whose sense is complete in itself, a period is used.”—­Nutting’s Gram., p. 124.  “We remember best those things whose parts are methodically disposed, and mutually connected.”—­Beattie’s Moral Science, i, 59.  “Is there any other doctrine whose followers are punished?”—­ADDISON:  Murray’s Gram., p. 54; Lowth’s, p. 25.

   “The question, whose solution I require,
    Is, what the sex of women most desire.”—­DRYDEN:  Lowth, p. 25.

OBS. 5.—­Buchanan, as well as Lowth, condemns the foregoing use of whose, except in grave poetry:  saying, “This manner of personification adds an air of dignity to the higher and more solemn kind of poetry, but it is highly improper in the lower kind, or in prose.”—­Buchanan’s English Syntax, p. 73.  And, of the last two examples above quoted, he says, “It ought to be of which, in both places:  i. e.  The followers of which; the solution of which.”—­Ib., p. 73.  The truth is, that no personification is here intended.  Hence it may be better to avoid, if we can, this use of whose, as seeming to imply what we do not mean.  But Buchanan himself (stealing the text of an older author) has furnished at least one example as objectionable as any of the foregoing:  “Prepositions are naturally placed betwixt the Words whose Relation and Dependence each of them is to express.”—­English Syntax, p. 90; British Gram., p. 201.  I dislike this construction, and yet sometimes adopt it, for want of another as good.  It is too much, to say with Churchill, that “this practice is now discountenanced by all correct writers.”—­New Gram., p. 226.  Grammarians would perhaps differ less, if they would read more.  Dr. Campbell commends the use of whose for of which, as an improvement suggested by good taste, and established by abundant authority.  See Philosophy of Rhetoric, p. 420.  “WHOSE, the possessive or genitive case of who or which; applied to persons or things.”—­Webster’s Octavo Dict. “Whose is well authorized by good usage, as the possessive of which.”—­Sanborn’s Gram., p. 69.  “Nor is any language complete, whose verbs have not tenses.”—­Harris’s Hermes.

“--------’Past and future, are the wings
On whose support, harmoniously conjoined,
Moves the great spirit of human knowledge.’—­MS.”
Wordsworth’s Preface to his Poems, p. xviii.

OBS. 6.—­The relative which, though formerly applied to persons and made equivalent to who, is now confined to brute animals and inanimate things.  Thus, “Our Father which art in heaven,” is not now reckoned good English; it should be, “Our Father who art in heaven.”  In this, as well as in many other things, the custom of speech has changed; so that what was once right, is now ungrammatical.  The use of which