# Post Genitive Or Double Genitive



## Artrella

This grammar item has always keept me wondering why it is the way it is.

Eg, 
This fancy car of yours. 
           Some friends of Jim's
It seems there is a repetition, why can't we say *Some friends of Jim*, we already have the *of,* is there an explanation to this situation?  

I hope sb understand this subject, because for me it's difficult to track the origin of this double genitive.  Thanks, Art


----------



## Spicy

Ciao Artrella (what's means Artrella?)

If I well remember the Genitive is used when the possessor is a person or an animal otherwise you normally use "of"  (= Jim is a person)  
There are very few idyomatic phrases  in which the Genitive is used with "things" as well but they are out of rule.

I found this on the web - maybe you might enjoy yourself looking around http://grammar.englishclub.com/index.htm


----------



## el alabamiano

Artrella said:
			
		

> This grammar item has always keept me wondering why it is the way it is.
> 
> Eg,
> This fancy car of yours.
> Some friends of Jim's
> It seems there is a repetition, why can't we say *Some friends of Jim*, we already have the *of,* is there an explanation to this situation?
> 
> I hope sb understand this subject, because for me it's difficult to track the origin of this double genitive. Thanks, Art


It isn't the word *of*, rather the *apostrophe + s* at the end of the possessive noun which denotes possession in English. But if the noun ends with the letter *s*, only an apostrophe is used to show the owner (possessor). And as you probably already know, *yours* is a possessive pronoun. Look at these examples:

Jim's car.
James' house.
The child's toy.
The fish's food.

This car is yours.
That house is his.
The toy belongs to the child.
The fish is eating his food.

As you can see, all of the examples above show who the possessor is without employing the word *of, *and hopefully, explains why it's necessary to write the sentence as "Some friends of Jim*'*s".


----------



## el alabamiano

> The fish is eating his food.


 I should add that, grammatically, the above sentence should read:

The fish is eating *its* food.

Its is the possesive pronoun for the unknown gender of animals, unless the gender is already known. In that case, either form can be used:

The female fish is eating *her* food, while the male fish has *its* head caught between two rocks.


----------



## Artrella

el alabamiano said:
			
		

> It isn't the word *of*, rather the *apostrophe + s* at the end of the possessive noun which denotes possession in English. But if the noun ends with the letter *s*, only an apostrophe is used to show the owner (possessor). And as you probably already know, *yours* is a possessive pronoun. Look at these examples:
> 
> Jim's car.
> James' house.
> The child's toy.
> The fish's food.
> 
> This car is yours.
> That house is his.
> The toy belongs to the child.
> The fish is eating his food.
> As you can see, all of the examples above show who the possessor is without employing the word *of, *and hopefully, explains why it's necessary to write the sentence as "Some friends of Jim*'*s".





I want to thank *you * and *Spicy* for your help, although -and may be I couldn't be clearer in my question, so may be it was my fault- this is not what I'm looking for.  I'm looking for some other explanation, these examples and your explanations are already well known to me.  Thanks all the same, I'll check with my Quirk's Grammar and I'll reformulate my question in other occasion.  Thank you guys!!!


----------



## Putrid Toaster

I understand your question, but unfortunately, I can't think of a good answer. Could it be that "some friends *of* Jim's" is just a different word order for "some *of* Jim's friends", and the "of" isn't relating directly to "Jim"?

Now that I think about that a bit more, that theory seems unlikely, when applied to your first example - but that has just made me think of something else: in "that fancy car of yours", could "yours" be referring to everything in your possession, and "that fancy car" is just one thing being taken out of that selection?

In any case, I doubt either is right, I've just tried to work it out logically, which isn't always a good thing with language. What do English grammar books say about this?


----------



## Focalist

el alabamiano said:
			
		

> if the noun ends with the letter *s*, only an apostrophe is used to show the owner (possessor) [...]
> 
> Jim's car.
> James' house



With respect, El Al, that's a red herring in relation to Art's original question. 

It is by no means a rule of English that "if the noun ends with the letter *s*, only an apostrophe is used to show the possessor".

"Jame*s's* house" is what I would say, and what everyone I know would say. Equally: 
Chris's new car
Jesus's teachings
Charles Dickens's novels

You surely wouldn't say "I left it in the boss' office".

Admittedly, where one would otherwise end up with "iziz" at the end of the word, many prefer to drop the final s -- "Who was Moses' father-in-law?" -- personally I'd still say "Moses's father-in-law". An alternative is to say "The father-in-law of Moses", so "possessive _of_" IS possible in English. 

Artrella's question was about the construction:
A friend of Arthur's / of mine / of yours / of Tess's, etc. 
where there really is a "double possessive" construction.

I agree, Artrella, that it is indeed somewhat puzzling. Not  having time now to go into it fully (I have to catch a bus in 10 minutes), let me just say that

"A friend of Arthur" does not imply that Arthur has more than one friend.
"A friend of Arthur's" means "one of Arthur's friends" (A. has more than one friend)

A friend of Arthur's = one of those people who are Arthur's friends.

And now I must dash. Byee!

F


----------



## dave

Focalist said:
			
		

> "Jame*s's* house" is what I would say, and what everyone I know would say. Equally:
> Chris's new car
> Jesus's teachings
> Charles Dickens's novels



Interesting. Although I would certainly say (i.e. pronounce) these words as you have written them, I wouldn't necessary write them that way.

E.g. the large teaching hospital on the banks of the Thames opposite the Houses of Parliament is pronounced:
*St Thomas's Hospital*
but is written:
*St Thomas' Hospital*

In the same way, while I would say:
*James's house*
I would probably write:
*James' house*

Someone once explained to me that in the written form both versions are possible, which seems a bit of a cop-out! I would certainly be grateful for any clarification.

Sorry Art, this doesn't help in answering your question. I'm looking forward to an explanation of that too. However it might be worth noting that there certainly are native English speakers who would say *Some friends of Jim* - whether that is correct or not I don't know, but would guess that it is possible.


----------



## zebedee

Artrella said:
			
		

> This fancy car of yours.
> Some friends of Jim's
> It seems there is a repetition, why can't we say *Some friends of Jim*, we already have the *of,* is there an explanation to this situation?



I see what you mean. I like Putrid Toaster's logic and I'm not sure either why we say *of * and then follow it with a genitive again.

Here goes my explanation: 
I think it's because of the word order, we use this word order when we want to stress the object rather than the person:
In "This fancy car of yours" we're stressing the fancy car rather than you, so the fancy car is at the start of the sentence, then we have to follow it with _some  _ preposition cos we can't just put "this fancy car yours" so we put the *of*. 
In "some friends of Jim's" I think the absolute 100% correct version is actually "some friends of Jim" but everybody uses the saxon genitive out of habit.
Hope this layman's grammatical explanation helps!


----------



## Artrella

I can't right know think clearly, I got confussed with this subject.  So I'd better take some more time to do a deeper research and try to find the origin of the double genitive.  However, I remember this example 

             A Queen's friend...
             A friend of the Queen's

And sb told me that in the first sentence the idea is that the Queen has only one friend whereas in the second sentence the idea is that the Queen might have more than one friend. But this explanation does not convince me.
I thank you ALL for the excellent explanations given to me.  When I get my mind clearer as regards this subject I will post another thread.

Good bye, and again I'm so grateful for your effort.  ARt


----------



## Julius

Neither phrase implies that the Queen may or may not have more than one friend.  I think that sb might have misinformed you.

Regards,
Julius


----------



## el alabamiano

I've been doing a search, and perhaps this provides the most accurate and clearest explanation for all of us*'*! 

From: http://website.lineone.net/~eshp/grammar3.htm


*1. Possession: should it be of or's?* 


Sadly there's no absolute rule to tell you whether you need to use, or can use, a "possessive" form with* "of",* on one with *"'s".* The simple rule that you can "only use 's with people" is a very broad generalisation, with lots of exceptions. Besides, there are a lot of cases where, even with people, you cannot use* 's. *So here are the main forms of "possession", and some examples to remember: 


*HUMAN POSSESSORS, OR ASSIMILATED:* 
*True possession:* *'s* is normal. 
_A1) The director's car wouldn't start._ 
_A2) The dog's leg was broken_ 
*Qualities, attributes or actions: 's* is common. 
_A3) Madonna's reputation is international._ 
_A4) The dog's name was Jackson._ 
_A5) The Queen's arrival was delayed._ 
These can also be easily expressed using of. 
_A31) The reputation of Madonna...._ 
_A41) The name of the dog ....._ 
There is a difference in emphasis: examples A3-A5 emphasize the possessor, A31 and A41 emphasize the quality or attribute. In A5, the "possessor" is the subject of the verbal noun following it. Sometimes the structure of a sentence will determine the choice of expression, as *a word may need to** stand next to other words qualifying it:* 
_A32) The reputation *of **Madonna, the American singer,* is...._ 
We can't say: 
A32X) **_ Madonna's reputation, the American singer, is.._.. ** 
Categories A1 and A2 will only be rephrased using "of" if this is structurally *essential*: 
A 11) _This is the *car of the *_*accountant I had lunch with*_yesterday._ 


*INANIMATE "POSSESSORS"* 

*Qualities, attributes, actions, or parts:* "*Of*" is the usual structure, but *'s* may be possible; the unusual* "'s"* form can be used with some familiar nouns for stress, or for reasons of sentence structure. 
_B1) The cost of the operation was enormous._ 
_B2) The condition of the goods we received was not very satisfactory_ 
_B21) The house's situation was spectacular._ 
_B3) The book's cover was missing._ 
_B4) Where's the lid of the saucepan?_ 
_B5) The front end of the car was smashed up. _

*'s tends to be impossible after prepositions.* 
_B6) It's at *the top of the stairs. *(_never_ at the stairs' top)_ 
_B7) It's in *the back of the car.* (_never_ in the car's back)_ 

*"POSSESSIVE" STRUCTURES FOR OTHER PURPOSES:* 

When "possession" is not involved in any sense, there is no difference between animates and inanimates: 

*C. INCLUSIVE NOUNS.* Nouns like* lot, group, collection, whole, regiment, *etc.: 
*NEVER USE 'S: *a structure with *"of"* is essential. 
_C1) A lot of people_ 
_C2) A collection of paintings._ 
N.B. do not confuse C2 with cases of real possession: 
A12) _It's the artist's (own) collection. _
(i.e., we can say _"an artist's paintings"_ but not "_a collection's paintings")_ 

*D. OTHER COMPLEMENTAL NOUN GROUPS:* 
*"of"* is essential, except in a few specific cases. 
_D1) The theory of relativity._ 
_D2) The director of marketing._ 

Complemental noun groups on models D1/D2 can often be rephrased as compounds, *without 's:* 
_D21) The marketing director (_not_ marketing's director)_ 
_D3) The creation of a new TV channel _
In D3,_ new TV channel_ is the complement of _creation_. Often it is important to understand the different relationships that link the nouns in a noun group. For example, compare the following: 
_E1. He is a pizza maker._ 
_E2. This is a pizza restaurant._ 
An* 's* structure is possible in E1, but not in E2: 
_He is a maker of pizzas. _but not _This is a restaurant of pizzas_ 
In E1, _pizzas_ is the notional direct object of the verb _to make._ 
In E2, _pizza_ is a function, a *precision* defining the word _restaurant_; it is not the notional object of a verb - there is no verb.


----------



## Artrella

el alabamiano said:
			
		

> I've been doing a search, and perhaps this provides the most accurate and clearest explanation for all of us*'*!
> 
> From: http://website.lineone.net/~eshp/grammar3.htm
> 
> 
> *1. Possession: should it be of or's?*
> 
> 
> Sadly there's no absolute rule to tell you whether you need to use, or can use, a "possessive" form with* "of",* on one with *"'s".* The simple rule that you can "only use 's with people" is a very broad generalisation, with lots of exceptions. Besides, there are a lot of cases where, even with people, you cannot use* 's. *So here are the main forms of "possession", and some examples to remember:
> 
> 
> *HUMAN POSSESSORS, OR ASSIMILATED:*
> *True possession:* *'s* is normal.
> _A1) The director's car wouldn't start._
> _A2) The dog's leg was broken_
> *Qualities, attributes or actions: 's* is common.
> _A3) Madonna's reputation is international._
> _A4) The dog's name was Jackson._
> _A5) The Queen's arrival was delayed._
> These can also be easily expressed using of.
> _A31) The reputation of Madonna...._
> _A41) The name of the dog ....._
> There is a difference in emphasis: examples A3-A5 emphasize the possessor, A31 and A41 emphasize the quality or attribute. In A5, the "possessor" is the subject of the verbal noun following it. Sometimes the structure of a sentence will determine the choice of expression, as *a word may need to** stand next to other words qualifying it:*
> _A32) The reputation *of **Madonna, the American singer,* is...._
> We can't say:
> A32X) **_ Madonna's reputation, the American singer, is.._.. **
> Categories A1 and A2 will only be rephrased using "of" if this is structurally *essential*:
> A 11) _This is the *car of the *_*accountant I had lunch with*_yesterday._
> 
> 
> *INANIMATE "POSSESSORS"*
> 
> *Qualities, attributes, actions, or parts:* "*Of*" is the usual structure, but *'s* may be possible; the unusual* "'s"* form can be used with some familiar nouns for stress, or for reasons of sentence structure.
> _B1) The cost of the operation was enormous._
> _B2) The condition of the goods we received was not very satisfactory_
> _B21) The house's situation was spectacular._
> _B3) The book's cover was missing._
> _B4) Where's the lid of the saucepan?_
> _B5) The front end of the car was smashed up. _
> 
> *'s tends to be impossible after prepositions.*
> _B6) It's at *the top of the stairs. *(_never_ at the stairs' top)_
> _B7) It's in *the back of the car.* (_never_ in the car's back)_
> 
> *"POSSESSIVE" STRUCTURES FOR OTHER PURPOSES:*
> 
> When "possession" is not involved in any sense, there is no difference between animates and inanimates:
> 
> *C. INCLUSIVE NOUNS.* Nouns like* lot, group, collection, whole, regiment, *etc.:
> *NEVER USE 'S: *a structure with *"of"* is essential.
> _C1) A lot of people_
> _C2) A collection of paintings._
> N.B. do not confuse C2 with cases of real possession:
> A12) _It's the artist's (own) collection. _
> (i.e., we can say _"an artist's paintings"_ but not "_a collection's paintings")_
> 
> *D. OTHER COMPLEMENTAL NOUN GROUPS:*
> *"of"* is essential, except in a few specific cases.
> _D1) The theory of relativity._
> _D2) The director of marketing._
> 
> Complemental noun groups on models D1/D2 can often be rephrased as compounds, *without 's:*
> _D21) The marketing director (_not_ marketing's director)_
> _D3) The creation of a new TV channel _
> In D3,_ new TV channel_ is the complement of _creation_. Often it is important to understand the different relationships that link the nouns in a noun group. For example, compare the following:
> _E1. He is a pizza maker._
> _E2. This is a pizza restaurant._
> An* 's* structure is possible in E1, but not in E2:
> _He is a maker of pizzas. _but not _This is a restaurant of pizzas_
> In E1, _pizzas_ is the notional direct object of the verb _to make._
> In E2, _pizza_ is a function, a *precision* defining the word _restaurant_; it is not the notional object of a verb - there is no verb.




Thank you very much!  You've done  a great research and gave us all a big, big and clear explanation.  I'll visit the site you send and then tell you about it if some doubts arise.  Again, thanks for your kind help!


----------



## lercarafridi

Artrella said:
			
		

> This grammar item has always _*ketp*_ me wondering why it is the way it is.
> 
> Eg,
> This fancy car of yours.
> Some friends of Jim's
> It seems there is a repetition, why can't we say *Some friends of Jim*, we already have the *of,* is there an explanation to this situation?
> 
> I hope sb understand this subject, because for me it's difficult to track the origin of this double genitive.  Thanks, Art



It seems to me that the double genitive mark –of and ´s- is related back to Old English  -the language spoken in Great Britain before the Norman Conquest- and Latin interference. Latin genitive is expressed by suffixes and the resulting romance language genitive case began changing into *of*, yet possession in Old English was denoted by adding –es, i.e king, kinges. The -e was dropped and the ending turned gradually to ´s. On the other side and owing to formal language requirements, word order and *of * started replacing the more colloquial ´s when possession was implied. Later on, both forms coexisted and were sometimes used at the same time for the sake of emphasis. That is why nowadays we find such examples you provided.


----------



## quehuong

A,

I can't describe the difference very well.  I'll go home and look up double genitive in my favorite grammar book and if it has a very good explanation, then I'll post it here.


----------



## Artrella

quehuong said:
			
		

> A,
> 
> I can't describe the difference very well.  I'll go home and look up double genitive in my favorite grammar book and if it has a very good explanation, then I'll post it here.




QH, what Grammar book have you got?  I'm interested in Grammar Books, I already have four but I rely more in two of them, Quirk et all (for Traditional) and Haegeman and Guéron for Generative Grammar.
I'd like sb to recommend me another book to consult.
Bye A.


----------



## zebedee

Artrella said:
			
		

> QH, what Grammar book have you got?  I'm interested in Grammar Books, I already have four but I rely more in  two of them, Quirk et all (for Traditional) and Haegeman and Guéron for Generative Grammar.
> I'd like sb to recommend me another book to consult.
> Bye A.



If you have a look at the Forum "Resources" I posted a reference book under English Grammar. It has 3 levels of difficulty, and lots of practical examples and exercises. Maybe you already know it! 

By the way, it's "rely on" !

Kind regards


----------



## quehuong

Ms. Artrella,

Quirk has quite a number of great grammar books!  I don't have one of his, but I plan to buy _A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_ by Quirk et al someday.  My beloved grammar book is very similar to this one of Quirk's.  

_The Grammar Book :An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course_ 2nd Edition | Marianne Celce-Murcia | ISBN 0838447252 | © 1999 

You could see and buy the book at www.heinle.com.

http://www.heinle.com/cgi-wadsworth...ct_isbn_issn=0838447252&discipline_number=301

I'll come back and post the explanations to your question next time for I've got to log off now.  The library is closing in a few minutes.


----------



## quehuong

Ms. Artrella,

Here is one more great grammar book!

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston and Pullum.  (2002).  ISBN 0521431468

You have a book of Randolph Quirk's?  That book of his doesn't have a great explanation on double genetive?  The ones that I have seen are quite thorough.  Is yours a condensed edition?

Double genitive = Oblique genitive (the Cambridge) = Post-genitive (the Quirk  ISBN  0582517346 OR 0582965020)

If you have this edition of Quirk's and can't find double genitive in it, search for "the post-genitive" in *The Noun Phrase* chapter and under *Postmodification by Prepositional Phrases* topic.  If you can't find this in the Quirk you have, let me know.  I'll type the whole thing here for you to digest and have fun with.


----------



## Artrella

quehuong said:
			
		

> Ms. Artrella,
> 
> Here is one more great grammar book!
> 
> The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston and Pullum.  (2002).  ISBN 0521431468
> 
> You have a book of Randolph Quirk's?  That book of his doesn't have a great explanation on double genetive?  The ones that I have seen are quite thorough.  Is yours a condensed edition?
> 
> Double genitive = Oblique genitive (the Cambridge) = Post-genitive (the Quirk  ISBN  0582517346 OR 0582965020)
> 
> If you have this edition of Quirk's and can't find double genitive in it, search for "the post-genitive" in *The Noun Phrase* chapter and under *Postmodification by Prepositional Phrases* topic.  If you can't find this in the Quirk you have, let me know.  I'll type the whole thing here for you to digest and have fun with.




QH, thanks for recommending me some Grammar books, I love Grammar!
The book I have by Randolph Quirk is " A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language"  I bought it (through Amazon) in Kent, England (ISBN 0-582-51734-6) In fact the authors are Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik.
I have another one, " A Communicative Grammar of English" by Leech and Svartik ( but more related to the communicative approach, although it is based on the aforementioned book). This book has to do with intonation, for instance, amongst other things.
In my book I have post genitive, but as I consulted Haegeman's Generative Grammar I wanted to have an opinion about the different approaches, one Traditional and one Generative.  
In my Quirk's I went to "post genitive" which led me to "genitive" (it's not divided in chapters - I mean you can find "genitive" all spread throughout the book- and then I have "case" "construction" etc etc, it is well explained but not in a single chapter devoted to "post genitive".
I really appreciate your concern to provide me with information about this subject.  You know, I read everything I can, but there's always sth you want to ask, I wish sometimes I could have the authors in front of me to ask them! (especially Chomsky!!!)
If you have the same book as I have, please tell me where it is, maybe I skipped some page or some important aspect of this.

Thanks QH, and please don't call me "Ms", simply Art  Bye!


----------



## quehuong

Art,

You have the Quirk I was talking about.  See pp. 1283 and 1284.  Yeah, I know, the post-genitive did not have a lot of attention in this one of Quirk's.  I'll post what the Cambridge has next time I visit the forums.  I've looked up double genitive in several grammar books and usage books, and I must say that these two have the best explanations.


----------



## Artrella

Thanks QH! I was reading those pages and I discovered that I was not wrong when I said that depending on what construction you use, the meaning as regards having only one friend or more than one changes.
Example is:
1-Mr. Brown's daughter Mary is beautiful 
2-Mary, Tochter of Mr Brown 
3-Mary, a daughter of Mr Brown's
4-Mr Brown's daughter


4: Implies "sole" daughter
1 and 2: carry not such implication
3: "not sole" implication


Also:

"He's a student of Jespersen" = one who studies Jespersen's writings
"He was a student of Jespersen's" = he studied under Jespersen

Ok, that's it! I'm more relaxed now. Art


----------



## quehuong

Art,

Here's the promise.  Ah, and I've checked out the link you sent me.  Great!
**************
Source:  The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston and Pullum. (2002). ISBN 0521431468

*Type IV: oblique genitive*

We refer to the genitive in [41iv](She's a friend of Kim's.) as oblique because it is related to the head noun _friend_ obliquely, via the preposition _of_, rather than immediately, as in _Kim's friend_.  The PP _of Kim's_ is post-head dependent within the matrix NP.  Type I genitives fill the determiner position, where they mark the NP as definite, while the oblique allows the relation between subordinate and matrix NPs to be expressed while leaving the determiner position free to be filled by other kinds of determiner.  Compare, then:

[44]PRE-HEAD

_ia.      *a Kim's friend
iia.     *those Kim's friends
iiia.     Kim's friend
iva.     ?Kim's friend that I met in Paris
va.     all/both Kim's friends
via.     Kim's every move_​
POST-HEAD: OBLIQUE

_ib.     a friend of Kim's
iib.     those friends of Kim's
iiib.    *the friend of Kim's
ivb.    the friend of Kim's that I met in Paris
vb.     all/both friends of Kim's
vib.     every move of Kim's_​
Examples [ib/iib] show the oblique in combination with an indefinite or demonstrative determiner; the [a] versions are inadmissible because the determiner position is doubly filled - by _a/those_ and by the Type I genitive _Kim's_.  In [iiia] _Kim's_ marks the matrix NP as definite, and the * version is excluded: the meaning would not be distinct from that of [iiia], and the simpler Type I construction is required.  Where there is a post-head dependent, such as the relative clause in [iv], the is permitted in the oblique construction, while the pre-head version tends to be somewhat marginal.  In [v][/i]all[/i] and both can be predeterminers as well as determiners, and hence both constructions are possible, though the simpler [a] version is quite strongly preferred.  Both versions are possible in [vi] too, because every can function as modifier as well as determiner; the [a] version, however, is limited to a quite narrow range of heads, so we can have every friend of Kim's, but not *Kim's every friend.







*


----------



## Artrella

quehuong said:
			
		

> Art,
> 
> Here's the promise.  Ah, and I've checked out the link you sent me.  Great!
> **************
> Source:  The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston and Pullum. (2002). ISBN 0521431468
> 
> *Type IV: oblique genitive*
> 
> We refer to the genitive in [41iv](She's a friend of Kim's.) as oblique because it is related to the head noun _friend_ obliquely, via the preposition _of_, rather than immediately, as in _Kim's friend_.  The PP _of Kim's_ is post-head dependent within the matrix NP.  Type I genitives fill the determiner position, where they mark the NP as definite, while the oblique allows the relation between subordinate and matrix NPs to be expressed while leaving the determiner position free to be filled by other kinds of determiner.  Compare, then:
> 
> [44]PRE-HEAD
> 
> _ia.      *a Kim's friend
> iia.     *those Kim's friends
> iiia.     Kim's friend
> iva.     ?Kim's friend that I met in Paris
> va.     all/both Kim's friends
> via.     Kim's every move_​
> POST-HEAD: OBLIQUE
> 
> _ib.     a friend of Kim's
> iib.     those friends of Kim's
> iiib.    *the friend of Kim's
> ivb.    the friend of Kim's that I met in Paris
> vb.     all/both friends of Kim's
> vib.     every move of Kim's_​
> Examples [ib/iib] show the oblique in combination with an indefinite or demonstrative determiner; the [a] versions are inadmissible because the determiner position is doubly filled - by _a/those_ and by the Type I genitive _Kim's_.  In [iiia] _Kim's_ marks the matrix NP as definite, and the * version is excluded: the meaning would not be distinct from that of [iiia], and the simpler Type I construction is required.  Where there is a post-head dependent, such as the relative clause in [iv], the is permitted in the oblique construction, while the pre-head version tends to be somewhat marginal.  In [v][/i]all[/i] and both can be predeterminers as well as determiners, and hence both constructions are possible, though the simpler [a] version is quite strongly preferred.  Both versions are possible in [vi] too, because every can function as modifier as well as determiner; the [a] version, however, is limited to a quite narrow range of heads, so we can have every friend of Kim's, but not *Kim's every friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


*



Now, to use an expression I've learnt here... YOU ARE A STAR!!!!






Bye QH! Love, Art*


----------



## torretta3

I have found an interesting example about the use of double genitive:
'This is a photo of my brother' has a meaning (you can see him in this photo)and (double genitive) 
'This is a photo of my brother's' means this photo belongs to him.


----------



## lainyn

Hi! I hope no one else has said this as succinctly as I will, I just had time to browse the comments above.

The reason you must say "A friend of Jim's"  is because you are not really using a double genitive - you are deleting what comes after "Jim's" - What you are really saying is "*A friend belonging to the set of friends that Jim has*" or in shorter terms "A friend of (NOT POSSESSIVE "of", belonging to "of") Jim's set of friends" 

I hope this helps! 

~Lainyn


----------



## Outsider

More links about the double genitive:

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19990305
http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/O0036500.html (Scroll down to the usage note.)


----------



## Artrella

lainyn said:
			
		

> Hi! I hope no one else has said this as succinctly as I will, I just had time to browse the comments above.
> 
> The reason you must say "A friend of Jim's"  is because you are not really using a double genitive - you are deleting what comes after "Jim's" - What you are really saying is "*A friend belonging to the set of friends that Jim has*" or in shorter terms "A friend of (NOT POSSESSIVE "of", belonging to "of") Jim's set of friends"
> 
> I hope this helps!
> 
> ~Lainyn





GREAT Natasha!!! I love your succint explanation!!! I will take it to my "children"... would you mind?  Thank you!!!


----------



## torretta3

I think 'Tom is a friend of Jim's' sounds repetitive:
why not to say 'Tom is a friend of Jim'? 
The idea is already clear and 'Jim's' sound a repetition.
If a confusion is possible, as for:
'This is a photo of my brother' and 'This is a photo of my brother's',
I think the double genitive is defenetely needed.


----------



## EricB

I like lainyn's reasoning, but I respectfully disagree.  What I mean is, to me the idea of the double genitive being used to handle missing words is elegant, but I don't think it describes what goes on in the mind of a native English speaker.

I think where Lainyn is correct is the idea that in the sentence "He is a friend of Jim's," the construction "a friend of" tells you that Jim has a set of friends and "he" is one of them.  "He is Jim's friend" sounds like Jim might only have one friend.

But the sentence "He is a friend of Jim" accomplishes the exact same thing.  So why then do English speakers say "He is a friend of Jim's"?

As already discussed, there are cases where the double genitive is properly used to make a necessary distinction between two different meanings ("that's a photo of my brother"/"that's a photo of my brother's").

I think what happens in other cases, like "He is a friend of Jim's," is that the speaker is simply used to hearing it that way, and is not conscious of the exact distinction between a proper use and an improper use.

But to me, while I know "He is a friend of Jim" is correct, it sounds formal and artificial.  Nobody I know speaks that way, including me.

What I'd say to a student trying to learn this is that this is simply a quirk of the language.  It's technically incorrect, but it's really a matter of style, and in spoken English (at least in the US), it feels casual and informal.

torretta3, does this address your point?


----------



## LV4-26

Though not a native speaker, I strongly support laynin's explanation.

I think I read it somewhere in a book of linguistics.
I do believe that "of" stands for something like "among"
A friend of Jim's = a friend among Jim's friends.


----------



## EricB

It is absolutely true that:

A friend of Jim's = a friend among Jim's friends

But it's also true that:

A friend of Jim = a friend among Jim's friends

Both phrases suggest (the "equals" sign is actually too strong; it's more of a suggestion) the exact same thing.  In other words, you do not need the double genitive to convey the idea that he is a friend among Jim's friends.  So why then do people say "a friend of Jim's"?

I like laynin's explanation.  All I'm saying is I don't think it describes what goes on in the mind of a native speaker.  To me, "a friend of Jim's" is simply a double possessive, and while it's redundant, it sounds right.  "A friend of Jim" sounds too formal, to my ear.


----------



## torretta3

In this example two persons are talking about Tom and Jim.
'...who?..Tom? No, he would never do that, he is a friend of Jim/Jim's'
(and not his enemy , this is the idea). What is better in this case? 
Thanks.


----------



## Artrella

Now, I have this question.. I've been using double genitive in some conversations with English speakers and they didn't correct me... Examples>>
*This is a book of mine* >> what about this, is it correct? or it is far fetched?  I could say *This is my book*... What do you think?


----------



## LV4-26

Just to add my own question to Artrella's.

How about :
_This is one of my books _
?


----------



## Artrella

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Just to add my own question to Artrella's.
> 
> How about :
> _This is one of my books _
> ?




This is perfect LV!  What is your question about this sentence?


----------



## LV4-26

Artrella said:
			
		

> This is perfect LV! What is your question about this sentence?


 
I just wanted to take the opportunity of your questions to ask the same about "one of my books"
I'm interested in knowing if it would be used as an alternative to "a book of mine" or "my book", which of the three would be most frequent and if there is a difference in meaning/usage.
(I understand this isn't a double genitive but it's related to your own questions)
Thank you for this first answer, Artrella.


----------



## EricB

torretta3, in that context, I would say, "No, he would never do that; he's Jim's friend."  (Or more likely, "No, he would never do that; they're friends.")

If you said, "No, he would never do that; he's a friend of Jim's (or Jim)," then you're placing the emphasis on "Jim," as if you're suddenly revealing Jim's name as a critical piece of information.  The listener would think either this sounded odd (because he or she knows you're talking about Tom and Jim and doesn't need the emphasis), or maybe that you meant some other Jim other than the one under discussion.

Saying, "No, he would never do that; he's Jim's friend" puts the emphasis on "friend"  -- as opposed to "Jim's enemy" -- which is the right meaning in this context.

Also, in the example you gave, there's no need to use the "a friend of" construction to suggest that Tom is one of Jim's set of friends.  Presumably, the listener already has some idea of who Tom and Jim are.  "A friend of" would make more sense at the beginning of the conversation -- "Tom?  Who's that" "Oh, he's a friend of Jim's" -- or as part of an introduction -- "This is Tom.  He's a friend of Jim's."


----------



## EricB

_This is a book of mine.
This is my book.
This is one of my books._

These sentences can suggest different things depending on the context, and whether the speaker means to use the possessive to indicate ownership or authorship.

_This is a book of mine_ would probably be the least frequently used of the three.  It sounds to me like the beginning of a presentation, like a teacher has brought a book he or she owns to class and is showing it to the students.  It suggests ownership rather than authorship, but the speaker has not used the much more common "my" ("my book") and instead put the possessive after the noun "book" in a way that makes the possession feel subordinate -- "This is a book which I happen to be the owner of."

_This is my book_ can suggest either ownership or authorship, depending on the context.  If I proudly show you a book and say, "This is my book," then I most likely mean I wrote it, or perhaps I edited it or did illustrations or contributed some amount of work to the creation of it.  On the other hand, if I'm looking through your bookshelves and pull a book out and say, "This is my book," then I probably mean I own it (unless it happens to be a book I wrote).

_This is one of my books_ has the exact same possible meanings as "This is my book," except that it makes it clear that the book in question is part of a set of similar books.

Please keep in mind though that most of the time when you're referring to a book that you own -- e.g., you're showing a friend a book you've been telling him about, you're lending your co-worker a book to read, etc. -- ownership is understood and you probably wouldn't use any of the three sentences above.  You're more likely to say something like, "Here's that book I was telling you about," or "This is a wonderful novel I found in a used bookstore.  I thought you might like to borrow it for your plane trip."


----------



## Artrella

Great explanation EricB!  

About the book and its authorship... what would you say to suggest, for instance in a presentation, that you wrote that book?


----------



## EricB

Thanks, Artrella! 

To answer your question, I think the simplest way to express that is, "This is a book I wrote," which obviously avoids the ambiguity of the possessive.

And of course, in many real world examples, the context makes such a statement unnecessary.  What I mean is, oftentimes a person presenting a book -- e.g., on a talk show -- is likely to have been introduced as the author of that book, and so he or she wouldn't need to say "This is a book I wrote."  And of course, if that person referred to "my book," it would be clear that the possessive implied authorship.


----------



## Artrella

EricB said:
			
		

> Thanks, Artrella!
> 
> To answer your question, I think the simplest way to express that is, "This is a book I wrote," which obviously avoids the ambiguity of the possessive.
> 
> And of course, in many real world examples, the context makes such a statement unnecessary.  What I mean is, oftentimes a person presenting a book -- e.g., on a talk show -- is likely to have been introduced as the author of that book, and so he or she wouldn't need to say "This is a book I wrote."  And of course, if that person referred to "my book," it would be clear that the possessive implied authorship.




Eric B ,your explanations are very clear and helpful to me!! Thank you very much.


----------



## girl from rio de janeiro

Artrella said:


> Thanks QH! I was reading those pages and I discovered that I was not wrong when I said that depending on what construction you use, the meaning as regards having only one friend or more than one changes.
> Example is:
> 1-Mr. Brown's daughter Mary is beautiful
> 2-Mary, Tochter of Mr Brown
> 3-Mary, a daughter of Mr Brown's
> 4-Mr Brown's daughter
> 
> 
> 4: Implies "sole" daughter
> 1 and 2: carry not such implication
> 3: "not sole" implication
> 
> 
> Also:
> 
> "He's a student of Jespersen" = one who studies Jespersen's writings
> "He was a student of Jespersen's" = he studied under Jespersen
> 
> Ok, that's it! I'm more relaxed now. Art


 
I really don't understand the explanation of 
_he was a student of Jespersen's_, why did you put the "'s" here? What do you mean that he studied under Jespersen? Thank you.


----------



## girl from rio de janeiro

I read all this topic attentively, but I still have this doubt:
This is my friend- this is my only friend
This is a friend of mine- this is one of my friends
or here:
this is her jeans- meaning her only jeans
this is a jeans of hers- one among the others
Are my examples right? Thank you all!


----------



## doda

I may be inappropriate asking for help with these sentences but I won't start an unecessary thread. Well, then... can you tell me what's wrong or correct in these  similar sentences?
1. She works in the shop of a cousin of mine.
2. She works in one of my cousin's shops.
3. She work in a cousin of my shop.
4. She work in a cousin's of my shop.
Thanks for any help!


----------



## panjandrum

1. She works in the shop of a cousin of mine. <- OK
My cousin has one shop.

2. She works in one of my cousin's shops. <- OK
My cousin has several shops.  She works in one of them.

3. She work in a cousin of my shop. <- Not OK.  
What is "a cousin of my shop"?

4. She work in a cousin's of my shop. <-Not OK.
Same problem as (3), only worse.

5. She works in my cousin's shop. <- OK


----------



## brian

panjandrum said:


> 2. She works in one of my cousin's shops. <- OK
> My cousin has several shops.  She works in one of them.



This one here is ambiguous, I think, depending on what _one of_ goes with.

(1) _She works in one of my cousin's shops._ <-- I have one cousin, who has many shops.
(2)_ She works in one of my cousin's shops._ <-- I have multiple cousins who all own shops.

Edit: Nevermind - the punctuation tells you which is correct. (2) would have to be _cousin*s'*_, not _cousin*'s*_, so (1) is correct. Of course, in spoken English (and thus when I was reading it to myself, ignoring the punctuation), you can't tell.


----------



## doda

What ...if I'm referring to:  -->I have multiple cousins and among them there is a cousin ( not all of them) who has got  a shop where she works. 
(3) She works in......................... can you complete it?


----------



## brian

Then in that case, I'd stick with your first sentence: _She works in the shop of a cousin of mine._

Or: _She works in the shop of one of my cousins.

_Otherwise, you would need to change the punctuation slightly, as I noted in my post above: _She works in one of my cousin*s'* shops._ But this could mean that _several_ of your cousins have shops. So it's not really the optimal sentence, strictly speaking, but to be honest, in conversation I bet it's the one I would use (it sounds the most natural).


----------



## doda

Great help! Thanks a lot to both of you!


----------



## brian

Another option, though very colloquial and probably not to be used in writing: _She works in *a cousin of mine's* shop._

I say it should be avoided in writing because many people think that the Saxon genitive (_'s_) should only attach to the actual possessor (in this case _cousin_, not _mine_), but in fact we attach _'s_ to phrases all the time, e.g. _[a cousin of mine]*'s*_ here. The classic example is something like _the Queen of England*'s* crown_, where the crown clearly belongs to the queen (of England) and not to England; _the Queen*'s* of England crown_ and _the Queen*'s* crown of England_ are both wrong.

So, in my opinion, nothing wrong with _a cousin of mine's shop_, but for some it may not be the most elegant sounding solution.


----------



## doda

Oh! I see, but being an Italian  speaker I would have never dared so much!! But your explanation is very persuasive!! But ... of course it is wrong.....what about :
_She works in *a cousin of mine * shop. ( without: *'s*?)_


----------



## brian

doda said:


> Oh! I see, but being an Italian  speaker I would have never dared so much!! But your explanation is very persuasive!! But ... of course it is wrong.....



Well, it's only 'wrong' according to certain people. In my opinion, it's not wrong because it works in exactly the same way as _the Queen of England's crown_, which I don't think anyone would judge as incorrect.  But this issue may be off-topic...



			
				doda said:
			
		

> what about :
> _She works in *a cousin of mine * shop. ( without: *'s*?)_



No, you need the _'s_.


----------



## Loob

I agree with Brian - there's nothing wrong with _a cousin of mine's shop -_ it just doesn't sound very elegant, probably because _mine's _by itself is non-standard.

But you'd certainly hear it in conversation, even if you're unlikely to come across it in writing


----------



## iconoclast

Here's the classic, brilliant disambiguating justification for the "double genetive", thought up (but not yet patented) by none other than myself: photos!!!

a photo from you [= a photo sent by you]
a photo by you [= a photo taken by you]
a photo of you [= a photo in which you appear (as the main attraction)]
a photo of yours [= a photo that belongs to you]

Et voilà!


----------



## Esca

girl from rio de janeiro said:


> I read all this topic attentively, but I still have this doubt:
> This is my friend- this is my only friend
> This is a friend of mine- this is one of my friends
> or here:
> this is her jeans- meaning her only jeans
> this is a jeans of hers- one among the others
> Are my examples right? Thank you all!



It looks like your question got lost in the shuffle! Let me try to answer it.
This is my friend = This might be my only friend, or I could have more. We don't know.
This is a friend of mine = This is one of my many friends.

Unfortunately, you can't use "jeans" that way. You have to say either "This _is_ her _pair_ of jeans" or "These _are_ her jeans."

I'm going to change "jeans" to "shirt" to make your question more simple.

This is her shirt = It might be her only shirt, or she might have more. We don't know.
This is a shirt of hers = It is one of her many shirts.


----------

