2

Can I use the double possessive below as I would in, say, the phrase a friend of Bob’s?

  1. a bone of my dog’s
  2. a toy of my dog’s

Are the phrases above, however awkward, still grammatical? Never mind elegance; I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t prefer my dog’s bone. But should I treat them as I would a neighbor of Bob’s, or rather as I would a leg of a chair?

Thank you.

Improve this question
5
  • 3
    Syntactically, there's nothing wrong with a leg of a chair, a leg of a chair's, a chair leg, a chair's leg, since they're all regularly formed from the same set of rules. Some forms are more or less idiomatic than others with certain combinations of nouns and other differences in context. Commented Jan 24, 2024 at 20:01
  • Why would it be any different for animals than for people? "That dog is a friend of my dog's." Commented Jan 24, 2024 at 21:04
  • And is it different with dogs and stick insects? Commented Jan 24, 2024 at 21:26
  • 1
    << A wheel of my car's >> sounds distinctly unnatural. At some point, non-idiomaticity becomes at least as bad as ungrammaticality. I'd say these examples are borderline (so why use them?) 'A bone belonging to my dog' or 'One of my dog's bones'. Commented Jan 24, 2024 at 23:51
  • A bone of my dog's suggests that he 'owns' a number of bones, which I suppose is possible but unlikely, since I assume his owner would dispose of old ones when they gave him a new one to chew on. (Well, I suppose it could mean 'one of the bones he has had over a period of time.) It works for toy, though. Commented Jan 25, 2024 at 9:23

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

As Huddleston & Pullum (2002) note, the "oblique genitive" (what you call the "double possessive") is more restricted than the ordinary genitive construction; its acceptability depends on the semantic relationship between the genitive noun phrase and the head of the enclosing noun phrase. For example, while "Mary's younger sister" can be replaced with "that younger sister of Mary's," "Mary's obituary" cannot be replaced with "that obituary of Mary's," assuming we mean an obituary written about Mary (p. 478). These restrictions also explain why we typically only use the oblique genitive when the genitive noun phrase denotes something animate: "the spire of the cathedral" cannot be replaced with "that spire of the cathedral's."

They don't specifically mention the case of nonhuman ownership, but it seems likely that these restrictions explain why "that bone of my dog's" sounds much more awkward than, say, "that new house of Mary's."

Improve this answer
5
  • How about that bone of Fido’s and that house of my friend’s? Commented Jan 25, 2024 at 3:53
  • @TinfoilHat To me "that house of my friend's" sounds correct. "That bone of Fido's" is less bad than "That bone of my/the/that dog's"; there's a general tendency to anthropomorphize animals more when they're given names. Commented Jan 25, 2024 at 4:38
  • "That spire of the cathedral's" can be used in a familiar, jocose way. "That spire of the cathedral's going to do a Chesterfield if the borough architect doesn't buck up his ideas." Admittedly, "that obituary of Mary's" seems irretrievably off-kilter. Commented Jan 25, 2024 at 11:23
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth The whole point of that obituary of Mary's is to tell us what kilter. (Sorry! That was irretrievably off. But I had to.) Commented Jan 26, 2024 at 0:20
  • @ Yes, the Chesterfield example is obviously more inspired. Commented Jan 26, 2024 at 14:19
1

Pullam and Huddleston’s explanation, the "oblique genitive" is more restricted […] the genitive noun phrase and the head of the enclosing noun phrase is vague and unhelpful as it does not specify the relationship: all it does is restate the reader’s suspicions (those suspicions of the reader’s) and validate those suspicions – by “authority”. It is, in fact, the equivalent of “depends on the context”, which we knew anyway.

I suggest the context is "possession."

There is an excellent article in WORD, Volume 6, April 1950, Number 1 The English Construction A Friend Of Mine by Anna Granville Hatcher that gives the history of thought on, and use of the double genitive.

Although it does not mention things or animals, throughout, it is agreed by all that “of mine/his/theirs/yours” refers here to ownership or at least, current possession.

The question is thus whether “That X, An X, Xs, X of mine/yours/his/hers/ours/theirs/John’s” can be used with a noun or pronoun that is culturally incapable of possessing something.

*A leaf of the tree’s fell to the ground.

*A leaf of its fell to the ground.

*One of the roofs of the building’s is leaking.

*Those roofs of the building’s are leaking.

Culturally, in most of world in which English is the first language, dogs hover, anthropomorphically, on the boundary of having possessions. This anthropomorphism is illustrated in:

*I’ve given the dog another bone because it’s lost one of its.

But

"I’ve given the dog another bone because he’s lost one of his.

And

*“That tail of its is wagging.”

But

"That tail of hers is wagging.”

However, "a bone/toy of my dog's" creates a problem of possession: "my" indicates that you possess the dog and it is thus clear that the dog has not been anthropomorphised. The phrase does not therefore work.

Improve this answer
4
  • Interesting. But I see no problem at all with That toy of my dog’s could use a washing. Commented Jan 25, 2024 at 15:22
  • @Graybeard: "A toy of my dog's" makes it clear that you possess the dog? Really? How about "this plan of my brother's"? Commented Jan 25, 2024 at 15:26
  • @PeterShor Do you "have" a brother? Possessing other humans has been illegal for some time. I think some reason has to be applied. Commented Jan 25, 2024 at 16:34
  • @TinfoilHat I take your point, but I feel that the example is a construction that is unlikely to be said and is probably not idiomatic – surely, you would say “That toy of Fido’s needs washing”. But more likely “Fido’s rabbit needs washing.” both of which give Fido some propriatorial rights. Commented Jan 25, 2024 at 16:38

You must log in to answer this question.