most of whose was from

Oxford Modern English Grammar (OMEG) by Bas Aarts has these passages on page 52:


enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

Sentence (40) is apparently taken from an Independent article “How Tuna Conquered the World“. Two prior paragraphs along with Sentence (40) are shown here:

Some populations, such as leatherback turtles, are being heavily
damaged; pushed to the brink of extinction, even though they are not
being hunted. Purse seine boats that drop giant drawstring nets in
tuna areas, and “long-liners” which sink lines of up to 80km, hooked
with bait, are the biggest by-catch culprits.

Conservationists say pole and line fishing, where boats drops bait
into the sea and fishermen claw the tuna into the boat (avoiding other
species), are “cleaner” methods.

In a report from Greenpeace last year, and still available online,
retailers and canning companies were ranked in order of their
tuna-fishing policies. Sainsbury, Co-op and Marks & Spencer came top;
Princes and John West – most of whose was from purse seiners – came
bottom.

Sentence (40) from OMEG is the same as the last paragraph shown above.

Is this “independent” use of whose grammatical?
If so, is it natural English or should tuna be added after whose as follows to make it more natural?

In a report from Greenpeace last year, and still available online,
retailers and canning companies were ranked in order of their
tuna-fishing policies. Sainsbury, Co-op and Marks & Spencer came top;
Princes and John West – most of whose tuna was from purse seiners – came
bottom.

Answer

The usage is uncommon but grammatical in a non-defining relative clause. A simpler text makes this clear:

Sainsbury gets its tuna from the Atlantic; John West, most of whose is from the Pacific, … .

The problem in the present case is that the relative pronoun whose is far removed from its antecedent tuna. A careful writer would have recognized the potential ambiguity caused by this separation and simply repeated the antecedent:

Sainsbury, Co-op and Marks & Spencer came top; Princes and John West – most of whose tuna was from purse seiners – came bottom.

Attribution
Source : Link , Question Author : JK2 , Answer Author : Shoe

Leave a Comment