pikolo2510
generis GMATNinjaCan you help me understand the usage of "whose" in the options?
According to me, "whose" is referring to "many authors" and not to "William Faulkner"
pikolo2510 , hmm. I am trying to figure out what underlies your reasoning.
Why would
whose books "reach backwards" over the nearest logical nouns, namely,
Joyce and
Faulkner?
Why would that phrase reach back to "many authors"?
• Whose can modify two nouns and whose modifies the nearest logical nounsWhose is a possessive relative pronoun that refers to books written by Joyce and Faulkner.
Yes, the only truly essential information after the verb is "many authors."
The punctuation tells us so, and when we strip the sentence, as I did
here,our core sentence is
Freud influenced many authors.But nonessential information still follows the rules of grammar.
Whose modifies the books of
Joyce and
Faulkner.
Whose books, preceded by a comma, and modifying nonessential information, is itself nonessential.
• Although COMMA + INCLUDING introduces nonessential information . . ."Nonessential" does not mean "not able to be modified."
We do
not say,
"Okay,
Joyce and
Faulkner are set off by an
including phrase with commas,
indicating that the information is nonessential.
That information
could be removed without altering the core meaning.
Because that nonessential information could be removed, whatever follows
must refer to the information that cannot be removed: many authors."
No. Three is no such rule.
Does the material I wrote in quotation marks capture the way you were reasoning?
As is the case with all relative pronouns, the noun that
whose modifies should be as close as possible to
whose.
In this case,
whose refers to both
Joyce and
Faulkner — in particular,
to the novels that they wrote, the novels that "belonged" to them.
Perhaps I misunderstand you. If so, please either help me understand what I am missing
or explain why you believe that
whose modifies "many authors" and tag me.