Double Genitives

Question

This has probably been hashed out a 1000 times or more in this newsgroup but I AM new to this area so would appreciate any help that you could give me.
Which of the following would YOU say, and which do you consider to be incorrect grammar?
1. some of my sister's friends
2. some friends of my sister
3. some friends of my sister's

And in the following, knowing that Paulo OWNS the portraits and that they are NOT necessarily OF HIM, which would you consider to be correct, allowable or incorrect:
1. some of Paulo's portraits
2. some portraits of Paulo
3. some portraits of Paulo's

TIA

Paulo
now playing: The Beatles - With A Little Help From My Friends

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]This has probably been hashed out a 1000 times or more in this newsgroup but I AM new to this ... incorrect grammar? 1. some of my sister's friends 2. some friends of my sister 3. some friends of my sister's[/nq]
I'd probably say 1 (well, I would if I had a sister), but 2 also looks correct. 3 looks wrong.
[nq:1]And in the following, knowing that Paulo OWNS the portraits and that they are NOT necessarily OF HIM, which would you consider to be correct, allowable or incorrect: 1. some of Paulo's portraits 2. some portraits of Paulo 3. some portraits of Paulo's[/nq]
Again, I'd say 1. I'd say 2 if Paulo were the subject of the portraits, and
3 looks wrong.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]1. some of my sister's friends 2. some friends of my sister 3. some friends of my sister's[/nq]
[nq:1]I'd probably say 1 (well, I would if I had a sister), but 2 also looks correct. 3 looks wrong.[/nq]
Thanks. That's what I thought - but I have seen a friend of my uncle's in an Agatha Christie book.
[nq:2]And in the following, knowing that Paulo OWNS the portraits ... 2. some portraits of Paulo 3. some portraits of Paulo's[/nq]
[nq:1]Again, I'd say 1. I'd say 2 if Paulo were the subject of the portraits, and 3 looks wrong.[/nq]
The argument that we are having here is that:

1. they belong to me
2. they are of me
3. I painted them

... the brain of Paulo's is getting overheated !

Paulo

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I'd probably say 1 (well, I would if I had a sister), but 2 also looks correct. 3 looks wrong.[/nq]
[nq:1]Thanks. That's what I thought - but I have seen a friend of my uncle's in an Agatha Christie book.[/nq]
And you'll see many more such constructions in written English. The double genitive is a common construction of several centuries' standing in English. All sorts of people like to sneer at it, but there's nothing wrong with it, and the following discussion shows that it is sometimes mandatory.
[nq:2]Again, I'd say 1. I'd say 2 if Paulo were the subject of the portraits, and 3 looks wrong.[/nq]
And I would strongly disagree. If Paulo is the owner and not the subject, it has to be 3, and 2 is clearly misleading. The requirement that Paulo be the subject for 2 to be correct is a clear indication that you need 3 to indicate when he is the owner. I find
1 at potentially ambiguous, FWIW.
[nq:1]The argument that we are having here is that: 1. they belong to me 2. they are of me 3. I painted them ... the brain of Paulo's is getting overheated ![/nq]
Paulo try this URL and look for the usage note: http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/O0036500.html

Bob Lieblich
Who would like to be a friend of Paulo's

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Which of the following would YOU say, and which do you consider to be incorrect grammar? 1. some of my sister's friends 2. some friends of my sister 3. some friends of my sister's[/nq]
I'd say 1 or 3; 2 is wrong.
[nq:1]And in the following, knowing that Paulo OWNS the portraits and that they are NOT necessarily OF HIM, which would you consider to be correct, allowable or incorrect: 1. some of Paulo's portraits 2. some portraits of Paulo 3. some portraits of Paulo's[/nq]
I'd say 3; because of the stipulation that the portraits don't necessarily portray Paulo, 1 is unlikely and 2 is unequivocally wrong

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]And I would strongly disagree. If Paulo is the owner and not the subject, it has to be 3, and ... clear indication that you need 3 to indicate when he is the owner. I find 1 at potentially ambiguous, FWIW.[/nq]
Boy! I got really bogged down in reading sentence two in the previous paragraph and couldn't believe what it was saying. Then I realized that it can be read two ways, and I was choosing the wrong one.

I finally figured out that the "and 2 is clearly misleading" part does not refer to sentence 2 itself, but to Peter's contention that it is the correct one for Paolo's being the subject of the portraits.

Whew! With that in mind, I completely agree with your analysis, Bob.
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]And I would strongly disagree. If Paulo is the owner ... is the owner. I find 1 at potentially ambiguous, FWIW.[/nq]
[nq:1]Boy! I got really bogged down in reading sentence two in the previous paragraph and couldn't believe what it was ... 2 itself, but to Peter's contention that it is the correct one for Paolo's being the subject of the portraits.[/nq]
What? No, you were right the first time. If Paulo is the owner and not the subject, it would be misleading to call them "portraits of Paulo". It would be misleading because it would be incorrect, and it would be incorrect because "portraits of Paulo" means 'portraits depicting Paulo', not 'portraits belonging to Paulo'.
I agree that 1 ("some of Paulo's portraits") is misleading. The possible meanings, in order of preference (for me), are that Paulo is the artist, the owner, or the subject.
Oddly, in "some of Paulo's paintings" I'd rank artist and owner as equally likely interpretations, but artist comes out more likely for "portraits".
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Usenet · Answer

>
>
The "of" versions are ambiguous, as you can read elsewhere in the thread. For the last "I painted them" you could say 3c. some portraits by Paulo
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Boy! I got really bogged down in reading sentence two ... correct one for Paolo's being the subject of the portraits.[/nq]
[nq:1]What? No, you were right the first time. If Paulo is the owner and not the subject, it would be ... be incorrect, and it would be incorrect because "portraits of Paulo" means 'portraits depicting Paulo', not 'portraits belonging to Paulo'.[/nq]
Being misleading is not the same as being incorrect. There's a world of difference. Number 2, to me, is clearly incorrect, not misleading. Granted, there might be some who might use number 2 to express the meaning of sentence 3, but they would not be NESs.
[nq:1]I agree that 1 ("some of Paulo's portraits") is misleading. The possible meanings, in order of preference (for me), are that Paulo is the artist, the owner, or the subject.[/nq]
Agreed.
[nq:1]Oddly, in "some of Paulo's paintings" I'd rank artist and owner as equally likely interpretations, but artist comes out more likely for "portraits".[/nq]
Again, I'm with you.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Usenet · Answer

POSTED FRIDAY - REPOSTING AS IT WAS NOT PROPAGATED - APPEARS TO HAVE GOT LOST
[nq:1]Again, I'm with you.[/nq]
I'm not. I got lost somewhere along the line.
What are you saying that 1, 2, and 3 mean to you guys?

Are you disagreeing with:
1. some of Paulo's portraits - they belong to me
2. some portraits of Paulo - they are of me
3. some portraits of Paulo's - I painted them

Sorry to be so thick but I struggle sometimes to follow the gist of your discussions in English - it ain't easy furra foranner.

TIA

Paulo

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Being misleading is not the same as being incorrect. There's ... they would not be NESs. Agreed. Again, I'm with you.[/nq]
[nq:1]I'm not. I got lost somewhere along the line. What are you saying that 1, 2, and 3 mean to you guys? Are you disagreeing with: 1. some of Paulo's portraits - they belong to me[/nq]
Yes, but they can also be of you or painted by you. It is ambigulous.
[nq:1]2. some portraits of Paulo - they are of me[/nq]
That one is clear yes, they are of you.
[nq:1]3. some portraits of Paulo's - I painted them[/nq]
Yes, you could have painted them, but they also could just belong to you. Again, there is some ambiguity that would need clarifying.
[nq:1]Sorry to be so thick but I struggle sometimes to follow the gist of your discussions in English - it ain't easy furra foranner.[/nq]
I understand.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Double Genitives

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions