word choice - "Which" instead of "whose" for inanimate objects

Someone I know strongly insists that the usage of "which" in the following type of sentence

I'm living in a country which language I have been learning for less than 5 months.

is perfectly appropriate, after I attempted to correct them by suggesting to replace "which" with "whose".

I am aware that some people frown upon using "whose" with inanimate or non-person referents, seeing it as a form of "who", which is generally reserved for people or personalized animals; that is not what I am specifically concerned with (I don't care much either way), but if the speaker elects to avoid "whose" in a sentence like the above, they should obviously replace it with something grammatical, and I do not think "which" qualifies.

They also insist that the following paragraph, which we randomly found on the web while debating it and searching for related examples,

Schedule 3.23 sets forth list and description of all insurance policies currently owned by the Company relating to the Development Work or the assets of the Company, which policies are in full force and effect, and the Company is not in default under any of them.

is akin to the former sentence in its (presumably correct) usage of "which", strengthening their stance.

I think the two are completely different, as the latter is a list of things that "Schedule 3.23 sets forth", and not a relative clause; I also believe n-gram searches like this or this one are clear evidence that even if "whose" might not be ideal in these cases, "which" is certainly just unusable.

This also logically follows, in my opinion, from the realization that "whose" is semantically equivalent to "of which", except for style and for the fact it is mostly used with people, and "of which" clearly cannot be equivalent to "which" alone.

So, is the initial quotation I provided acceptable in English as the other person claims? Are my objections to that valid?

Answer

John Lawler wrote in a comment:

The legal pied-piping that your friend points to is restricted to lawyers, and is not the same construction that appears in the ungrammatical sentence you point out: *I'm living in a country which language I have been learning for less than 5 months. That's because which has no antecedent -- it can't be country, because countries aren't languages, and it can't modify languages because it's not possessive. The sole possessive relative pronoun is whose, and it applies to all noun antecedents, masculine, feminine, or neuter.