I've decided that "whichs" needs to be a word -- like "whose" but for non-people.
Last xmas someone gifted me a copy of Tomorrow Will Be Different by Sarah McBride, a transwoman who just got elected to the Delaware state senate (I didn't even know she was running for office) and whichs intro was written by Joe Biden.
That probably doesn't work very well when spoken, so maybe it should be "whats".
Feel free to try either of these words out on people, and let me know what kind of weird stares you get back.
why not "its"
@js0000 Because that doesn't serve the same grammatical function.
Not being a grammar scholar, I'd have to do some research to tell you what that function is; I just know that "whose" implies a particular relationship which "its" does not.
It's true that in that example, approximately the same information would be conveyed... but not in quite as structured a way.
@js0000 Thinking further, in that sentence "whichs" (or "whats") makes it clear that the last bit is talking about the book, not about the Delaware state senate (which you'd otherwise have to guess from context).
"its intro was written by"
pretty clear you're not talking about senate (no intro, no author for a group of people)
can't really see any linguistic need that "whichs" fills
fortunately, i (nor you) are "in charge" of the english language- which will continue changing in its own way regardless of what we may want for it
@js0000 Let me give a clearer example:
"Please pass me the book whichs intro was written by Joe Biden."
It's probably acceptable to say "whose intro", but it seems weird to me to use a "who" derivative in that situation.
You could say "its" and probably be understood, but it's ungrammatical there unless you add a semicolon:
"Please pass me the book; its intro was written by Joe Biden."
In that situation you're not specifying that the book you want is specifically the (only) one for which Joe wrote the intro, but rather just noting that whatever book the other person thinks you're indicating happens to have an intro written by Joe -- not implying any need to check for that before picking it out and handing it to you.
We're all collectively in charge of language, and I like to give it a little nudge in positive directions when I can. It may come to nothing, but it's fun to do anyway ^.^
i would just use "with" in a slightly different wording:
the book with the intro written by joe biden
"whichs" understood by me pretty much as you have described it
good luck with expanding usage of this new word ... (tried to use it in this note but was too much of a stretch for what i wanted to say)
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!