Common Mistake #7 in IT and FA Translation - Correct Usage of the Relative Pronoun 'whose'

1. Common mistake with 'whose' ①: Using a prepositional phrase instead of 'whose'

The expression "with its warranty period expired" becomes unclear as to which product "its" refers to, making the sentence redundant and unnatural. Additionally, this structure becomes difficult to understand in English. When corrected properly, it would look like this.

By using "whose", the relationship between the delivered product and its warranty period becomes clear, making the text simpler and flow better. The relative pronoun "whose" is appropriately used to express ownership and relationships, eliminating unnecessary elements in this expression, resulting in concise and easy-to-read text.

2. Common Mistake ② in 'whose': Using 'preposition + which' instead of 'whose'

In this expression, "for which" indicates the relationship between "Record" and "details," but it results in a redundant and unclear structure. The combination of the preposition "for" and the relative pronoun "which" makes the sentence feel stiff and unnatural. When corrected properly, it would look like this.

By using "whose", the relationship between "Record" and "details" is directly indicated, making the sentence more concise and natural.

3. Common Mistake 3 in 'whose': Using a relative adverb instead of 'whose'

"Where" is a relative adverb that indicates a place, typically used for physical locations or positions. In this case, since we want to express the relationship of "where power is supplied" rather than a location, using "where" is inappropriate.

"By using 'whose', it is clearly indicated that the 'power supply of the component' is supplied from the 'X-ray high voltage generator'. This makes the sentence natural and clear.

4. Common Mistake ④ in 'whose': Using an infinitive where 'whose' should be used

The "to change" construction is unclear about how the "device" is involved. This expression has an ambiguous relationship with the object and seems to refer to a "device for changing," but it does not appropriately convey the meaning of "the device being changed." The structure of the sentence is incomplete, making the meaning prone to confusion.

By using "whose", it becomes clear that the "standby image" of the "device" is changed, making the meaning of the sentence clearer and more natural.

5. Common Mistake in 'whose' ➄: Using 'whose' where a prepositional phrase should be used

In these expressions, it seems that "whose" indicates that the "place" possesses "temperature" or "pressure." However, temperature and pressure are the "conditions" of a place, not something that can be "owned." Therefore, this usage is not appropriate.

By using "with", temperature and pressure are indicated as characteristics of that place, resulting in a more natural expression. By using the structure "with + noun + additional explanation (such as prepositional phrases or relative clauses)", it is possible to appropriately express a "state" rather than possession, leading to clear and understandable English.

Let's take a look at another example.

In this example, 'whose' is unnatural. While it seems that 'priority' owns 'linkage information', it actually represents a state.

By using "with", you can express the state naturally. In this way, using "with" instead of "whose" clarifies the meaning and makes it easier to understand.

6. Grammar that most people don't know, but is very useful to know

2. Common Mistake with 'whose'② It mentions poor examples such as 'for which' and 'from which', but in fact, there is very useful grammar regarding the use of 'preposition + which' that most people are unaware of (probably not taught in Japanese middle, high school, or university education). I would like to introduce that at the end.

For example, let's say there is an original text like the one below.

Typically, when translating sentences like this using "preposition + which", most people would translate it as follows.

Certainly, the meaning matches the original text and there are no grammatical issues, so it is fine as it is. Additionally, I believe this typically applies to the use of relative pronouns and relative adverbs learned in Japanese schools. However, a downside is that it is somewhat redundant. Furthermore, from a technical writing perspective, unnecessary passive constructions like 'is to be stored' or 'are optimized' should be avoided as they make the text harder to read. By making a slight adjustment, we can create a concise and readable sentence. Here it is:

To explain the grammar, "in which to" and "by which to" are infinitives used as the objects of relative adverbial phrases. This structure combines the location-indicating "in which" and the means-indicating "by which" with the infinitive "to + base form of the verb."

This is a grammar that is not often seen in English reference books in Japan, so it may feel strange at first, but once you learn how to use it and get used to it, it will be very helpful.

7. Summary

In this blog, we focused on the correct usage of the relative pronoun 'whose' and common misuses. However, it is not limited to 'whose'; becoming familiar with the use of relative pronouns and relative adverbs is greatly beneficial in Japanese-English translation. By mastering these grammatical elements, your writing will become more natural and smooth, and the quality of your translations will improve.

In particular, in the fields of IT and FA, relative pronouns and relative adverbs are frequently used to convey specialized content accurately. By becoming familiar with these, translation efficiency can be improved and misunderstandings can be reduced.

Human Science offers human translation services and post-editing services. We are a translation company that handles translations in a wide range of fields including software, manufacturing, IT, automotive, and distribution. Since 1994, we have been assisting many companies with their translation needs. If you have any concerns like the ones below, please feel free to consult us.

・Translation takes too long!
・Quality is poor and there are many complaints!
・Translation costs are too high!
・Many issues are caused by the Japanese manual!
・Unfamiliar with overseas laws and standards!