"I'm a friend of Bill's." You're a friend of Bill's what?

[WernhamHogg]

Apparently it’s called the double genitive case.

Which is more linguists observing the habit exists and giving it a name, but it’s mildly interesting how old the habit is. Some people call it an Americanism but apparently it has roots in pre-Norman English.

[DSYoungEsq]

@WernhamHogg

Apparently it’s called the double genitive case.

Which is more linguists observing the habit exists and giving it a name, but it’s mildly interesting how old the habit is. Some people call it an Americanism but apparently it has roots in pre-Norman English.

You know, the fact that it’s the “double genitive” was figured out back in posts #6 and#7. So now, it would appear that your posts are not only pointless carping, but repetitively superfluous carping, to boot. :rolleyes:

[WernhamHogg]

So we just need the OP to come back and thank us for googling it for him.

[CookingWithGas]

@MrDibble

Asa linkfrom the Wiki article explains, there are some instances where the construction is the also only one that is unambiguous:

@The American Heritage® Book Of English Usage

It can help sort out ambiguous phrases like Bob’s photograph, which could mean either “a photograph of Bob” (i.e., revealing Bob’s image) or “a photograph that is in Bob’s possession.” A photograph of Bob’s, on the other hand, can only be a photo that Bob has in his possession and may or may not show Bob’s image. Moreover, in some sentences the double genitive offers the only way to express what is meant. There is no substitute for it in a sentence such as That’s the only friend of yours that I’ve ever met, since sentences such as That’s your only friend that I’ve ever met and That’s your only friend, whom I’ve ever met are not grammatical.

There is a third, which “a photograph that Bob took.”

I was showing someone at work a book I was reading, called Chaos: Making a New Science. My boss walked over and said, “Oh, is that Gleick’s book?” I said, “No, it’s mine.” He turned it over to show that the cover said the author was James Gleick.

[engineer_comp_geek]

Moderator Note

@WernhamHogg

So we just need the OP to come back and thank us for googling it for him.

What we really need is for you to stop being snippy. This is GQ. Just stick to the facts.

@DSYoungEsq

You know, the fact that it’s the “double genitive” was figured out back in posts #6 and#7. So now, it would appear that your posts are not only pointless carping, but repetitively superfluous carping, to boot. :rolleyes:

This isn’t helpful, either.

[Riemann]

@WernhamHogg

Maybe I misread it then, but it seems like a question that has its own answer then. It’s like asking why bridges span water. Because that’s what bridges do? What kind of answer is he hoping for? You see, sometimes people say this because they say it that way. Question answered.

Why do living things have limbs, fins, wings, flagella? Well, to get around, obviously. Questioned answered. Why would anyone be curious about how they evolved?

You seemed to be flailing around trying to argue against a straw man. Sure, language is defined by consensus usage, sometimes idiomatic and apparently illogical, it does not derive from perfectly consistent prescribed rules. But I don’t see anyone in this thread (including the OP) disputing that. You seem to want to take this correct idea to a preposterous extreme, that we must therefore just unthinkingly accept all language at superficial face value, and that even any curiosity about the nature of language is misguided.

I thought the OP was an interesting question - I’m certainly interested in the history of this idiom and in trying to appreciate the cognitive process that underlies it, and I’ve learned something here.

ETA: posted before I saw mod note. But I think it’s okay to leave my comment in, I was trying to make a substantive point, and (I hope) not junior-mod.

[Dana_Scully]

And I thought I was a grammar nazi!