all of whose

This is the place to post questions and discussions on usage and style. The members of the Wordwizard Clubhouse will also often be able to help you to formulate that difficult letter.
Post Reply

all of whose

Post by azz » Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:43 am

a. He is the man all whose belongings were destroyed.
b. He is the man all of whose belongings were destroyed.
c. He is the man whose all belongings were destroyed.

To me, (a) and (b) are correct and unremarkable and (c) sounds incorrect. However I wonder if that structure is not used in some mathematical texts. (A triangle whose all sides are equal).

Is (c) grammatically correct?
Is it natural?

Many thanks.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: all of whose

Post by Phil White » Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:06 pm

Only b sounds correct to me. Correct, but tiresomely pedantic. Try:
"He was the man whose belongings were all destroyed." Far more natural.

I can think of no mathematical context for the structure in c.
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

Re: all of whose

Post by Erik_Kowal » Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:24 pm

"A triangle whose all sides are equal".

No.

"A triangle whose sides are all equal", or

"A triangle all of whose sides are equal"; or, most simply,

"A triangle with equal sides".
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS

Re: all of whose

Post by Phil White » Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:05 pm

Erik_Kowal wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:24 pm "A triangle whose all sides are equal".

No.
Quite so. Sadly, there are more than 3500 hits for precisely that phrase on Google. All sites that are plagiarizing the same source.

If you look at the full text of these pages (e.g. the one at https://www.ask-math.com/types-of-trian ... sides.html), there is almost no sentence that suggests to me that the text was written by a native speaker of British or American English. The particular site I linked to above is owned, for instance by somebody based in Gujarat in India.

A little simple sleuthing appears to indicate that all the sites are quoting an Indian "Class 6 Maths" syllabus. This actually runs counter to my own experience of formal, official Indian English, which I have almost without exception, found to be very precise and extremely close to formal British English. I cannot judge whether this example is an aberration, written by someone without a good grasp of (British/American) English grammar, or whether it represents a broader change as the syntax of Indian English diverges from British English, as it is bound to do. If it is indeed an example of such divergence, it is both an natural evolutionary process and a source of great joy to somebody who revels in linguistic diversity!
ACCESS_POST_ACTIONS
Signature: Phil White
Non sum felix lepus

ACCESS_END_OF_TOPIC
Post Reply