# return <her> before 3.30 a.m. or <her> relationship with <her> husband [repetition]



## Zdan

Topic question:  'Can I avoid the two "her" next to each other?'
Copied from original title. Cagey, moderator 

The sly woman really needed to convince Harvey to return *her* before 3.30 a.m. or *her* relationship with the *her* husband would suffer greatly.


----------



## Loob

Why do you want to avoid repeating "her"?


----------



## Zdan

I want to avoid repeating her.


----------



## Loob

But why?  There's nothing wrong with having three "her"s in a sentence.


----------



## PaulQ

with the *her* husband 


Kgnot said:


> The sly woman really needed to convince Harvey to return *her* before 3.30 a.m. or *her* relationship with the *her* husband would suffer greatly.



The entire sentence is ambiguous. "Her" refers to either the sly woman or another woman.

You need to clarify what it means:

The sly woman really needed to convince Harvey to return *her* (the sly woman/another woman?) before 3.30 a.m. or *her* (the sly woman's or the other woman's?)relationship with the *her* (the sly woman's or the other woman's?) husband would suffer greatly.


----------



## Edinburgher

PaulQ said:


> "Her" refers to either the sly woman or another woman.


 If we can trust the OP to have provided all the necessary context, then since no "other woman" has been mentioned, we may assume there isn't one!


----------



## Zdan

Yes there is none. So can I change anything?

Can I say:

The sly woman really needed to convince Harvey to return her before 3.30 a.m. or the relationship with her husband could suffer greatly


----------



## gato radioso

What about:
_The sly woman really needed to convince Harvey to return *her* before 3.30 a.m, otherwise the/her relationship with *her* husband would suffer greatly _?


----------



## Zdan

If I can say it this way that is it.


----------



## Loob

_*... the relationship with her husband* _sounds odd; _*... her relationship with her husband* _sounds much more natural.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

So long as 'her' refers each time to 'the sly woman' there's no problem with repeating 'her'. There could be a problem as soon as another woman is involved.


----------



## Edinburgher

Instead of "her relationship with her husband", why not say "her marriage"?


----------



## serbianfan

Sounds like a very strange situation to me. If her husband didn't mind her being out (with Harvey? "with her friend Mary?") until 03.30, why would it have such a detrimental effect on their marriage if she came home at 04.00?


----------



## Edinburgher

I presume the husband is ignorant of the sly woman's nocturnal outings.
The husband is perhaps working a night shift and is expected to return home at, say, 4am.  So if she is home half an hour before that, she can be safely in bed by the time he arrives, and he will be none the wiser.


----------



## serbianfan

Yes, good explanation. Getting back to the topic, I agree there's absolutely nothing wrong with having 'her' three times in that sentence. Maybe Kgnot is getting confused with the use of 'his/her' and 'he/she' repeatedly, which is best to avoid, as in "A doctor must treat his/her patients even if he/she doesn't like them" (where "Doctors must treat their patients..." is better).


----------



## Shadiac

Kgnot said:


> The sly woman really needed to convince Harvey to return *her* before 3.30 a.m. or *her* relationship with the *her* husband would suffer greatly.


_The sly woman really needed to convince Harvey that she needs to be back by 3:30 AM lest her marital relationship greatly suffer._


----------



## Zdan

Edinburgher said:


> I presume the husband is ignorant of the sly woman's nocturnal outings.
> The husband is perhaps working a night shift and is expected to return home at, say, 4am.  So if she is home half an hour before that, she can be safely in bed by the time he arrives, and he will be none the wiser.


AHahah  Mmm yes, your aforementioned estimation proves to be quiet adamant in its correctness!


----------



## Zdan

Shadiac said:


> _The sly woman really needed to convince Harvey that she needs to be back by 3:30 AM lest her marital relationship greatly suffer._


I think this is best of all but I am not very familiar with this structure and meaning of *lest*. What is means?


----------



## PaulQ

Kgnot said:


> I think this is best of all


I would be cautious: "_lest her marital relationship greatly suffer" _is grammatically correct but it is not particularly idiomatic and is in a style last used about 100 years ago.

_lest - WordReference.com Dictionary of English_


----------



## elroy

Also, “needed” not “needs”


----------



## Edinburgher

PaulQ said:


> last used about 100 years ago.


 Pretty well the only times I come across "lest" these days is in the context of the slogan "lest we forget" associated with Remembrance Day.


----------



## Shadiac

PaulQ said:


> I would be cautious: "_lest her marital relationship greatly suffer" _is grammatically correct but it is not particularly idiomatic and is in a style last used about 100 years ago.
> 
> _lest - WordReference.com Dictionary of English_


Splendid. I had tremendous problems with "lest" anyway, so since it has fallen out of use in modern English, I wouldn't have to try understanding it anymore.


----------



## Rover_KE

There are not two _her_s _*next to each other*_ in your sentence.

Even if there were, it could still be fine.

_I sold Maude a faulty toaster, so I had to give her her money back._


----------



## Packard

Loob said:


> But why?  There's nothing wrong with having three "her"s in a sentence.


    
My teachers drummed into our heads that we should not repeat a word in a sentence and should avoid doing so in consecutive sentences.  *My teachers were wrong.*  If that is still being taught, then those teachers are wrong too.  If it is the best _*word*_ for that situation then you should use that _*word *_as often as required.  

Note:  I used "word" twice in the sentence above.  No other word would work as well.


----------



## serbianfan

Maybe the drumming into heads didn't specify what kinds of words. It's often true of nouns, maybe less often verbs and adjectives. If someone wrote in a paper: "This study is a qualitative study. The study draws on...", I would certainly improve it to "This is a qualitative study that draws on..."


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Edinburgher said:


> Instead of "her relationship with her husband", why not say "her marriage"?



 Don't forget to give Occam back his razor when you're finished with it.


----------



## Keith Bradford

There are times when words *must *be repeated, not just in the same sentence but one after the other.  For instance:

_Mary wrote "This is my book and that is her" instead of "that is hers".  I can't forgive her her "her" - it's quite wrong._


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Keith Bradford said:


> There are times when words *must *be repeated, not just in the same sentence but one after the other.  For instance:
> 
> _Mary wrote "This is my book and that is her" instead of "that is hers".  I can't forgive her her "her" - it's quite wrong._


----------



## Packard

Notwithstanding the fact that I _know_ it is fine to repeat words, I do write around that if it sounds natural, knowing that Miss Hildreth, my English teacher of yore’s ghost is looking over my shoulder going “Tsk, tsk,” with each repeated word I type. So the myth of the repeated words lives on.


----------



## Rover_KE

There are not two _her_s next to each other in your sentence.

Even if there were, it could still be fine.

I sold Maude a faulty toaster so i had to give her her money back.


----------



## Packard

Rover_KE said:


> There are not two _her_s next to each other in your sentence.
> 
> Even if there were, it could still be fine.
> 
> I sold Maude a faulty toaster so i had to give her her money back.


And with Miss Hildreth’s ghost looking over my shoulder:

_I sold Maude a faulty toaster, so I had to refund her money. _(I know I’m being a weasel and a chicken, but you know there’s this ghost...”😶😶)


----------



## Twisty

How about _I sold Maude a faulty toaster so I had to give her money back to Maude,_ then?


----------



## heypresto

No, that doesn't work at all, I'm afraid. We would say either of Rover_KE's or Packard's suggestions.


----------



## Edinburgher

Both those versions use 'I' twice.  What would the ghost make of that?
If it's OK to use it twice provided they're not adjacent, then this should be fine:
_...so I had to give her back her money._


----------



## Twisty

It was a joke reply to what I assumed was a joke on Packard's part, since I'm not sure _refund_ behaves any differently from _give_, it still needs an object.


----------



## Edinburgher

Twisty said:


> I'm not sure _refund_ behaves any differently from _give_, it still needs an object.


Packard's ghost was (perhaps) a joke; his use of _refund her money_ was not.
_Refund_ does behave differently from _give back_. It can be used monotransitively, i.e. you can use it with only one object ("her money") and omit the person to whom the refund is given, if it is obvious from context who that person is (which it is here).


----------



## Twisty

And you can do the same with _give_, as evidenced by google search where _Give her money back_ is far more common than _Give her her money back_, though still incorrect.


----------



## Loob

"Give her money back" isn't incorrect, actually.


----------



## Edinburgher

Fair enough.  It sounds better ditransitively, though, don't you think?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

Nothing I like more than a bit of the old ditransitive, but I suggest 'I had to give the money back'. We would surely understand who the money was being given back to?


----------



## Zdan

That is all ? ??!


----------



## Twisty

Well, I'd reiterate my position there is nothing wrong with saying _Give her her money back _or the three "hers" in your example. Even when it comes to the former sentence, the version with adjacent "hers" seems stylistically best, and as opposed to saying _Give her money back,_ actually makes sense.


----------



## heypresto

Kgnot said:


> That is all ? ??!



What do you want that you don't feel you've been offered? What question do you feel you have not had a reply to?



Twisty said:


> Well, I'd reiterate my position there is nothing wrong with saying _Give her her money back _or the three "hers" in your example. Even when it comes to the former sentence, the version with adjacent "hers" seems stylistically the best choice, and as opposed to saying _Give her money back,_ actually makes sense.


----------

