# That is (a) John's car



## kongzamak

Example:

That is John's car.

or

That is a John's car. (assume that he has many cars)

Thank you again


----------



## heypresto

That is John's car. 
That is a John's car. 

That is one of John's cars. 

Those are John's cars.


----------



## elroy

That is John's car. 

That is a John's car. 

That is *one of* John’s car*s*.


----------



## kongzamak

It's very clear. Thank you


----------



## VicNicSor

"That is a car of John's.

Is that correct too?


----------



## sound shift

Yes, Vic.


----------



## loviii

Sorry, if "_That is a car of John's._" is correct, then "_That is a car of John._" is not correct?


----------



## sound shift

"That is a car of John's."
"That is a car of John."


----------



## loviii

Thanks.


----------



## elroy

VicNicSor said:


> "That is a car of John's.
> 
> Is that correct too?


 It's correct, but I don't think I'd ever say it. 

I might say "That car of John's is really nice."


----------



## sdgraham

VicNicSor said:


> "That is a car of John's.
> Is that correct too?


It is "correct," but like many other "correct" expressions. I cannot imagine any native AE speaker saying it that way.

We of the Saxon genitive world would just say "that's John's car."

[cross-posted]


----------



## elroy

Looks like we may have another US/UK split here.


----------



## sound shift

Not really. The question was whether "That's a car of John's" was correct. I think it is - but I probably wouldn't use it.


----------



## elroy

Yes, we all agreed it was correct, but sdgraham and I both - without consulting each other - felt the need to add that we would not use it.  It was not apparent from your earlier posts whether you consider it idiomatic; you've now added that you "probably" wouldn't use it, so maybe there's only a slight difference between our perceptions/judgments.


----------



## VicNicSor

Thank you, everyone.


----------



## Linkway

sdgraham said:


> We of the Saxon genitive world would just say "that's John's car."



OR, if John has more than one car:
_That is one of John's cars._


----------



## elroy

If John only has one car:

_That's John's car._​
If John has multiple cars:

_That's John's car._
or
_That's one of John's cars._​


----------



## Linkway

Snap!


----------



## Ivan_I

1) What's wrong with "That is a John's car."?

A John's car = a car which belongs to a John.

2) Another thing: wouldn't you say "That is a friend of mine"? it's basically the same as "That is a car of John's".

3) That car is John's. (not idiomatic?)


----------



## Glenfarclas

Ivan_I said:


> 1) What's wrong with "That is a John's car."?



Nouns in English cannot take two determiners ("a" and "John's" are determiners).



Ivan_I said:


> 2) Another thing: wouldn't you say "That is a friend of mine"? it's basically the same as "That is a car of John's".



Yes, we would say it, but that doesn't violate the rule about determiners.



Ivan_I said:


> 3) That car is John's. (not idiomatic?)



It's idiomatic. In this sentence "John's" is a predicate rather than a determiner.


----------



## Ivan_I

So if we have John and a John we can't make the difference between the two in a possessive scenario?


----------



## Hermione Golightly

What would 'a John' be? It's 'a' or 'the' or other determiner _as well as_ a possessive -'s.


----------



## Linkway

"That is a John's car" is not correct if you simply mean that a car which belongs to someone called John.

The only case I can think of where it would be correct is if "John's" is a commercial brand name.

Eg:
_That is a Sainsbury's product.
_
(Sainsbury's is the name of a leading British supermarket that offers both own-branded and other products.)


----------



## Ivan_I

Linkway said:


> "That is a John's car" is not correct if you simply mean that a car which belongs to someone called John.


That's what I am trying to understand. It turns out that it's not possible to distinguish between "a car which belongs to John" and " a car which belongs to a John" in terms of the construction in question, right?


----------



## heypresto

Right.

If, there were several people called John in this (unlikely) context and some other people with different names, then I suppose you could say 'This car belongs to a John', but we wouldn't say 'This is a John's car'.


----------



## sound shift

"John's car" means "the car that belongs to John". "A John's car" doesn't work because there would in effect be two articles, one indefinite and explicit, and one definite and implied: "A the John's car".

Students often make the mistake of assuming that "John's car" means "car that belongs to John". That's not the meaning. The meaning is "the car that belongs to John".


----------



## VicNicSor

elroy said:


> If John has multiple cars:
> 
> _That's John's car._


And would it be more idiomatic than "That's a car of John's." in this case?..


----------



## Linkway

sound shift said:


> Students often make the mistake of assuming that "John's car" means "car that belongs to John". That's not the meaning. The meaning is "the car that belongs to John".



But note that "belongs to" here has a wider meaning than legal ownership of the item.

Lewis Hamilton's F1 car developed brake problems near the end of the race.

"Hamilton's car" here means the car being driven by Hamilton - it obviously is not his own property.


----------



## Ivan_I

sound shift said:


> "John's car" means "the car that belongs to John". "A John's car" doesn't work because there would in effect be two articles, one indefinite and explicit, and one definite and implied: "A the John's car".


Does it mean that all the following are wrong:

This is that boy's car. (This is a car of that boy/boy's)
This is the boy's car. (This is a car of the boy/boy's)


----------



## heypresto

Ivan_I said:


> Does it mean that all the following are wrong:
> 
> This is that boy's car. (This is a car of that boy/boy's)
> This is the boy's car. (This is a car of the boy/boy's)




No. They are not wrong. _This is the/that boy's/girls'/man's/woman's/plumber's/manager's car._


----------



## Ivan_I

heypresto said:


> No. They are not wrong. _This is the/that boy's/girls'/man's/woman's/plumber's/manager's car._


But
This is that John's car.
is wrong?


----------



## heypresto

What do you want 'that John' to mean?

Imagine there were two people called John, and you pointed to one of them, you could say 'This is _that _John's car'. In other words the car belongs to _that_ man, and not to the other man.

But this is a different context to the one in which you'd say 'This is John's car.'


----------



## sound shift

I agree with heypresto.

I can imagine another context for "This is that John's car": This car belongs to the John I told you about.


----------



## Ivan_I

I beg your pardon. You said that "a John's car" means "a the John's car" and it's wrong. Why is it that "that John's car" is OK? Isn't it "that the John's car".


----------



## heypresto

"That John's car" is OK in _the contexts I and sound shift have given you_, but, as I said in post #32, _not_ in the context in which 'This is John's car' is correct.

They are not interchangeable.


----------



## sound shift

Ivan_I said:


> I beg your pardon. You said that "a John's car" means "a the John's car" and it's wrong. Why is it that "that John's car" is OK? Isn't it "that the John's car".


In "that John's car", "that" describes John, not the car. "That John's car" means "the car that belongs to that particular John (and not to any of the other people called John that the listener knows)".


----------



## AnythingGoes

Ivan_I said:


> Why is it that "that John's car" is OK?


It's okay only in a specific, highly unlikely context. You can safely forget about it.


----------



## Ivan_I

What about this?


heypresto said:


> No. They are not wrong. _This is the/that boy's/girls'/man's/woman's/plumber's/manager's car._


You said that "that" describes John not "car"


sound shift said:


> I agree with heypresto.
> 
> I can imagine another context for "This is that John's car": This car belongs to the John I told you about.



It's all not clear.


----------



## VicNicSor

Ivan_I said:


> You said that "that" describes John not "car"


And how does it contradict the post you quoted?


----------



## heypresto

In 'This is that boy's car', 'that' describes the boy, not the car, but in 'This/that is John's car', 'this/that' describes the car, not John.


----------



## Ivan_I

VicNicSor said:


> And how does it contradict the post quoted?



The post has been changed since then.


----------



## Ivan_I

heypresto said:


> In 'This is that boy's car', 'that' describes the boy, not the car, but in 'This/that is John's car', 'this/that' describes the car, not John.


It's understood. I am talking about another issue.

You say that "This is a John's car" is not correct because we have "a the John's car". OK.
We switch "a" to "that", we get "This is that John's car". Hence, now we have "that the John's car". Right? 

So you approve of "that the John's car" and decline "a the John's car". I think both are wrong.

Maybe I am missing something.


----------



## heypresto

Please re-read what we've been saying about different constructions in different _contexts_. 



Ivan_I said:


> So you approve of "that the John's car"


Do I? 



Ivan_I said:


> and decline "a the John's car"


That's true. 



Ivan_I said:


> I think both are wrong.


You're right. They are both wrong.


----------



## Ivan_I

Don't you?)


heypresto said:


> Imagine there were two people called John, and you pointed to one of them, you could say 'This is _that _John's car'.
> 
> In other words the car belongs to _that_ man, and not to the other man.


----------



## Englishmypassion

"This is a/some John's car" is grammatically correct and it refers to a car that belongs to a person called John and implies the speaker doesn't know John.


----------



## heypresto

Ivan_I said:


> Don't you?)





Where do I say I approve of "that the John's car"?


----------



## Ivan_I

Englishmypassion said:


> "This is a/some John's car" is grammatically correct and it refers to a car that belongs to a person called John and implies the speaker doesn't know John.


Read the thread one more time. Natives say it's wrong except for "some John's car". We haven't had it yet.



heypresto said:


> Where do I say I approve of "that the John's car"?


You don't say the very words. But you say it's correct.



heypresto said:


> Where do I say I approve of "that the John's car"?


I quoted post 32. Re-read your post 32.


----------



## heypresto

Ivan_I said:


> You don't say the very words.


You're right, I don't.



Ivan_I said:


> But you say it's correct.


You're wrong, I don't.

I said you can say ''This is _that _John's car" in a certain context. It's different from "that the John's car". I've never "that the John's car" is correct. It _isn't_ correct.


----------



## JulianStuart

heypresto said:


> I said you can say ''This is _that _John's car" in a certain context. It's different from "that the John's car". I've never said that "that the John's car" is correct. It _isn't_ correct.


Ivan made that up in #42 by re-writing what you had (correctly) written


----------



## Ivan_I

You are misunderstanding me, heypresto.
I will try to go through all it again.

1) This is a John's car. 

Wrong. Why? Because "a John's car" means "a the John's car". POST 26


sound shift said:


> "A John's car" doesn't work because there would in effect be two articles, one indefinite and explicit, and one definite and implied: "A the John's car".


Do you agree with soundshift?

2) This is that John's car. (You say it's correct.) 
However, according to soundshift analysis "that John's car" must be interpreted the same way as "a John's car" such as "that the John's car".

I am not saying that you approve "that the John's car". You approve "that John's car", but implicitly they mean the same if we treat them as we treat "a John's car."


----------



## Loob

Ivan, people have been trying to explain this to you in different ways.

The easiest way to think of it is probably to translate the saxon genitive into a phrase with "belongs to"
It's John's book >>> The book belongs to John.
It's a John's book >>> The book belongs to a John.
It's the John's book >>> The book belongs to the John.
It's that John's book >>> The book belongs to that John.

The first is a normal sentence; the fourth is possible, in particular contexts; the second and third are really unlikely.


----------



## heypresto

But we don't treat them the same way. You can't just switch words in sentences and phrases and expect them to mean the same.

"That John's car" (which _only_ works in _the contexts we have given above_) doesn't mean the same as, and can't be thought of as implicitly the same as "a John's car", which doesn't work at all. 

_Please believe us_ when we say "a John's car" is wrong. You can safely forget about it and move on . . .


----------



## Ivan_I

I have forgotten about ""a John's car", so to speak. I am focused on "that John's car". 

I am not saying that "a John's car" means the same as "that John's car", by no means. I am just saying that SOUNDSHIFT provided the reason why "a John's car" doesn't work. He said because "a John's car" means "a the John's car".

So, I just applied the same method towards "that John's car" and I got "that the John's car".
Seems like you are saying that this method is inapplicable for "that John's car". I can take your word for it. But I hope you understand that a real explanation would be better.

Hi loob!

I understand what you are saying. But I think "wrong" and "really unlikely" don't mean the same.


----------



## Ivan_I

Loob said:


> It's John's book >>> The book belongs to John.
> It's a John's book >>> The book belongs to a John.
> It's the John's book >>> The book belongs to the John.
> It's that John's book >>> The book belongs to that John.


Moreover, if 2 and three are wrong, why is 4 possible? It's a mystery. Thank you all for your contributions.


----------

