?Is it grammatically correct

Question

The broken leg chair is Ali's chair.

Comments

Hi. I couldn't make head or tail of it. Would you please provide the Persian sentence for which this is a translation?

---

سلام

صندلی که پایه اش شکسته است مال علی است.

این جواب یکی از دوستان من به سوالم بود.

Answer 1

The chair the leg of which is broken is Ali's.

N.B. we can't use "whose" in this context, cuz "chair" is inanimate.

http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/candlepwr/whose-an-animate-object/

 

Answer 2

Dear Masood

In the link you mentioned, there are some hints which don't agree with use of "whose" only for animate objects. This may be the case especially in speaking.

Therefore, I guess it is understandable to say:

The chair whose leg is broken is Ali's.

 

Also, you can see this link:

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/whose-for-inanimate-objects

 

An example in this site:

The car whose windshield wipers weren't working was driving in the fast lane.

Comments

Hi dear buddies,

 

I asked you to dissect the mentioned sentence grammatically but

you did something different. Would you please....

 

Regards

---

@ Amin

Thanks for your pursuit and consideration. Yes you're right. However "Wiktionary" labels this usage of "whose" as formerly proscribed

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whose

 

@ Ali Mack

Hi. Sorry. In that case, I think we should say "chair leg" instead of "leg chair". You know, like "car window" meaning "the window of the car".

Also we need to add "that of" before "Ali's chair" to avoid the repetition of "chair leg".

So:

The broken chair leg is that of Ali's chair.

N.B. This might be grammatically correct but I think it's highly unlikely a native speaker says such a sentence!

---

Dear Masood

Your sentence is a bit complex and may make no sense for me, especially "broken chair leg".

broken Chair leg : پایه صندلی شکسته

Car window: پنجره ماشین

As you see, it is different with the main Persian sentence mentioned by Ali.

What's your idea about my suggestion:

The leg-broken chair is Ali's

---

Dear Amin

You're right. I know it sounds a bit complex, but I was just trying to make some modifications to Ali's sentence.

As for your suggested sentence, I think it's nice and delivers the intended meaning.

---

Hi Masood

This is your sentence buddy :

The broken chair leg is that of Ali's chair.

This sentence can be interpreted in two ways:

1. The [broken chair] leg is that of Ali's chair.

پايه ي صندلي شكسته ، مال صندلي علي است. 

2. The broken [chair leg] is that of Ali's chair.

پايه ي شكسته ي صندلي ، مال صندلي علي است.

A. Either way, the intended meaning in the question is not preserved.

صندلی که پایه اش شکسته است مال علی است (the intended meaning)

B. At the end of the sentence, it's better to say : "... is Ali's" without using "that of".

Answer 3

Hi

I guess this might do the trick:s

The chair with broken legs is Ali's.s