>
> Here, it looks like the possessive "whose" should actually be "who's",
> since the possessive is of the whole phrase "one of who". It just seems
> strange to me.
>

ah methinks i see what you're saying. at any rate i think (despite that
this is probably good english) the "of whose" is redundant, albeit a
redundancy programmed into the grammar.

the function played by the genitive "whose" seems to be the same as when
you say "a friend of mine" or "an acquaintance of John's" -- where grammar
would *logically* prescribe "a friend of *me*" or "an acquaintance of John"
(since "me," historically dative/accusative, is the only form of the 1st
person sing. pronoun that ought to follow prepositions like "of"). but for
some reason using that extra genitive "feels" good.

maybe?

but i get what you mean. the blurb is trying to possessivize "one of whom";
"the child of one [pair] of whom..."; what's *really* supposed to be
possessivized is "one"; but "one's of whom child" and "[one of whom]'s
child" aren't really options. turning "who(m)" into "whose" seems to be a
logically questionable way of doing this, but the only solution i can
imagine english grammar permitting.

matt

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Michael Everson <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> On 22 Mar 2012, at 12:53, MorphemeAddict wrote:
>
> > I just came across this odd sentence from the blurb of a new book
> > acquisition at the library:
> >
> > Two pairs of parents, one of whose child has hurt the other, ...
> >
> > Here, it looks like the possessive "whose" should actually be "who's",
> > since the possessive is of the whole phrase "one of who".
>
> No, "whose" is the genitive of "who". You'd say "one of whose children's
> books has hurt the other" though.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
>