0
Sb70012 Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
A bone of the dog / a bone of the dog's
Hello,
Look at this quote please:
"In particular, grammarians say a double possessive is essential to avoid giving the wrong meaning when a word indicating ownership is placed after of, as “a bone of the dog’s”. The extra possessive is required because “a bone of the dog” means, not a bone in the possession of the dog, but one inside the dog.
Source: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-dou3.htm 5th paragraph"
As you see, the quote says that [a bone of the dog] is incorrect because it does not make sense and it just means a dog and leg inside each other.
1. a bone of the dog's. = correct
2. a bone of the dog. = incorrect
Do you agree with me and the link that 1 is correct and 2 is incorrect?
Look at this quote please:
"In particular, grammarians say a double possessive is essential to avoid giving the wrong meaning when a word indicating ownership is placed after of, as “a bone of the dog’s”. The extra possessive is required because “a bone of the dog” means, not a bone in the possession of the dog, but one inside the dog.
Source: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-dou3.htm 5th paragraph"
As you see, the quote says that [a bone of the dog] is incorrect because it does not make sense and it just means a dog and leg inside each other.
1. a bone of the dog's. = correct
2. a bone of the dog. = incorrect
Do you agree with me and the link that 1 is correct and 2 is incorrect?
Top answer
I agree that number 1 is the more correct of the two. But I think neither one of them are intuitive, natural, or common.
- I agree that number 1 is the more correct of the two.
- But I think neither one of them are intuitive, natural, or common.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
8 Answers
0
I agree that number 1 is the more correct of the two.
But I think neither one of them are intuitive, natural, or common.
But I think neither one of them are intuitive, natural, or common.
00
chipwBut I think neither one of them are intuitive, natural, or common.I agree. I find it hard to visualise either of those being used in everyday language. They sound a bit like artificial examples contructed in order to illustrate a grammar point. That's not to say that they are impossible in a context.
00
But doesn't the quote say that "a bone of the dog" means "one inside the dog", (a part of the dog's skeleton).
00
It can mean that, but context normally tells us the intended meaning.
00
fivejedjonIt can mean that, but context normally tells us the intended meaning.Thank you. I have two contexts in my mind.
1. Suppose that I am looking for the corpse of a dog. On my way I find a bone and I say "It's the bone of the dog"
2. Suppose that I'm seeing a dog is licking a bone. Tomorrow I find th
00
A native speaker is unlikely to say either of those.
Come to think of it, most of us don't go round looking for dogs' bodies.
Come to think of it, most of us don't go round looking for dogs' bodies.
00
sb70012As you see, the quote says that [a bone of the dog] is incorrect because it does not make senseOn the contrary, it says that "a bone of the dog" has a different meaning from "a bone of the dog's". We can infer from the quoted passage that it is wrong to say "a bone of the dog" when you mean "a bone of the dog's" and that it is wrong to say "a bone of
00
sb70012But doesn't the quote say that "a bone of the dog" means "one inside the dog", (a part of the dog's skeleton).Just out of curiosity - what is the full quote you are referring to?
0
Related Questions