This is a cut and paste quote from an article on the CNN website.
Shouldn’t it be " 24 of whom are being force fed" ?? Detainees are a which, not a whom? Talk about depersonalizing… which is correct grammar?
Cartooniverse
It should be “whom,” of course.
Perhaps the actual hunger strikes were being force-fed. I’m having trouble imagining someone force-feeding an action, but they’re doing amazing things with computers and ball-bearings these days.
“Of which” is perfectly acceptable when talking about people.
The same advice applies to “which” (which is similar in usage to “that”).
This makes no mention that “which” is restricted only to people: http://tinyurl.com/9fr3j
As I learned the precisionist usage criteria, the relative pronouns worked as follows:
Which always introduces a nonrestrictive clause and always references inanimate, or at the least non-sentient, objects.
That always introduces a restrictive clause and generally references inanimate or non-sentient objects, but may also be used to reference a person: “The lads that in their thousands…” (Housman)
Who (and its declined forms) may introduce a restrictive or nonrestrictive clause and nearly always references a person, or occasionally a higher animal, but is occasionally used of an inanimate object personified: “The West Wind, who playfully billowed up her skirts…”
However, modern usage has gotten quite permissivist, and I will often myself produce a restrictive “which” clause without realizing it. And I don’t consider it a solecism.
One excuse for the “which” in Cartooniverse’s example is that partitive “of which” constructions abound: “The twenty nearest stars, only four of which are Class ‘G’ or brighter…” The writer of Cartooniverse’s quote may have been intending such a partitive and completely ignored the personhood of his partitive’s antecedents.
In any case, I feel that a certain amount of leeway ought to be given to writers working under a deadline. Clear, coherent, and accurate sentences should be expected; perfection in grammatical niceties is desirable but its absence can be excused.
Excellently stated, as always. 
I didn’t’ mean to go after the reporter so much as find out what was proper in this situation. It DID sound demeaning- but my reaction was based on what I thought was proper grammar. I see that it’s possible that the useage was proper and not demeaning.
There is a tendency to refer to numbers or percentages of people as neuter/inanimate.
The guy which wrote that sounds lke an idiot here. Not Reality Chuck, which is an intelligent if gullible person, but the guy which contributed to Dictionary.com. His advice, who I decline to take, is permissive gibberish.
I have to agree wholeheartedly. “This restriction has no basis either in logic or in the usage of the best writers”?!?! what kind of bullshit is that?
Cartooniverse’s example provides a good example of an utterance/text which needs to be understood on the levels of syntax, semantics and pragmatics (the three major divisions of semiotics). Syntax and semantics are familiar to most. Pragmatics, as understood in linguistics, deals with language from the point of view of the users, especially of the choices they make, the intentions they have, and the effects they want to have on the receiver (reader, listener, overhearer, etc).
Cartooniverse’s use, quite legitimately, of course, of such emotive terms as ‘demeaning’ and ‘depersonalizing’ is a fine example of the effect on one reader. It is interesting to speculate as to whether the author intended to generate such an effect.
The first hit I looked up after googling “two of which were” suggests that in formal contexts - often involving statistics (ouryL’s point is a good one) - there may be a tendency (in some authors) to adopt ‘which’, especially where the office as much as the person who occupies it is being referred to:
“The 1936 Olympic Basketball Games Committee originally consisted of six representatives of the AAU, four representatives from the NCAA, and three other representatives, two of which were appointed by the American Olympic Committee.”
Full article here: http://www.usabasketball.com/history/usab_history.html
The problem with the original sentence isn’t so much grammar as overall structure - as it stands, “which” seems to refer to “strikes” rather than “detainees”. A better way of putting it would have been:
“… 27 detainees, 24 of which were being force-fed, were participating in hunger strikes.”
Even better:
“… 27 detainees were participating in hunger strikes; 24 of them were being force-fed.”
No offense to those with strong opinions to the contrary, but if you can say, “Which detainees were being force fed?” you can say, “27 detainees were participating in hunger strikes, 24 of which were being force fed.” :smack:
That’s not the way it works; grammar isn’t a mathematical equation. The “which,” in each case, is being used differently. And in your second example, incorrectly.
Permissiveness is in the mind of the beholder. The question of when to use “formal” writing styles is equally unanswerable these days. Is news writing “formal” English? I find it hard to believe that anyone would classify it that way.
The best answer is to do what other good writers do. “Of which” pertaining to people has been part of good writers’ styles forever, just as Chuck’s quote shows.
You do not have to write your own sentences that way, of course. Style is personal unless dictated by a publication’s style sheet. I have to admit that I myself would use “whom” instead of “which.”
The problem with the original quote is that it is a poorly written sentence. As noted, the reference appears to be to hunger strikes rather than detainees.
What if the sentence were instead written:
The use of “which” is more defensible here.
I think part of the problem is that writers have been conditioned today to avoid using “whom” at any time, because too many people don’t know how to use it properly and its use can strike readers’ eyes as prissy.
But to argue that a cable news network’s website isn’t using formal English strikes me as overly pedantic.
How about: "The doctor’s statement also is at odds with Rumsfeld’s report on Tuesday that 27 detainees, 24 of that were being force fed, were participating in hunger strikes "?
Is “that” okay? How about " 'em" in that spot? You can’t tell me you’d be very confused by either of those uses–you can’t tell me that either of those uses wouldn’t be wrong, either.
How did you get to pick which word is okay in that sentence, and which isn’t?
It’s more defensible, but “whom” is still vastly preferable. If I were reading that, I would see “which,” assume it was referring to things instead of people, and go back and re-read the first part of the sentence. Having assured myself that I had read it correctly the first time, I would finish reading the sentence, with a mental note to watch a little more carefully for poorly written phrases that might give the wrong impression.
In other words, yes, I would figure out what the sentence means, but it would (a) take my attention off of the content and onto the style, and (b) erode my confidence in the author. Both of these would interfere with my reading of not only that sentence, but also the rest of the document. By definition, that’s bad writing.
This gets right back to the issue of prescriptivism vs. descriptivism. Certainly “which” in the OP is something that users of English might utter and understand – after all, the CNN reporter wrote it, and we all seem to have a clue what he meant in doing so.
But it’s been my contention for some time now, in various threads, that “prescriptivism” is actually the description of a formal English style, one that is widely accepted as “good usage” under the circumstances that call for it, no different than describing when a Frenchman would use tu and when vous in addressing one person.
I ain’t got no problem with people speaking colloquial English – that’s what they do. But in circumstances where a more formal usage is the accepted mode of communication, socially, then defining what’s “right” – in accordance with the norms of usage – for formal English, is no different than describing the customs associated with word forms in any other language. One would not tutoyer the Chief Judge of the Court of Cassation when addressing his court – and one would not intentionally use colloquial forms not a part of formal English when attempting to write in it. To me, it’s the same sort of description of appropriate usage.
(Note that “It is I” is as out of place – linguistically wrong – coming from a 10-year-old answering “Who’s there?” when he knocks on your door, as “between you and I” in a more formal communication mode.)
It’s a code marker, is what it is. It says not only who is at the door, but that he feels free not to speak formally in a formal setting, that he perhaps doesn’t know the distinction, or that he has a certain amount of contempt for such fine distinctions, or that he identifies with common (as opposed to elitist) usage, etc.
It’s all good.
By which I mean that even prescriptivists see some use in people speaking any way they choose. I hold out very little hope that “It is I” will long endure, but I cling to it, as I cling to other niceties of grammar in the belief that, during my lifetime, I will be recognized by other speakers of grammatical English when I choose to be so recognized, and by other users of non-grammatical English when I choose to be.
I think the tricky part is adept code-switching, which is a real skill and fun, besides. People who haven’t mastered grammar and usage very well can’t really do it, and people who are so hidebound that they won’t condscend to speak demotic English can’t do it very well either.
I also think that, no matter whether you embrace specific rules regarding these grammatical distinctions or not, there will always be lines in the sand, and code-switching. It’s just that these bugaboos are what’s here now. “It is me.” “Between he and I.” “The prisoners, which…”. “My pet parakeet, Chipper, who…” “my parents, whom are still alive…” Once these become acceptable, there will be other code-markers, and other people encouraging the use of solecisms that would make your cranium explode.
Says you. But not everyone. And that’s the point. Those who are saying it isn’t correct are making a distinction without a difference. After all, if you can have the construction “Our Father, which art in Heaven…” then the ONLY reason to say that which cannot be used following the preposition for is to encourage a construction that has not reason for existing other than to have a different construction. The purported rule aside, there is no functional difference between the use of which in that situation and the use of which in all other situations where it refers to people.
Thou art correct; zounds, 'tis marry good English that 'a use “which” as the Jacobeans were wont.
I saw no argument against “for which” as solecistic, here, just the case that “good formal English” in modern usage eschews a relative “which” with a personal, as opposed to object, referent. That an interrogative which can reference people makes no difference; they’re different uses, with different constructions.
To do a law parallel, it would be like me adapting a printed power of attorney form to write my will instead of going to a lawyer or following a draft in a book. Nothing wrong legally with the printed power of attorney form, but it’s the wrong tool for the use I want to make of it.
And it’s not a “purported rule” – it’s a description of what is customary standard usage in formal English, otherwise it wouldn’t exist. To arbitrarily say that you can’t split an infinitive is the sort of “purported rule” that is an impertinence up with which we should not put. 