# A friend of Peter/A friend of Peter's



## Cecilio

Which phrase do you consider more acceptable?

1. "He's a friend of Peter".

2. "He's a friend of Peter's".


----------



## Henryk

Cecilio said:


> Which phrase do you consider more acceptable?
> 
> 1. "He's a friend of Peter".
> 
> 2. "He's a friend of Peter's".


 
The first. The second would rather mean: "He's a friend of Peter's friend." But you better wait for the native speakers to err on the side of caution.


----------



## elroy

Unfortunately, you got it wrong, Henryk.

1. is incorrect.
2. is correct and mean's "Peter's friend."


----------



## jess oh seven

They both sound fine to me.

Actually, the second one sounds better to me, at least. I'm not sure why. 

The first does sound a bit unnatural though. This is what learners of English tend to say, forgetting about the ol' genetive.

But of course, the most habitual way of expressing that idea would be to merely say "He's Peter's friend".


----------



## elroy

I would never say the first.  Perhaps it's a British-American difference, or my own snobbishness.


----------



## Henryk

Ok, so I better stay away from the English forum for a while.  At least I've learnt something new, albeit it's painful as I gave a wrong answer. 

Sorry, Cecillo.


----------



## roxcyn

Henryk said:


> Ok, so I better stay away from the English forum for a while.  At least I've learnt something new, albeit it's painful as I gave a wrong answer.
> 
> Sorry, Cecillo.


 
Well, I must admit *I have given* wrong answers, too.  (and look at me!  The native speaker).   

Pablo


----------



## panjandrum

"He's a friend of Peter," would be the equivalent of saying, "He's a friend of me."


----------



## elroy

I'm surprised - shocked, almost.

"A friend of Peter" does not sound like English to me.  It sounds like something a non-native would say.  Sure, it's grammatically thinkable, but it's just not idiomatic (at least in my opinion).

Obviously, though, at least two native speakers have no problem with it, so perhaps it's a matter of personal preference.


----------



## roxcyn

elroy said:


> I'm surprised - shocked, almost.
> 
> "A friend of Peter" does not sound like English to me. It sounds like something a non-native would say. Sure, it's grammatically thinkable, but it's just not idiomatic (at least in my opinion).
> 
> Obviously, though, at least two native speakers have no problem with it, so perhaps it's a matter of personal preference.


 
You are right, *it is wrong*.  Just read the English grammar I have.  Here is the text:

He is a friend of Peter's (friend).

Peace, 
Pablo


----------



## jester.

According to what I have learned, "a friend of Peter*'s*" denotes that Peter has several friends and that "a friend" is one of them.


----------



## elroy

jester. said:


> According to what I have learned, "a friend of Peter*'s*" denotes that Peter has several friends and that "a friend" is one of them.


 That's correct, but it's important to bear in mind that - unlike in German - "Peter's friend" can _also_ mean "one of Peter's friends" (so it need not mean that Peter has only one friend).  Context alone can determine whether it means "one of Peter's friends" or "Peter's only friend."


----------



## emma42

For me, it's "a friend of Peter's".  

Jester, I think I know why you are saying this:  *A friend of Peter's helped me at the shop today.  *This might suggest that Peter has several friends.  However, *Bob is a lovely guy - he's a friend of Peter's*.  This doesn't have the same "feeling" of Peter having several friends.  Or perhaps I have completely misunderstood you?

Henryk.  _Please _don't be embarrassed.  It was a very logical mistake, and one that made me think.  Your English is excellent.


----------



## panjandrum

I would say, and write, "He's a friend of Peter's". 
But the conversation on this thread has made me look around for support for this position.

It is clear that "He's a friend of me" is not correct, but it's not hard to find reference sources to support "He's a friend of Peter." I've learnt that this form is called double genitive or post-genitive.

For example:


> It is perfectly correct to do without this double genitive when the genitive relationship is between nouns:
> A friend of my daughter is a lawyer.
> A friend of my daughters is a lawyer.
> _Source_





> A good many of us do use some _double genitives_ and do not notice that they are double. Some language liberals argue that in Informal and Casual contexts the _double genitive_ is idiomatic and not overkill, but few editors of Standard English will be likely to let it stand in Formal writing. It’s either _friends of my sister_ or _my sister’s friends;_ even in conversation, _friends of my sister’s_ may grate harshly on some purists’ ears.
> _Source_


I don't have my New Fowler beside me right now, unfortunately. But there is certainly room for debate, and no reason for those who support *a friend of Peter* to apologise


----------



## jester.

emma42 said:


> Jester, I think I know why you are saying this:  *A friend of Peter's helped me at the shop today.  *This might suggest that Peter has several friends.  However, *Bob is a lovely guy - he's a friend of Peter's*.  This doesn't have the same "feeling" of Peter having several friends.  Or perhaps I have completely misunderstood you?
> 
> Henryk.  _Please _don't be embarrassed.  It was a very logical mistake, and one that made me think.  Your English is excellent.



No, you have not misunderstood me. And you're right about the second sentence. It does not quite have the same feeling. However, I'm not sure why...


----------



## Cecilio

I suppose that the things said in this thread also apply in other cases. For example: "a student of Peter's", "a girlfriend of mine", "a cousin of John's", "an admirer of Peter's", "a fan of Michael's", "a sister of My girlfriend's", etc. Is it so?


----------



## emma42

Thanks, Panjandrum.  I am trying to clear my mind and think about the most idiomatic version, natural to my ears and it's still definitely "A friend of Peter's".

(Henryk.  I hope you feel better now).

Edit:  Yes, it is, cecelio.


----------



## elroy

I'm with Emma - "a friend of Peter's" would still be my choice, while "a friend of Peter" sounds dissonant to my ears.

Nevertheless, I've thought about the issue some more and I've realized that it's not as simple as I might have thought.

We say, for example, "a friend of *a friend*" and "a friend of *the family*."  In these contexts, I would not use _'s_. 

However, I might use "a friend of *my friend's*," if "my friend" is known.  In that context, it would be the same as saying "a friend of Peter's."

Example:

_-Who was that on the phone?  Was that your friend, the one I met yesterday?_
_-No, it wasn't my friend.  It was a friend of my friend's._

As for the double genitive in formal writing, I guess I'm not much of a purist because I certainly wouldn't systematically blue-pencil it.  In fact, I might go so far as to add an _'s_ in certain contexts where one was missing! 

And they say English is easy!


----------



## panjandrum

Cecilio said:


> I suppose that the things said in this thread also apply in other cases. ... Is it so?


Not so. I think the situation is clearer for some of the examples.
Consider the following.

"a student of Peter's", 
Peter is an academic, a student of Peter's is a student in one of Peter's classes.
A student of Peter, on the other hand is someone who studies Peter.
Substitute Wittgenstein for Peter - it may help.

"a girlfriend of mine", 
In this case, the possessor is a pronoun, not a noun. "A girlfriend of me."  

"an admirer of Peter's", "a fan of Michael's", 
I am almost convinced that I would not use the 's in these examples. I am a fan of Van Morrison, not of Van Morrison's.

"a sister of my girlfriend's", "a cousin of John's",
These seem to me to be directly equivalent to the thread topic.


----------



## Cecilio

panjandrum said:


> "a girlfriend of mine",
> In this case, the possessor is a pronoun, not a noun. "A girlfriend of me."



So it wouldn't be correct to say "a girlfriend of mine"? Even if I had more than one girlfriend?


----------



## panjandrum

Cecilio said:


> So it wouldn't be correct to say "a girlfriend of mine"? Even if I had more than one girlfriend?


Sorry, I was being too brief.  *A girlfriend of mine* is OK.


----------



## hamlet

I often see in newspapers or magazines : "John X, a friend of Peter Thing, said that....". Is this a mistake or does that mean you can say "Peter Thing is a friend of John X" (instead of John X's)


----------



## JamesM

This is not a solid rule, as far as I understand. I don't know that it could be called a mistake; it's more of "competing standards" for indicating possession. I prefer the 's version because it avoids ambiguity in certain situations. I read one example yesterday:

This work by Rembrandt, a portrait of the king, is...
This work by Rembrandt, a portrait of the king's, is... 

The first one can be interpreted as the image in the portrait being that of the king. The second one clearly indicates that the king owns the portrait (although we don't know the subject of the portrait.)

I don't know that anyone would consider "friend of me" to be correct, although it's a logical extension of "a friend of Peter Thing", isn't it?


----------



## iskndarbey

JamesM said:


> I don't know that anyone would consider "friend of me" to be correct, although it's a logical extension of "a friend of Peter Thing", isn't it?



Not really; different parts of speech require different rules in all sorts of situations, and 'me'/'mine' are pronouns whereas 'Peter Thing' is an unfortunately named noun. When used with pronouns, this structure always requires the possessive version: "a friend of hers", "a friend of theirs", etc., never "a friend of her" or "a friend of she" or "a friend of them". With nouns the 's is optional.


----------



## panjandrum

Today's thread has been added to one of the previous threads on this topic.  Please read from the beginning - it is not very long.

(Previous thread found by looking up friend of in the WR Dictionary.


----------



## gaer

Weird!

Again, this is something I never thought about, in English.

my freind, a freind of mine
your freind, a freind of yours
***his/her friend, a friend of his (no change)
her friend, a friend of his/hers
[its friend, a friend of its??? — I can't imagine saying this…]

our friend, a friend of ours
your freind, a freind of yours
their friend, a friend of theirs

"Me" is not a choice because there is no such thing as "me friend", unless we consider dialects, non-standard usage.


----------



## iskndarbey

gaer said:


> **his/her friend, a friend of his/hers (no change)



That's not true -- 'his' and 'its' are the same but her(s) changes, the same as our(s), their(s), your(s).


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JamesM said:
			
		

> I don't know that anyone would consider "friend of me" to be correct, although it's a logical extension of "a friend of Peter Thing", isn't it?





iskndarbey said:


> Not really; different parts of speech require different rules in all sorts of situations, and 'me'/'mine' are pronouns whereas 'Peter Thing' is an unfortunately named noun. When used with pronouns, this structure always requires the possessive version: "a friend of hers", "a friend of theirs", etc., never "a friend of her" or "a friend of she" or "a friend of them". With nouns the 's is optional.


 
I think there's something to be said for both points of view here. I don't think James is denying that 'different parts of speech require different rules in all sorts of situations'. I share his view that 'A friend of him' is a more *logical* extension of 'a friend of X' than is the correct 'A friend of his'. After all what is a pronoun if it can't stand in for (pro) a noun? I remember as a child reflecting on the strangeness of the construction.


----------



## Cathy Rose

Do we solve the problem if we change the preposition: "He is a friend *to* Peter"?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Cathy Rose said:


> Do we solve the problem if we change the preposition: "He is a friend *to* Peter"?


Not in my view, but we change it.  Your form is fine, Cathy Rose, but I would regard the suggestion as sidestepping the problem rather than solving it.


----------



## Cathy Rose

But when there _is_ no satisfactory solution ...   Sorry, Thomas, you are absolutely right; let's not surrender.


----------



## iskndarbey

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think there's something to be said for both points of view here. I don't think James is denying that 'different parts of speech require different rules in all sorts of situations'. I share his view that 'A friend of him' is a more *logical* extension of 'a friend of X' than is the correct 'A friend of his'. After all what is a pronoun if it can't stand in for (pro) a noun? I remember as a child reflecting on the strangeness of the construction.



Yes, pronouns can stand in for nouns, but they are also marked for case in English whereas nouns are not, so you can't toss them about willy-nilly whenever you want to replace a noun. Here we need the genitive pronoun so 'mine' (or 'his', etc.) is the only option to replace 'Peter Thing' or 'Peter Thing's' ; you could also say 'Peter Thing' is in the genitive case in this sentence but it would be a distinction without a difference.


----------



## ewie

Thomas Tompion said:


> I remember as a child reflecting on the strangeness of the construction.


Me too, TT.  Well, perhaps not as a _child_ as such, but I certainly ponder over it nowadays.  While I wouldn't bat an eye over saying _A friend of mine_, I find that every time I come to *say* _A friend of Peter_ it comes out as:
_A friend of Peter ... 's_
with the _'s_ genitive as a kind of afterthought ~ because despite the fact that it feels 'odd' it feels less so than _A friend of Peter_.
Whereas _A friend of Peter O'Thing, the dustman from County Cork_ sounds perfectly ok.  Funny thing, English.


----------



## gaer

iskndarbey said:


> That's not true -- 'his' and 'its' are the same but her(s) changes, the same as our(s), their(s), your(s).


Ah, you are right. I'll change that.

I think my analysis was on the right track, but I posted too soon. 


Thomas Tompion said:


> I think there's something to be said for both points of view here. I don't think James is denying that 'different parts of speech require different rules in all sorts of situations'. I share his view that 'A friend of him' is a more *logical* extension of 'a friend of X' than is the correct 'A friend of his'.


Are you suggesting that English should be logical? 

If it were, millions of people would no longer frustrate themselves with all the exceptions!


ewie said:


> Me too, TT. Well, perhaps not as a _child_ as such, but I certainly ponder over it nowadays. While I wouldn't bat an eye over saying _A friend of mine_, I find that every time I come to *say* _A friend of Peter_ it comes out as:
> _A friend of Peter ... 's_
> with the _'s_ genitive as a kind of afterthought ~ because despite the fact that it feels 'odd' it feels less so than _A friend of Peter_.
> Whereas _A friend of Peter O'Thing, the dustman from County Cork_ sounds perfectly ok. Funny thing, English.


I just though of something:

"a friend of John Adams's"

This is logical, no different from "a friend of Peter's", but it sounds absolutely horrible to me.


----------



## Forero

A friend of mine. [My friend]
A friend of Peter's. [A friend of the Peter we know]
A friend of Peter Falk. [A friend of the famous Peter Falk]
A friend of the Lord. [Someone who loves the Lord]
A friend of the Lord's. [Someone whom the Lord loves]


----------



## piraña utria

Hi friends:
 
I’ve just studied all the posts in this so-interesting thread, but there’s a little doubt related to that is remaining on my mind still, especially because of the use of “the only” in this excerpt from written version of Disney’s Ratatouille, by Katherine Emmons and Mary Olin (Norma, Bogotá, 2008, page 37),  that I’m currently reading with my son:
 
_“One day, the waiter announced that a customer wanted a new dish from Linguini! Furious and jealous, Skinner found the only recipe of Gusteau’s that had failed…_”
 
Supposing Gusteau’s is related exclusively to the chef, not the restaurant (It’d be possible either), is it absolutely necessary the possessive form or “the only recipe of Gusteau” would be right in this case?
 
Thanks in advance for your answers,


----------



## Forero

I think this one has to be "of Gusteau's", meaning "of (all of) Gusteau's recipes".  

Didn't you mean "a new dish of linguine"?


----------



## Skin

Forero said:


> A friend of mine. [My friend]
> A friend of Peter's. [A friend of the Peter we know]
> A friend of Peter Falk. [A friend of the famous Peter Falk]
> A friend of the Lord. [Someone who loves the Lord]
> A friend of the Lord's. [Someone whom the Lord loves]


 
May I butt in? Being a non-native, I tend to follow the rules of grammar more than my ears.
The double genitive is used in English because neither the possessive adjective nor the possessive form of a proper noun (=Tom's) can be preceded by an indefinite article, a numeral, a demonstrative or an indefinite adjective.
So you can't say "A my friend, a Tom's friend", but have to say "A friend of mine, a friend of Tom's"
Similarly: "A few friends of my brother's, some words of the teacher's, this book of hers"

Forero, I think that "a friend of mine" doesn't mean "my friend", but "one of my friends".

Look at the difference:
1) Two friends of my uncle's = my uncle has got a number of friends and these are two of them
2) My uncle's two friends = he's got only these two friends or at least these two are the only ones I'm considering now

Bye, Skin


----------



## piraña utria

Forero said:


> I think this one has to be "of Gusteau's", meaning "of (all of) Gusteau's recipes".
> 
> Didn't you mean "a new dish of linguine"?


 
Hi forero:

Not at all. I’ve taken it exactly as appears in the book. "Linguini" is protagonist's name.

Regards,


----------



## beccamutt

Skin, I think you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Skin

Thank you, Beccamutt!


----------



## Forero

Skin said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> A friend of mine. [My friend]
> A friend of Peter's. [A friend of the Peter we know]
> A friend of Peter Falk. [A friend of the famous Peter Falk]
> A friend of the Lord. [Someone who loves the Lord]
> A friend of the Lord's. [Someone whom the Lord loves]
> 
> 
> 
> May I butt in? Being a non-native, I tend to follow the rules of grammar more than my ears.
> The double genitive is used in English because neither the possessive adjective nor the possessive form of a proper noun (=Tom's) can be preceded by an indefinite article, a numeral, a demonstrative or an indefinite adjective.
> So you can't say "A my friend, a Tom's friend", but have to say "A friend of mine, a friend of Tom's"
> Similarly: "A few friends of my brother's, some words of the teacher's, this book of hers"
> 
> Forero, I think that "a friend of mine" doesn't mean "my friend", but "one of my friends".
> 
> Look at the difference:
> 1) Two friends of my uncle's = my uncle has got a number of friends and these are two of them
> 2) My uncle's two friends = he's got only these two friends or at least these two are the only ones I'm considering now
> 
> Bye, Skin
Click to expand...

Hi, Skin.

You've found one of the main reasons we use the "double genitive".

Yes, "a friend of mine" does often mean "one of my friends".  So does "my friend".  I'd say "a friend of mine" and "my friend" are sometimes synonymous, but not always.

"Two friends of my uncle's" and "my uncle's two friends" are also sometimes synonymous, but "my uncle's two friends" can mean "the two friends my uncle has" and "two friends of my uncle's" cannot mean that because the definite article adds meaning.

"Some words of the teacher's" is unusual but is most likely an example of the article _some_.  To use the indefinite adjective _some_, we would much more likely say "some of the teacher's words".

I'll also mention that you don't need to specify indefinite article in your rule because the same thing applies to the definite article.  _The_ cannot come before a possessive form, but we can say "the friend of mine".


----------



## gogovik

I just saw something from a book called _Common Errors in English:_

<Phrases combining "of" with a noun followed by "S" may seem redundant, since both indicate possession; nevertheless, "a friend of Karen's" is standard English, just as "a friend of Karen" and "Karen's friend" are.>

Hope it helps.


----------



## Dosunty

It can be looked at like this:

"a cup of water" vs. "a cup of water's"

The first cup is filled with water (or made of water). The second cup belongs to water.

So, a friend of me is a friend who contains me or is composed of me. A friend of mine is a friend who belongs to me.

This way, the second indicator of possession becomes necessary in order to distinguish between the content or composition of something's and the owner of something's.

(An "educated" guess)


----------



## newname

I have read all posts and am still confused when I write this phrase:
 the company (business) of others' (=people's) or the company of others (=people). Which one is correct?

Thank you.


----------



## panjandrum

newname said:


> I have read all posts and am still confused when I write this phrase:
> the company (business) of others' (=people's) or the company of others (=people). Which one is correct?
> 
> Thank you.


Please post a sentence that includes the phrase you are asking about. It's difficult to comment on the phrase by itself.


----------



## newname

Oh, I am sorry.
He does not like the company of others. He only loves his own.


----------



## panjandrum

newname said:


> Oh, I am sorry.
> He does not like the company of others. He only loves his own.


That is correct without the apostrophe.
You could also write this as:
_He does not like others' company._
... but it seems a bit odd.


----------



## newname

> panjandrum 	 		*Re: A friend of Peter/A friend of Peter's*
> That is correct without the apostrophe.
> You could also write this as:
> _He does not like others' company._
> ... but it seems a bit odd.



So you implicitly agree that 





> a friend of Peter


 is correct


----------



## panjandrum

newname said:


> panjandrum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct without the apostrophe.
> You could also write this as:
> _He does not like others' company._
> ... but it seems a bit odd.
> 
> 
> 
> So you implicitly agree that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a friend of Peter
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is correct
Click to expand...

I would not infer that from what I wrote: "friend" is not the same kind of thing as "company".
Peter's friend is a person.
Others' company is abstract.

But as I said earlier, I find nothing to suggest that "a friend of Peter" is incorrect, though it's not what I would normally say.


----------



## Ausboy

Hi. Would it not be easier to say 'He does not like the company of other people'. 'He only loves his own'.... 'He loves only his own'. He may have other loves /preferences - to be sitting on a remote mountain top or gardening. 
Should Peter be present. "This is Adam. A friend of Peter" = Peter's friend.
Should Peter be absent. "This is Adam. Peter's friend" ,somehow sounds better. Regards.


----------



## newname

panjandrum said:


> I would not infer that from what I wrote: "friend" is not the same kind of thing as "company".
> *Peter's friend is a person.
> Others' company is abstract.*
> 
> But as I said earlier, I find nothing to suggest that "a friend of Peter" is incorrect, though it's not what I would normally say.



Thanks, and my apology.

I've got it.


----------



## temple09

This is a fascinating (and very long/long running) thread.
But I thought I'd add my thoughts on the subject.
Although I would most commonly simply say "Peter's friend", I think that if one is going to use "of" there is a very slight difference depending on the context. Here is how I may use them differently.

"Who is that man over there? I don't recognise him"
"Don't worry, that's Jack. _He's a friend of Peter_"
I.e. His is friends with Peter. There is a tiny bit of emphasis on the fact that he is friendly (legitimate in this context) and "of Peter" is added to further explain.
"What a fascinating story. Where did you hear that?"
"Oh, a _friend of Peter's_ was telling me about it last night"
I.e. One of Peter's friends. The difference is very small, but the first is used to explain the nature and the relevance of a specific person, the second is used to refer to person in a non specific fashion.


----------



## standalone

We can't say, "A friend of my". my what?
"A friend of me" should mean something like "my only friend"
"A friend of mine" mine denotes possession. Possession of many friends.
"father of me" sounds natural. refers to speaker's father.
"father of mine" in "Listen, O Father of mine" means "father of me alone".

What about:
"a photograph of me" (I am seen in it)
"a photograph of mine" (either I am in it or taken by me)
???


----------



## panjandrum

"Father of me" is strange.
"Father of mine" does not mean "father of me alone", and in my experience is only used in a frivolous conversation between child and father.

"Photograph of me" is a photograph depicting me.
"Photograph of mine" is a photograph that belongs to me.  I don't know what it depicts or who took it.
For this specific sub-topic, see a  picture of Bob's/a picture of Bob.


----------



## standalone

panjandrum said:


> "Father of me" is strange.
> "Father of mine" does not mean "father of me alone", and in my experience is only used in a frivolous conversation between child and father.
> 
> "Photograph of me" is a photograph depicting me.
> "Photograph of mine" is a photograph that belongs to me. I don't know what it depicts or who took it.
> For this specific sub-topic, see a picture of Bob's/a picture of Bob.


 
How about, 'father of her' v/s 'father of hers'?
OR
'father of Mary' and 'father of Mary's'?


----------



## panjandrum

standalone said:


> How about, 'father of her' v/s 'father of hers'?
> OR
> 'father of Mary' and 'father of Mary's'?


It is often risky to answer questions about phrases out of context, but in general, don't use a possessive form with "father of".


----------



## JamesM

standalone said:


> How about, 'father of her' v/s 'father of hers'?
> OR
> 'father of Mary' and 'father of Mary's'?


 
Given that the possessive usually indicates "one of many", it doesn't make much sense with "father".


----------



## A.M.Fadel

panjandrum said:


> "an admirer of Peter's", "a fan of Michael's",
> I am almost convinced that I would not use the 's in these examples. I am a fan of Van Morrison, not of Van Morrison's.



That's a little bit confusing for me.
In the all previous replies you said that to use ('s) is the correct way.

Why can't I say (a fan of Michel's) while I can say (a friend of Peter's)?

You said that (a friend of Peter's) seems like (a friend of Peter's friends)
why can't (a fan of Michel's) be the same as (a fan of Michel's fans) ?



panjandrum said:


> "a girlfriend of mine",
> In this case, the possessor is a pronoun, not a noun. "A girlfriend of me."



As Cecilio asked,
a girlfriend of mine ---> does it mean that I have more than one girlfriend?
a girlfriend of me   ---> does it mean that I have only one girlfriend?
Or it's only (a girl friend of me) whether I have only one girlfriend or more than one?


----------



## A.M.Fadel

Oh, I'm sorry, I read only the first page.
I didn't notice that there are other two pages.

I found the answer of the second question I asked at the last reply.
but I don't think that I'll find the answer of the first question.
I'm going to read them anyway, but hope to answer my first question in order not to put the third reply.
Sorry for the disturbance.


----------



## nimmiboy

It looks more sound "He's a Peter's friend"


----------



## A.M.Fadel

nimmiboy said:


> It looks more sound "He's a Peter's friend"



Thanks nimmiboy, but I'm asking about the reason of why I can't say (I'm a big fan of Michel's) while I can say (I'm a friend of Peter's).
Can anyone help me?


----------



## Pertinax

A.M.Fadel said:


> I'm asking about the reason of why I can't say (I'm a big fan of Michel's) while I can say (I'm a friend of Peter's).
> Can anyone help me?



To my mind Forero's distinction is correct, in nuance if not in meaning:

a friend of the Lord = one who cherishes the Lord
a friend of the Lord's = one whom the Lord cherishes

a friend of the King = one who is loyal to the King
a friend of the King's = one whom the King befriends

a fan of Michel = one who is a fan of Michel
a fan of Michel's = one who Michel is a fan of

a friend of Peter = one who befriends Peter
a friend of Peter's = one whom Peter befriends

The difference between Peter and Michel is that you and Peter are on the same footing, your friendship is understood to be mutual, and therefore it makes little difference whether the genitive is used.


----------



## Packard

emma42 said:


> Thanks, Panjandrum. I am trying to clear my mind and think about the most idiomatic version, natural to my ears and it's still definitely "A friend of Peter's".
> 
> (Henryk. I hope you feel better now).
> 
> Edit: Yes, it is, cecelio.



Perhaps because of the fixed phrase: _ A friend of Peter's is a friend of mine.
_
Also heard as:  _A friend of Peter's a friend of mine_.  Where "Peter's" is a contraction and not a possessive  [Peter's = Peter is]


----------



## LV4-26

A.M.Fadel said:


> Thanks nimmiboy, but I'm asking about the reason of why I can't say (I'm a big fan of Michel's) while I can say (I'm a friend of Peter's).
> Can anyone help me?


That's an interesting question. 
Just a few ideas.

I think you've got to have a fairly strong possessive relationship to be able to use the genitive.
If you're a fan of Michel, it is likely that
- you and Michel never met
- Michel has many other fans
Another important factor is that, unlike being friends, being a fan is theoretically a non-reciprocal relationship.

_Of_ denotes varying degrees of possession and, in many cases, no possession at all.
That's the reason why you'll never say _I'm a lover of music's_ and why _I'm a fan of Michel's_ doesn't work, even if it may be less absurd.


However -- and that's where it becomes really interesting -- I think Michel could say, at least jokingly....
_This is A.M.Fadel. (S)he's a fan of mine_

That said, I've think it has more to do with semantic logic than pure usage. I'm saying that because analogous distinctions would apply in my own language.


----------



## sb70012

Hello,
I think in this thread no one has pointed to the usage of objects.
Once a native English speaker told me 3 is incorrect. I asked him "_Why 3 is incorrect? Aren't 1 and 3 similar?_"
In the answer he/she told me "_because __*book of* would usually describe the contents of the book rather than the ownership_."
Do you agree with him that 3 is incorrect?

1. He is a friend of Alex.  less used (not idiomatic.)
2. He is a friend of Alex's.  more used (more idiomatic.)
3. It's a* book *of Alex.


----------



## Parla

> Once a native English speaker told me 3 is incorrect. I asked him "_Why 3 is is 3 incorrect? Aren't 1 and 3 similar?_"
> In the answer he/she told me "_because __*book of* would usually describe the contents of the book rather than the ownership_."
> Do you agree with him that 3 is incorrect?
> 
> 1. He is a friend of Alex.  less used (not idiomatic.)
> 2. He is a friend of Alex's.  more used (more idiomatic.)
> 3. It's a* book *of Alex.


Yes, I agree. We would say "it's Alex's book" or "it's a book of Alex's" or "it's one of Alex's books". Your adviser was also correct in saying that "book of" would usually describe the book's contents, for example: a book of poems, a book of photographs, a book of short stories, a book of word definitions (the last one, of course, would describe a dictionary).


----------



## sb70012

Thank you. What about:

It's a book of *Alex's*.


----------



## Parla

> What about: It's a book of *Alex's*.


Please take another look at post #67.


----------



## sb70012

Thank you. What if we replace "_*the book*_" by "*the car*"?

I mean:

1. It's Alex's car. == correct
2. It's the car of Alex. 
3. It's the car of Alex's. 

I think both 2 and 3 are correct. 2 is correct but not idiomatic. 3 is correct and idiomatic.
Do you agree with me?


----------



## Glenfarclas

sb70012 said:


> What if we replace "_*the book*_" by "*the car*"?



There is no difference in how we form possessive relating to books or cars.


----------



## sb70012

Hello again,

1. the opinions of his father. 
2. the opinions of his father's. 
3. the feelings of his father. 
4. the feelings of his father's. 
5. the heart of his father. 
6. the heart of his father's. 

Am I right? I don't know if [father's] is correct or [father] when we talk about something invisible.
Have I marked them correctly?
Thank you


----------



## velisarius

This time you have the plural noun, "opinions", which changes the picture.

We can say "A book of Alex's", because we mean one book out of the books owned by Alex.
We can't say "the opinions of his father's". Sentences 1,3,5 are correct and those you have marked green are wrong.

6. is wrong (in my opinion) because the father has only one heart. "The heart of his father" or, better, "His father's heart" are correct.


I think the matter could be more complicated if the noun is qualified; I wouldn't be surprised to see "those opinions of his father's" or "those bad feelings of his father's".
Does anyone agree on this point?


----------



## Forero

The word _of_ is terribly ambiguous. It has a lot of possible meanings, listed in a good dictionary.

The possessive suffix is ambiguous too, even in writing, with a lot of possible meanings.

This word and this suffix share some meanings, but each has meanings the other does not, depending on context. For example "the bone of the dog" could mean "the material of which bone is made inside of dogs" or "the bone the dog is eating", among other things; and "the dog's bone" could mean "the bone excised from a dog" or "the bone the dog is eating", among other things. There is of course a difference between "the material of which bone is made inside of dogs (in general)" and "the bone excised from a dog (some individual dog)".

However, the use of a preposition allows _bone_ and _dog_ to have separate determiners, whereas the possessive suffix allows only one determiner, either for "dog" (e.g. "the dog's bone" = "a bone for the dog") or for "dog's bone" (e.g. "the dog's bone" = "the bone excised from a dog or dogs").

The "double genitive" allows separate determiners while retaining a possessive meaning. For example, "this bone of the dog's" = "this bone that is the dog's", as "this bone of his" = "this bone that is his".

We can very well say "these opinions of his", "these opinions of my father's", and "the opinions of my father's that tend to upset my mother".

Removed from context, "the opinions of my father's" leaves me wondering: What opinions of your father's? On the other hand, "the opinions of my father" without context does not leave me wondering because it most likely refers to all my father's opinions.


----------



## Hiden

I have a question I want to ask. If you say “I’m a friend of Sarah Connor's”, it implies that “The speaker is one of her friends". On the other hand, if you say "I’m a friend of Sarah Connor", it implies that the speaker knows her personally. Both are fine but that's the difference I believe.

However, I’m sure that we can’t say "I'm a fan of Pierce Brosnan's". In this case, we have to say “I’m a fan of Pierce Brosnan”.  How can I reason this?


----------



## Andygc

If you claim to be a friend of a person you are claiming a two-way relationship - they are your friend, you are their friend - an "'s" doesn't change the meaning of "friend" and has no implication of a difference in the relationship. A fan has a one-way relationship, so the possessive is inappropriate. Pierce Brosnan is unlikely to have any sort of relationship with the great majority of his fans.


----------



## Hiden

Thank you for your insight, Andygc-san! I think we can use the possesive pronoun in a case like "I saw Pierce Brosnan's first James Bond movie when I was 10. Since then, I have been a fan of his." Following your theory, shouldn't "his" be "him" in this case?


----------



## Andygc

Good point  and curious.

"I saw Pierce Brosnan's first James Bond movie when I was 10. Since then, I have been a fan of his." 

"I saw Pierce Brosnan's first James Bond movie when I was 10. Since then, I have been a fan of him." 

"I saw Pierce Brosnan's first James Bond movie when I was 10. Since then, I have been a fan of Pierce Brosnan's." 

"I saw Pierce Brosnan's first James Bond movie when I was 10. Since then, I have been a fan of Pierce Brosnan." 

Is English rational?


----------



## Hiden

Thank you, Andygc-san! I can't think why a proper name would change that pattern.


----------



## Forero

Hiden said:


> I have a question I want to ask. If you say “I’m a friend of Sarah Connor's”, it implies that “The speaker is one of her friends". On the other hand, if you say "I’m a friend of Sarah Connor", it implies that the speaker knows her personally. Both are fine but that's the difference I believe.


Both are fine, but "a friend of Sarah Connor's" sounds more like a personal relationship than "a friend of Sarah Connor".





Hiden said:


> I can't think why a proper name would change that pattern.


The problem is that _him_ in such a sentence has to refer to someone already mentioned, so it would be unusual to emphasize it by putting it last.


----------



## panjandrum

Forero said:


> Both are fine, but "a friend of Sarah Connor's" sounds more like a personal relationship than "a friend of Sarah Connor".


Back up the thread, six years ago, Pertinax said:
a friend of Peter = one who befriends Peter
a friend of Peter's = one whom Peter befriends​- and that really there isn't a great deal of difference.
In the first, I consider Peter to be my friend.
In the second, Peter considers me to be his friend.
In all situations that I can imagine, there is no difference.


----------



## Roymalika

I am a friend of Shakeel. (Shakeel has only one friend, and that's me.)
I am a friend of Shakeel's. (Shakeel has several friends, and I am one of them.)


He is a friend of Shakeel (Shakeel has only one friend, and that's he.)
He is a friend of Shakeel's. (Shakeel has several friends, and he is one of them.)


From the previous discussion, I've understood this. 
Am I right? If no, please can you correct?


----------



## lingobingo

No. Whenever you say “*a friend of* [somebody or somebody’s]”, you imply that you are *one* of that person’s [multiple] *friends*. It does the opposite of suggesting that you’re his only friend.


----------



## Roymalika

lingobingo said:


> No. Whenever you say “*a friend of* [somebody or somebody’s]”, you imply that you are *one* of that person’s [multiple] *friends*. It does the opposite of suggesting that you’re his only friend.


You mean "I am a friend of Shakeel" and "I am a friend of Shakeel's" are the same in meaning?


----------



## lingobingo

Yes.


----------



## Forero

Roymalika said:


> You mean "I am a friend of Shakeel" and "I am a friend of Shakeel's" are the same in meaning?


Yes, except in some contexts. For example:

A: _I just realized I am friend of Jill's grandmother, the one with the poodle._
B: _And I am a friend of Shakeel's_ [_grandmother_]_._


----------



## Roymalika

Forero said:


> Yes, except in some contexts. For example:
> 
> A: _I just realized I am friend of Jill's grandmother, the one with the poodle._
> B: _And I am a friend of Shakeel's_ [_grandmother_]_._


You say there's no difference between "I am a friend of Shakeel" and "I am a friend of Shakeel's", but here's what someone posted in this thread



> a friend of Peter = one who befriends Peter
> a friend of Peter's = one whom Peter befriends



What does this mean? It seems to suggest that there's a difference.


----------



## heypresto

With no _context _to suggest otherwise, that looks wrong to me. Who befriends whom doesn't come into it. Neither carries any information about how the two friends met.


----------



## velisarius

ewie said:


> Me too, TT.  Well, perhaps not as a _child_ as such, but I certainly ponder over it nowadays.  While I wouldn't bat an eye over saying _A friend of mine_, I find that *every time I come to say A friend of Peter it comes out as:*
> _*A friend of Peter ... 's*_
> with the _'s_ genitive as a kind of afterthought ~ because despite the fact that it feels 'odd' it feels less so than _A friend of Peter_.
> Whereas* A friend of Peter O'Thing, the dustman from County Cork sounds perfectly ok*.  Funny thing, English.




I'm sure ewie hit the nail on the head back there.
That's exactly why "a friend of Peter" sounds incorrect or odd to some native speakers.

_He's a friend of my uncle Peter.
I think he was a friend of Peter O' Toole, the famous actor._ I don't think anyone would find those sentences odd (?)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

velisarius said:


> I'm sure ewie hit the nail on the head back there.
> That's exactly why "a friend of Peter" sounds incorrect or odd to some native speakers.
> 
> _He's a friend of my uncle Peter.
> I think he was a friend of Peter O' Toole, the famous actor._ I don't think anyone would find those sentences odd (?)


Just to be clear: are you saying that _*a friend of + one or two word name*_ sounds wrong, whereas _*a friend of + long name with description, or + just a description of a person*_ sounds right?


----------



## velisarius

I don't think "He's a friend of Peter" sounds wrong, but I understand that some native speakers feel it doesn't sound very idiomatic, or that it's incorrect. 

Would they have any objection to "He's a friend of + name + surname", especially when it's accompanied by an appositive phrase?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Quite an interesting point is raised by this example in the British Corpus:

_She is a friend of Sabine Bahnemann who trained at Coburg_.  Medau News. UK: The Medau Society, 1980.

That seems to be fine to me, without the 's, as does this one:

_She is a friend of the clever pretty girl who trained at Coburg_.

But how would one distinguish in speech between these three?

_X.  She is a friend of the girl's, who trained at Coburg.  _Wouldn't that be better_ She was a friend of the girl, who trained at Coburg_?

_Y.  She is a friend of the girls, who trained at Coburg._

_Z.  She is a friend of the girls who trained at Coburg._


----------



## lingobingo

Surely no one would use X or Y? 

She is a friend of the [girl or girls] who trained at Coburg. ​She is a friend of Jo Bloggs, who trained at Coburg. ​​This means “friends with” rather than “one of the friends of”.


----------



## Forero

The comma in Y gives Y a different intonation pattern than Z, and I would probably not use X.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

lingobingo said:


> Surely no one would use X or Y?
> 
> She is a friend of the [girl or girls] who trained at Coburg. ​She is a friend of Jo Bloggs, who trained at Coburg. ​​This means “friends with” rather than “one of the friends of”.


Given that she trained at Copburg, I'd be happy to say, or write,  _X.  She is a friend of the girl's, who trained at Coburg. _ You say nobody would use it.  Have I missed something?  What is your objection to it?

I'd prefer it to  _Xb.  She is a friend of the girl, who trained at Coburg.  _There, in speech, it would be hard to show that it wasn't the girl who trained at Coburg.  That problem wouldn't occur with X.  A small pause would suffice.


----------



## lingobingo

She is a friend of the girl's, who trained at Coburg.
To me, this clearly means that “She” trained at Coburg. Is that what you intend?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

lingobingo said:


> She is a friend of the girl's, who trained at Coburg.
> To me, this clearly means that “She” trained at Coburg. Is that what you intend?


Yes, certainly.  I put it badly - thank you for pointing it out ,  Could you never say that?

Dropping the _'s_ would make it hard to convey that meaning, in my view.


----------



## Forero

I think X is ambiguous, even in writing, and impossible to distinguish in speech from Y. What I meant to say was that I probably wouldn't use X if the intent was to be unambiguous.


----------



## lingobingo

Thomas Tompion said:


> Yes, certainly. I put it badly - thank you for pointing it out ,  Could you never say that?
> 
> Dropping the _'s_ would make it hard to convey that meaning, in my view.


I’d certainly use it with the meaning I gave in #96. 

And the whole thing becomes clearer when you name names — and/or when you’re in a conversation where everyone knows who everyone else is. Context is very much the guiding factor in this versatile sort of construction, I think.

I was sitting here writing a series of versions to explain how it all works, but it became so long and complex that I’ve given up on that idea.  In some cases the presence or absence of the apostrophe-s does affect how the sentence could be construed when spoken. As does intonation.

Mary was a _friend_ of Jane’s who trained at Coburg (clause refers to Mary)​Mary was a friend of _Jane_ who trained at Coburg (clause refers to Jane)​​She is a friend of Jane, who trained at Coburg. (A friend, not a cousin!)​She is a friend of the Jane who trained at Coburg. (Not the Jane who lives next door!)​


----------



## Forero

Some thoughts on the matter—

The real question about the construction "a friend of mine" is not why we use the stressed possessive form "mine" but why we insert "of" now where Old English did not.

"She is my friend" does not say whether I have other friends.
"She is a friend of mine" also does not say whether I have other friends.

_It's the car of Alex._
But: _It's the car of Alex O'Thing.

It's the car of Alex's._
But: _It's the car of Alex's that we drove to the beach.

A friend of mine
A friend of me
A friend of myself _*?*


----------



## Roymalika

heypresto said:


> With no _context _to suggest otherwise, that looks wrong to me. Who befriends whom doesn't come into it. Neither carries any information about how the two friends met.


Here's the context.
_Peter is my friend and he is a clerk in an office.
Yesterday, I was sitting with some of my neighbors outside my house in a lawn. Someone started backbitting about him, and going further he blamed that he (Peter) takes bribe from people. I said in his defense, "I am a friend of Peter/Peter's. I know him very well. He is a very honest person. He has never asked for bribe. Please stop putting false allegations upon him"._
Are they both same here or is there any difference?


----------



## heypresto

Here, 'I am a friend of Peter's' sounds the more natural of the two, but not as natural as 'Peter's a friend of mine.' Even better would be simply 'I know Peter (well).'

But again, there's nothing to say who befriended whom.


----------



## Roymalika

heypresto said:


> Here, 'I am a friend of Peter's' sounds the more natural of the two, but not as natural as 'Peter's a friend of mine.' Even better would be simply 'I know Peter (well).'
> 
> But again, there's nothing to say who befriended whom.


Thanks. What about "I am a friend of Peter" in this context?


----------



## velisarius

Oh, I think I'm getting it now (the possible difference between the two phrases in the title). I haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps someone else has already pointed this out: :

_I'm a friend of the Queen. _(Boasting, with emphasis on myself and my personal relationship with the queen - I am proud to call myself a friend of the Queen. )

_I'm a friend of the Queen's. _(I am one of the circle of people that the Queen considers to be her friends. A more subtle kind of boasting.)


----------



## Barque

Roymalika said:


> What about "I am a friend of Peter" in this context?


Yes, that could be said too.


----------



## Roymalika

velisarius said:


> _I'm a friend of the Queen. _(Boasting, with emphasis on myself and my personal relationship with the queen - I am proud to call myself a friend of the Queen. )
> 
> _I'm a friend of the Queen's. _(I am one of the circle of people that the Queen considers to be her friends. A more subtle kind of boasting.)


Is this distinction applicable to anyone or just the Queen? As heypresto has told me that without context, we cannot know who befriends whom, nor about any kind of personal relationship.


----------



## Roymalika

Also, is there any sort of rule that tells us that when one should be preferable and not the other? When I revived this thread, lingobingo and Forero told me in their answers that there is no difference between the two (i.e both can be used). Later, when I gave context in #101, I was told " ..friend of Peter's" is natural, while "... friend of Peter" could also be used.

I am bit baffled here at this point about when one is suitable (or natural) while the other isn't.


----------



## Barque

Roymalika said:


> Is this distinction applicable to anyone or just the Queen?


It's a distinction that arises from the context. It would also apply to the prime minister and Tom Cruise. But if you were talking about Elizabeth who lives next door, there'd be no such distinction.


Roymalika said:


> lingobingo and Forero told me in their answers that there is no difference between the two. Later, when I gave context in #101, I was told " ..friend of Peter's" is natural, while "... friend of Peter" could also be used.


So they're saying much the same thing. What contradiction do you see?


Roymalika said:


> I am bit baffled here at this point about when one is suitable while the other isn't.


I don't see any reason to be baffled. Most of the posts here have said they are both correct, and it appears "friend of Peter's" might be more common.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

lingobingo said:


> [...]
> Mary was a _friend_ of Jane’s who trained at Coburg (clause refers to Mary)
> Mary was a friend of _Jane_ who trained at Coburg (clause refers to Jane)


I think that when you remove the comma, the clause has to refer to Jane.

Maybe you intended these two sentences as an illustration of how the meaning would change with intonation.

I was interested in how the addition of the relative clause influenced the choice between _Jane_ and _Jane*'s*_.


----------



## heypresto

Roymalika said:


> Later, when I gave context in #101, I was told " ..friend of Peter's" is natural, while "... friend of Peter" could also be used.


I said it was _the more _natural of the _two_. Which is still my opinion.



Roymalika said:


> Is this distinction applicable to anyone or just the Queen? As heypresto has told me that without context, we cannot know who befriends whom, nor about any kind of personal relationship.


The 'distinction' you see is *not* about who befriended whom.

You'd have to explain it in another sentence if you felt it was important to explain how they met and who made the first approach etc. It's usually not at all important, and and so we just say 'we/they are friends.' And besides, it's pretty silly to say I made you a friend before you made me a friend. You just became friends.


----------



## Andygc

As far as post 101 is concerned, I find "friend of Peter" odd, and I wouldn't say it. I can't at the moment think of any context where I could use it. "I'm a friend of Peter's" or "I'm Peter's friend" - it doesn't bother me which you might choose.


----------



## Roymalika

Andygc said:


> As far as post 101 is concerned, I find "friend of Peter" odd, and I wouldn't say it.


Why do you find it odd, please? Because of the reason ewie gave in post #33 or is there any other reason? I am asking this because some people have told me that it's correct. It isn't odd to them.


----------



## Andygc

I find it odd because it's not what I say. It's not what I say because it wasn't what my parents, older brother and sister, teachers and friends said. If somebody else does say it, their idiomatic usage is different from mine.


----------

