I had only known "whose clauses".

I love the car whose lines are beautiful.

When I came to this kind of sentence, I always be awkward since the clause subject is inanimate.

I just know the second way "of which". This expression is good. Unexpectedly, there is the 3rd way - "which's" - given by the same website.

The car which's lines are sleek is beautiful.

I had thought "which's" is a wrong way, never thought there is such a way. And I rarely see much of this usage. Did you see it in somewhere?

  • 1
    What is the problem with an inanimate reference? Who said "whose" should only be used with living things.
    – Cardinal
    Feb 28, 2019 at 6:19
  • There is absolutely no reason why you can't use whose with inanimate objects in most cases. Feb 28, 2019 at 9:00

1 Answer 1


No, I would not recommend ever saying "which's". It is not a valid English usage.

English always provides a variety of ways of saying things. If in doubt about one way, try to find a better way which avoids the whole problem. You are right that referring to a car as 'who' is not really recommended (at least in formal written contexts).

So if you come across something that seems a bit unwieldy or awkward, even if technically grammatical, try to put it another way.

Rather than say something very cumbersome like:

The car of which the lines are sleek is beautiful


The car with the sleek lines is beautiful.

And thereby avoid the whole problem.

See this article and especially examples in the first comment on this page for more examples of how to avoid clunky sentences using 'of which'.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .