Another grammar query: "is that of a child's"

[pulykamell]

I was texting a friend, and dropped this sentence into our back-and-forth:

"My disappointment is that of a child's upon seeing a giftless tree on Christmas morn."

To which he urged me to clean up my double possessive. I said my grammar was fine, and he replied that the "that" already indicates possession, and that my sentence should be "My disappointment is that of a child upon seeing a giftless tree on Christmas morn." I originally disagreed, and said both were fine, with my sentence meaning "my disappointment is that of a child's [disappointment] ..." But then I considered his point, and admitted I couldn't find a way to defend my construction.

But now, looking at it again, I'm not 100% sure if my sentence is absolutely ungrammatical or not. I've been staring at it for far too long. Any ideas?

[Teacake]

Teacher of English: your friend is correct. Your disappointment is the disappointment of a child. You said that your disappointment was the disappointment of a child's. Well, a child's what? It can't be the disappointment of a child's disappointment, since the feeling can't keep on feeling itself. So to speak.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by Teacake

Teacher of English: your friend is correct. Your disappointment is the disappointment of a child. You said that your disappointment was the disappointment of a child's. Well, a child's what? It can't be the disappointment of a child's disappointment, since the feeling can't keep on feeling itself. So to speak.

That's what I ended up concluding, but after staring at it for so long, wasn't completely positive. Thanks.

[BigT]

No, he's not. The double possessive is normal speech. There is an argument for using "the disspointment of a child," but it is based on descriptivism rather than prescriptivism.

For, example, the rule touted above would say you would say "A friend of me" instead of "A friend of mine." And it would step all over the distinction between "A picture of Bob" and "a picture of Bob's."

I can't summarize it better than Grammar Girl.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by BigT

No, he's not. The double possessive is normal speech. There is an argument for using "the disspointment of a child," but it is based on descriptivism rather than prescriptivism.

For, example, the rule touted above would say you would say "A friend of me" instead of "A friend of mine." And it would step all over the distinction between "A picture of Bob" and "a picture of Bob's."

I can't summarize it better than Grammar Girl.

Well, that's the other thing I was wondering. Is this a common construction in English such that it is acceptable in casual speech? I'm not entirely sure.

[hibernicus]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

I was texting a friend, and dropped this sentence into our back-and-forth:

"My disappointment is that of a child's upon seeing a giftless tree on Christmas morn."

To which he urged me to clean up my double possessive. I said my grammar was fine, and he replied that the "that" already indicates possession, and that my sentence should be "My disappointment is that of a child upon seeing a giftless tree on Christmas morn." I originally disagreed, and said both were fine, with my sentence meaning "my disappointment is that of a child's [disappointment] ..." But then I considered his point, and admitted I couldn't find a way to defend my construction.

You had this conversation by text?

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by hibernicus

You had this conversation by text?

Well, we communicated by text, yes. I assume you're picking on the word "conversation" there? I'm not sure I agree, but you can redact that word and put in whatever you think is appropriate.

[Inner Stickler]

I think he is incredulous that you're saying, "My disappointment is that of a child's upon seeing a giftless tree on Christmas morn." instead of "I kno rite?! So dissapointed "

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler

I think he is incredulous that you're saying, "My disappointment is that of a child's upon seeing a giftless tree on Christmas morn." instead of "I kno rite?! So dissapointed "

Ah, yes. Conversations with this particular individual run the gamut of diction levels.

[Teacake]

Originally Posted by BigT

No, he's not. The double possessive is normal speech. There is an argument for using "the disspointment of a child," but it is based on descriptivism rather than prescriptivism.

For, example, the rule touted above would say you would say "A friend of me" instead of "A friend of mine." And it would step all over the distinction between "A picture of Bob" and "a picture of Bob's."

I can't summarize it better than Grammar Girl.

The double possessive is generally very acceptable, you could even say more natural to most of us, but in this particular sentence it just seemed not to make sense. Your example, "a friend of mine", doesn't grate at all, but the sentence in the OP did. What can I say. Language is weird.

[hibernicus]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

Well, we communicated by text, yes. I assume you're picking on the word "conversation" there? I'm not sure I agree, but you can redact that word and put in whatever you think is appropriate.

Sorry, I wasn't clear about the reason for my incredulity. While I am impressed (and pleased) that you text in proper sentences (as do I) rather than in text speak, the constraints of the text medium and the awkwardness of data entry would seem spectacularly unsuited to the ensuing conversation about the grammaticality of the previous text, with the need to quote text, etc. It just seems like an awful lot of thumb-work. But that's just me.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by hibernicus

Sorry, I wasn't clear about the reason for my incredulity. While I am impressed (and pleased) that you text in proper sentences (as do I) rather than in text speak, the constraints of the text medium and the awkwardness of data entry would seem spectacularly unsuited to the ensuing conversation about the grammaticality of the previous text, with the need to quote text, etc. It just seems like an awful lot of thumb-work. But that's just me.

We both have smart phones (iPhones, to be specific). It's pretty quick--we were actually both texting while working (photographing an event.) I'm not exactly sure what our speed is--and he's faster than me--but I'd guess I type at around 25-30 wpm on the phone.

[Boyo Jim]

IMO both are acceptable.

[Xema]

The phasing in the OP seems fully comprehensible, but awkward. To me, either of the following works:

My disappointment is like a child's upon seeing a giftless tree on Christmas morn.

My disappointment is that of a child seeing a giftless tree on Christmas morn.