[Grammar] ... without whose incredible support this book would not have become a reality

[kadioguy]

[In the book Diary of a Wimpy Kid]

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people who helped bring this book to life, but four individuals deserve special thanks:

Abrams editor Charlie Kochman, whose advocacy for Diary of a Wimpy Kid has been beyond what I could have hoped for. Any writer would be lucky to have Charlie as an editor.

Jess Brallier, who understands the power and potential of online publishing, and helped Greg Heffley reach the masses for the first time. Thanks especially for your friendship and mentorship.

Patrick, who was instrumental in helping me improve this book, and who wasn't afraid to tell me when a joke stunk.

My wife, Julie, without whose incredible support this book would not have become a reality.
-------

a. Abrams editor Charlie Kochman, whose advocacy for Diary of a Wimpy Kid has been beyond what I could have hoped for.

b. Abrams editor Charlie Kochman, his advocacy for Diary of a Wimpy Kid has been beyond what I could have hoped for. [My sentence]

c. My wife, Julie, without whose incredible support this book would not have become a reality.

d. My wife, Julie, without her incredible support this book would not have become a reality. [My sentence]

-------
I think that (b) and (d) are also grammatical. So do the original ones have some effects that (b) and (d) don't have? I have got one:

Considering the 'who's used in the other two sentences, using 'whose' is more consistent in style.

What do you think?
-----
(Source)
https://i.imgur.com/ojFxbH4.jpg

 

[emsr2d2]

b) and d) would be OK if you changed a comma to a semi-colon in both cases. In d), I'm referring to the comma after "Julie". Do you know why?

 

[kadioguy]

b) and d) would be OK if you changed a comma to a semi-colon in both cases. In d), I'm referring to the comma after "Julie". Do you know why?

I don't know. Maybe that could put a pause longer than a comma. :?:

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

b) and d) would be OK if you changed a comma to a semi-colon in both cases. In d), I'm referring to the comma after "Julie". Do you know why?

Semi-colons would work there, but I'd use a period and capital W in each — or else a colon and capital W.

Maybe that's just more in line with American English.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I don't know. Maybe that could put a pause longer than a comma. :?:

Think about it some more. For good grammar, would the length of pause matter?

 

[kadioguy]

Semi-colons would work there, but I'd use a period and capital W in each — or else a colon and capital W.

Maybe that's just more in line with American English.

I don't know why commas wouldn't work there. Using them wouldn't make run-on sentences, would they?

[Cross-posted with Charlie Bernstein]

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Whose does not mean her.

Where did you get a, b, c, and d. Did you make them up?

 

[jutfrank]

Your sentences b and d are not grammatical, kadioguy.

Sentences a and c are using non-defining relative clauses, so they need relative pronouns.

 

[GoesStation]

Considering the 'who's used in the other two sentences, using 'whose' is more consistent in style.

What do you think?

The original is very well written and consistent. There's no reason to change it. The author used who and whose appropriately.

You are a learner with a good but incomplete command of English. You may occasionally find a grammatical error in a native speaker's writing, but you're unlikely to be able to improve a native speaker's style. Trying to do so is not a profitable use of your time.

 

[kadioguy]

Whose does not mean her.

Whose can mean her [the possessive form of she].

Where did you get a, b, c, and d. Did you make them up?

(a) and (c) are from the acknowledgments ; (b) and (d) are my variations.

 

[kadioguy]

Thank you all.

I wasn't saying that the native speaker's sentences [i.e., (a) and (b)] are not good. Instead, I agree that they are absolutely correct.

But what confuses me is that, as you can see, (b) and (d) only contain one verb each, so they are supposed to be also grammatical, aren't they?

b. Abrams editor Charlie Kochman, his advocacy for Diary of a Wimpy Kid has been beyond what I could have hoped for. [My sentence]

d. My wife, Julie, without her incredible support this book would not have become a reality. [My sentence]

 

[GoesStation]

But what confuses me is that, as you can see, (b) and (d) only contain one verb each, so they are supposed to be also grammatical, aren't they?

b. Abrams editor Charlie Kochman, his advocacy for Diary of a Wimpy Kid has been beyond what I could have hoped for. [My sentence]

d. My wife, Julie, without her incredible support this book would not have become a reality. [My sentence]

They're ungrammatical. Fix the comma splices and they'll be okay as items in a list.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Whose can mean her [the possessive form of she].

Almost, but not exactly. That's why we have two different words. Only one is correct here.

(a) and (c) are from the acknowledgments ; (b) and (d) are my variations.

The original acknowledgements are correct.

Now let's get back to Emsr2d2's question!

 

[kadioguy]

They're ungrammatical. Fix the comma splices and they'll be okay as items in a list.

For me, comma splice means the use of a comma between coordinate main clauses not connected by a conjunction (as in “nobody goes there anymore, it's boring”). So I wouldn't call them comma-splice sentences, but I think that they are actually undesirable to native speakers.

Now let's get back to Emsr2d2's question!

Okay, I'll try to answer it here:

I guess that semicolon would work better because we need a 'stop' in the meaning unit after the name mentioned.

 

[jutfrank]

I really don't see much point in trying to rewrite these two sentences by splitting them into two. Besides, it would not be appropriate to do so, since they were deliberately written like that, as acknowledgments. They should stay as they are—as long unbroken noun phrases.

It'll be a more productive use of your time trying to understand the form (non-defining relative clauses) that they currently do have.

 

[kadioguy]

It'll be a more productive use of your time trying to understand the form (non-defining relative clauses) that they currently do have.

I know about non-defining relative clauses. Like this:

My roommate, whose sister is an actress, gets lots of requests for autographs.
[Merriam-Webster's Advanced Learner's English Dictionary]

In this case 'whose' is necessary to be used, or there would be a comma splice, because we have two verbs (is and gets). However, take this one for example:

a. Abrams editor Charlie Kochman, whose advocacy for Diary of a Wimpy Kid has been beyond what I could have hoped for.

There is only one verb, so that is different from the one above. I agree with you that the reason that 'whose' is used could be that the writer meant to let it be a long unbroken noun phrase rather than to do other things to separate it.

 

[GoesStation]

a. Abrams editor Charlie Kochman, whose advocacy for Diary of a Wimpy Kid has been beyond what I could have hoped for.

There is only one verb, so that is different from the one above. I agree with you that the reason that 'whose' is used could be that the writer meant to let it be a long unbroken noun phrase rather than to do other things to separate it.

What you're missing is that these acknowledgements are a list of noun phrases. Many of them aren't complete sentences. It's conventional to write the phrases as paragraphs, but it might be clearer to you if they're presented as bullet points like the following.

... Four individuals deserve special thanks:​

​

• 
  [*=1]Abrams editor Charlie Kochman, whose advocacy for Diary of a Wimpy Kid has been beyond what I could have hoped for.
  [*=1]Jess Brallier, who understands the power and potential of online publishing, and helped Greg Heffley reach the masses for the first time.
  [*=1]Patrick, who was instrumental in helping me improve this book, and who wasn't afraid to tell me when a joke stunk.
  [*=1]My wife, Julie, without whose incredible support this book would not have become a reality.

You can convert this into sentences like the following:

I want to thank Abrams editor Charlie Kochman, whose advocacy for Diary of a Wimpy Kid has been beyond what I could have hoped for.

I also want to thank Jess Brallier, who understands the power and potential of online publishing, and helped Greg Heffley reach the masses for the first time.

And I'd like to thank Patrick, who was instrumental in helping me improve this book, and who wasn't afraid to tell me when a joke stunk.

I mustn't forget my wife, Julie, without whose incredible support this book would not have become a reality.​

The conventional format is concise and familiar, but perhaps my expanded version will help you understand the grammar.