why? The examples are mine.

The first sounds vastly better than the second, which is a garden-path sentence: initially, one thinks that "that" is the object of "with" (cf. "that I am familiar with"), only to find that the relative clause already has an object of "with" and that "that" really functions as the object of "of" in a prepositional phrase modifying "functions."

 

[Vladv1]

The first sounds vastly better than the second, which is a garden-path sentence: initially, one thinks that "that" is the object of "with" (cf. "that I am familiar with"), only to find that the relative clause already has an object of "with" and that "that" really functions as the object of "of" in a prepositional phrase modifying "functions."

What about this sentnence I heard on a podcast; "This is a ship that I am familiar with the signature of"?

 

[Annabel Lee]

What about this sentnence I heard on a podcast; "This is a ship that I am familiar with the signature of"?

That sentence has the same problem. (Just because you hear a sentence on a podcast doesn't mean the sentence is good.) The sentence should be revised:

This is a ship whose signature I am familiar with.​

I am familiar with the signature of this ship.​

 

[Vladv1]

That sentence has the same problem. (Just because you hear a sentence on a podcast doesn't mean the sentence is good.) The sentence should be revised:

This is a ship whose signature I am familiar with.​

I am familiar with the signature of this ship.​

So I can use whose in such patterns even when posession is not implied? This is the tower whose photo I took.

 

[Annabel Lee]

So I can use whose in such patterns even when posession is not implied?

What are you talking about? A ship can have a signature; an application can have functions.

This is the tower whose photo I took.

That sentence would work if there were only one photo of the tower, namely, the photo taken by the speaker. But that's an extremely odd context.

Are you trying to say, "This is the tower I took a photo of" or "This is the tower of which I took a photo"? If so, you cannot substitute either of those with "This is the tower whose photo I took."

 

[PatriciaMays]

This is an app whose functions I am familiar with/This is an app that I am familiar with the functions msn games of. Which sounds better and why? The examples are mine.

The issue isn't as Annabel Lee said. I have a different opinion. It's not grammatically incorrect, but native speakers often avoid this style because it lacks elegance.

 

[probus]

Hello @PatriciaMays and welcome to the forum. Please correct the false infornation in your member profile. We ask for location and native language because that information may enable us to better help you.

 

[Annabel Lee]

The issue isn't as Annabel Lee said. I have a different opinion. It's not grammatically incorrect,

Did Annabel Lee say that the sentence "This is the application that I am familiar with the functions of" was grammatically incorrect? No. She implied that it was not a good sentence, because it presents readers with a misleading "garden path" within the relative clause. Not all bad sentences are grammatically incorrect.

"This is the application that I am familiar with" seems at first to be the basic sentence, the relative clause expressing the idea "I am familiar with the application." Upon reading on, the reader must reinterpret the sentence, the relative clause now expressing the idea "I am familiar with the functions of the application."

 

[Vladv1]

Did Annabel Lee say that the sentence "This is the application that I am familiar with the functions of" was grammatically incorrect? No. She implied that it was not a good sentence, because it presents readers with a misleading "garden path" within the relative clause. Not all bad sentences are grammatically incorrect.

"This is the application that I am familiar with" seems at first to be the basic sentence, the relative clause expressing the idea "I am familiar with the application." Upon reading on, the reader must reinterpret the sentence, the relative clause now expressing the idea "I am familiar with the functions of the application."

This is the city whose map I’m familiar with/This is the city that I am familiar with a map of. To me the second sounds better as "a map of the city" here does not denote pure possession, but association.

"This is the man whose map I stole". Here it does denote posession (the man's map). Please comment. This topic tortures me. I was taught if association (not posession) is implied, we should not use "whose" when the noun with of is a direct object.

Another example "The description of a man" - pure asscociation, not posession. So we have "This is the man that I gave the description of/familiar with the description of/ look forward to being given description of.

 

[Annabel Lee]

This is the city whose map I’m familiar with/This is the city that I am familiar with a map of. To me the second sounds better as "a map of the city" here does not denote pure possession, but association.

Let's get rid of the garden path, shall we? I'd like to revise your examples, in a way that leaves your question intact:

(1) This is the city whose map I have seen.​

(2) This is the city that I have seen a map of.​

​

Both sentences are grammatical, but they don't have the same meaning. Here are paraphrases of the relative clauses:

(a) I have seen the city's map. ( = I have seen the map of the city.)​

(b) I have seen a map of the city.​

​

Just as (a) supposes that there is only one map of the city, (1) also supposes that there is only one map of the city. But (b) does not make that supposition. The speaker has seen one map of the city, one among many possible maps of the city.

I wouldn't worry so much about "pure possession" versus "mere association." That isn't the key to choosing between the whose-construction and the of-variant. Definiteness versus indefiniteness does play a role in the choice, at least sometimes, as (1) and (2) above illustrate. In philosophy, it is common to find sentences like this:

". . . if we have no knowledge of anything which does not resemble our ideas or sensations, it follows that we have no knowledge of anything whose existence is independent of our perceptions" (source).​

​

Now, does a chair possess its existence? That would be a pretty odd thing to say! Yet there is nothing at all wrong with the construction I just quoted, unless you, as an English language learner and native Russian speaker, want to dismiss an entire genre of native writing and thought in English as grammatically improper. "Anything whose existence" means "anything the existence of which." It's that simple.

 

[Vladv1]

Let's get rid of the garden path, shall we? I'd like to revise your examples, in a way that leaves your question intact:

(1) This is the city whose map I have seen.​

(2) This is the city that I have seen a map of.​

​

Both sentences are grammatical, but they don't have the same meaning. Here are paraphrases of the relative clauses:

(a) I have seen the city's map. ( = I have seen the map of the city.)​

(b) I have seen a map of the city.​

​

Just as (a) supposes that there is only one map of the city, (1) also supposes that there is only one map of the city. But (b) does not make that supposition. The speaker has seen one map of the city, one among many possible maps of the city.

I wouldn't worry so much about "pure possession" versus "mere association." That isn't the key to choosing between the whose-construction and the of-variant. Definiteness versus indefiniteness does play a role in the choice, at least sometimes, as (1) and (2) above illustrate. In philosophy, it is common to find sentences like this:

". . . if we have no knowledge of anything which does not resemble our ideas or sensations, it follows that we have no knowledge of anything whose existence is independent of our perceptions" (source).​

​

Now, does a chair possess its existence? That would be a pretty odd thing to say! Yet there is nothing at all wrong with the construction I just quoted, unless you, as an English language learner and native Russian speaker, want to dismiss an entire genre of native writing and thought in English as grammatically improper. "Anything whose existence" means "anything the existence of which." It's that simple.

Thanks. Why then "This is an idea whose awareness I have" sounds horrible as oppsed to "This is an idea I have an awareness of"?

 

[Annabel Lee]

Why then "This is an idea whose awareness I have" sounds horrible as oppsed to "This is an idea I have an awareness of"?

Cities have maps. Applications have functions. Ships have signatures. Ideas don't have awareness.

 

[Vladv1]

Cities have maps. Applications have functions. Ships have signatures. Ideas don't have awareness.

Whose+plus a singular noun always supposes that there is only one noun (which come after whose)?If a chapter has an end , I can't say "The chapter that I read the end of" or can I?

 

[Vladv1]

I wouldn't worry so much about "pure possession" versus "mere association. That isn't the key to choosing between the whose-construction and the of-variant. Definiteness versus indefiniteness does play a role in the choice, at least sometimes.

Could you please expand on this with other examples. Please.

 

[Annabel Lee]

If a chapter has an end , I can't say "The chapter that I read the end of" or can I?

Yes, you can. You can say:

• the chapter that I read the end of
• the chapter of which I read the end
• the chapter the end of which I read
• the chapter whose end I read