0
Usenet Posted 22 years ago
English in UK
English Usage (possessive nouns)
Hello,
Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"?
What about "a reader of Shakespeare" and "a reader of Shakespeare's" ? are both correct?
"A friend of John" or "a friend of John's"?
"A follower of Mussolini" or "a follower of Mussolini's"
These possessive nouns in conjunction with "of" are are quite confusing. Therefore, your clarifications would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Tojo!
Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"?
What about "a reader of Shakespeare" and "a reader of Shakespeare's" ? are both correct?
"A friend of John" or "a friend of John's"?
"A follower of Mussolini" or "a follower of Mussolini's"
These possessive nouns in conjunction with "of" are are quite confusing. Therefore, your clarifications would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Tojo!
Top answer
[nq:1]Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"? What about "a reader of Shakespeare" and "a reader of Shakespeare's" ? [/nq] Both are grammatically correct.
- [nq:1]Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"?
- What about "a reader of Shakespeare" and "a reader of Shakespeare's" ?
- [/nq] Both are grammatically correct.
- ) [nq:1]"A friend of John" or "a friend of John's"?
- "A follower of Mussolini" or "a follower of Mussolini's" These possessive nouns in conjunction with "of" are are quite confusing.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
26 Answers
0
[nq:1]Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"? What about "a reader of Shakespeare" and "a reader of Shakespeare's" ? are both correct?[/nq]
Both are grammatically correct. Book of Job is the proper name of one of the books of the Old Testament, thus not obliged to follow general rules of language (if there are any.)
[nq:1]"A friend of John" or "a friend of John's"?
Both are grammatically correct. Book of Job is the proper name of one of the books of the Old Testament, thus not obliged to follow general rules of language (if there are any.)
[nq:1]"A friend of John" or "a friend of John's"?
00
[nq:1]Hello, Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"?[/nq]
The word "of" can denote possession, and an apostrope can denote possession, but you must choose only one for one act of possession.
The examples you give are all a little different.
If you are talking about the Book of Job in the Bible, for example, it is common to describe it as "the book of Job".
The word "of" can denote possession, and an apostrope can denote possession, but you must choose only one for one act of possession.
The examples you give are all a little different.
If you are talking about the Book of Job in the Bible, for example, it is common to describe it as "the book of Job".
00
[nq:2]Hello, Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"?[/nq]
[nq:1]The word "of" can denote possession, and an apostrope can denote possession, but you must choose only one for one act of possession.[/nq]
This isn't strictly true. There is also the possibility of a so-called "double possessive", e.g. "a friend of John's" - this implies that John has more than one frien
[nq:1]The word "of" can denote possession, and an apostrope can denote possession, but you must choose only one for one act of possession.[/nq]
This isn't strictly true. There is also the possibility of a so-called "double possessive", e.g. "a friend of John's" - this implies that John has more than one frien
00
[nq:1]Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"?[/nq]
They have different meanings. The second would have to mean the book Job owned, not the book that was written about him.
[nq:1]What about "a reader of Shakespeare" and "a reader of Shakespeare's" are both correct?[/nq]
Again, different meanings. The second would have to mean a reader that Shakespeare employed.
They have different meanings. The second would have to mean the book Job owned, not the book that was written about him.
[nq:1]What about "a reader of Shakespeare" and "a reader of Shakespeare's" are both correct?[/nq]
Again, different meanings. The second would have to mean a reader that Shakespeare employed.
00
[nq:1]Hello, Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"? What about "a reader of ... of Mussolini's" These possessive nouns in conjunction with "of" are are quite confusing. Therefore, your clarifications would be much appreciated.[/nq]
"Of" has more than one meaning. "The book of Job" is not possessive: it means "the book about Job" or "the book entitled 'Job' ", not "the
"Of" has more than one meaning. "The book of Job" is not possessive: it means "the book about Job" or "the book entitled 'Job' ", not "the
00
[nq:1]The other examples depend on usage rather than meaning. To me (British English) "a friend of John" sounds very odd; ... people in those expressions: "Shakespeare" there means "the plays by Shakespeare", "Mussolini" means "the theories and policies associated with Mussolini".[/nq]
While I agree with the above, I find that "a friend of John Smith" sounds rather less stilted than "a friend
While I agree with the above, I find that "a friend of John Smith" sounds rather less stilted than "a friend
00
0
0
0
Related Questions