Pronoun Review #2 Whos vs. Whose

Pronoun Review #2 Whos vs. Whose Pronoun Review #2 Who’s vs. Whose Pronoun Review #2 Who’s vs. Whose By Maeve Maddox A common error with who’s and whose is to confuse one for the other: Incorrect: She loves an author who’s books have become hard to find. Correct : She loves an author whose books have become hard to find. Incorrect: That’s a regular whose who of Fataverse All-Stars if I do say so myself. Correct : That’s a regular who’s who of Fataverse All-Stars if I do say so myself. Who’s is a contraction of the pronoun who and the verb is: Who’s [who is] that man sitting by your wife? Who’s Who [Who is Who] is the title of several biographical publications. Note: The phrase â€Å"who’s who† is used to mean a collection of people notable in a certain pursuit, for example, â€Å"a who’s who of jazz† or â€Å"a who’s who of vulgarity masquerading as humor.† Whose is the possessive form of the pronoun who: Helen is the woman whose face launched a thousand ships. I know whose sunglasses these are. Alone or before a noun, whose is used to introduce a question: Whose is that car parked in our driveway? Whose little dog are you? Whose children were injured in the mudslide? Whose is used as a relative to introduce a clause: Troy Landry, a Cajun whose family goes back three generations, is on a mission to hunt down a monstrous alligator. The family Tineidae includes the clothes moths, whose larvae feed on woolens, furs, and other textiles. The usual meaning of whose is â€Å"of whom† or â€Å"belonging to whom.† Because who is a pronoun that applies only to living creatures, a few obstinate grammar sticklers object to the use of whose as the possessive of which as illustrated in these examples: I can’t recommend The Magnificent Ambersons, the great Orson Welles film whose ending the studio gutted. In 1986, a flawed reactor design at Chernobyl, Russia caused a leak whose effects are still being felt today. Because using which to refer to people is nonstandard, critics argue that using whose to refer to inanimate things like film endings and leaks should not be allowed. This is one of those vain arguments that try to force idiom to conform to logic. The previous examples could be recast to conform to the so-called rule: I can’t recommend The Magnificent Ambersons, the great Orson Welles film of which the studio gutted the ending. In 1986, a flawed reactor design at Chernobyl, Russia caused a leak of which the effects are still being felt today. But the changes hardly lead to stylistic improvement. I’ll let The Chicago Manual of Style have the last word on whose to mean â€Å"of which†: Some writers object to using whose as a replacement for of which, especially when the subject is not human, but the usage is centuries old and widely accepted as preventing unnecessary awkwardness. Compare â€Å"the company whose stock rose faster† with â€Å"the company the stock of which rose faster.† Either form is acceptable, but the possessive whose lends greater smoothness. –CMOS, 5.61 Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Usage Review category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Direct and Indirect ObjectsGrammar Quiz #21: Restrictive and Nonrestrictive ClausesHow Long Should a Synopsis Be?

Lean-Burn Engines

Lean-Burn Engines Lean-burn means pretty much what it says. It is a lean amount of fuel supplied to and burned in an engine’s combustion chamber. Gasoline burns best in standard internal combustion engines when it is mixed with air in the proportions of 14.7:1 - nearly 15 parts of air to every one part of fuel. A true lean-burn can go as high as 32:1. If internal combustion engines were 100 percent efficient, the fuel would burn and produce just carbon dioxide (CO2) and water. But the reality is, engines are far less efficient and the combustion process also produces carbon monoxide (CO),  oxides of nitrogen (NOx)  and unburned  hydrocarbons in addition to CO2 and water vapor. In order to reduce these harmful exhaust emissions, two basic approaches have been used: Catalytic converters that clean up the exhaust gases coming from the engine, and lean-burn engines which produce lower levels of emissions by better combustion control and more complete fuel burning inside the engine cylinders. Engineers have known for years that a leaner air to fuel mixture is a frugal engine. The problems are, if the mixture is too lean, the engine will fail to combust, and a lower fuel concentration leads to less output. Lean-burn engines overcome these issues by employing a highly efficient mixing process. Specially shaped pistons are used along with intake manifolds that are located and angled to match the pistons. Additionally, the engine’s inlet ports can be shaped to cause â€Å"swirl† - a technique borrowed from direct injection diesel engines. Swirl leads to a more complete mixing of fuel and air that enables more complete burning, and in the process reduces pollutants without altering the output. The downside of lean-burn technology is increased exhaust  NOx  emissions (due to higher heat and cylinder pressure) and a somewhat narrower RPM power-band (due to slower burn rates of lean mixtures). To address these problems lean-burn engines have precise lean-metered direct  fuel injection, sophisticated computer controlled engine management systems and more complex  catalytic converters to further reduce NOx emissions. Today’s advanced lean-burn engines, both gasoline and diesel, achieve noteworthy fuel efficiency performance during both city and highway driving conditions. In addition to the fuel economy advantage, the design of lean-burn engines results in a high torque power output relative to horsepower rating. For drivers, this means not only savings at the fuel pump, but also a driving experience that includes a vehicle that accelerates quickly with fewer harmful emissions from the tailpipe.