Oh, Cecil. Yet again you disappoint me with your grammar. :smack:
“…to the offspring of us humans…” ?
Oh, dear.
First, a link to the column in question: How do they grow more seedless fruit? - The Straight Dope It’s helpful for the opening post of a thread to provide such a link, to save search time and (with luck) try to keep us on the same page.
Second: I think the grammar is fine (and so’s the grampa). The preposition “of” takes the whatchacallit case, hence “offspring of us-humans.”
I would change “more” to “additional” because fruit that is seedless cannot be made more seedless. But hey.
Dex, I believe the word you’re looking for is “accusative”. As in, the proposition “of” takes the accusative case.
One might argue whether “us” ought to agree with “of” or “to”, but that takes the accusative, too. “To the offspring of we humans” is definitely and unambiguously wrong.
P’raps “to the offspring of wee humans.” ?
In English grammar, the word “objective” is generally preferred, because English has collapsed the accusative and dative cases into one.
Absolutely, positively with “of”.
Yes.
We’re descended from Hobbits? 
Simple test. Drop the “humans.” Which makes better sense? “To the offspring of us” or “To the offspring of we”?
when I encounter a puzzling grammar situation, I just rearrange or rephrase to avoid the question.
“To our offspring” would seem to cover everything, unless, of course, we are not human.
Some of the folks on this board love their dogs more than it might seem appropriate, preferring their company to that of children. And, if they bite a child, the child must have deserved it and will learn a lesson thereby.
so…their offspring might, broadly speaking, include the puppies from their adopted family members. Why they would care about seedless fruits, I really don’t know.
I am reminded that 50 odd years ago, seed corn producers perfected a line of ‘sterile’ corn…it had no pollen, so could not pollenate the silks on its own stalk. The design was to allow the ‘bull rows’ to provide all the pollen needed, and, thus, make a progeny which, when planted during the next season, would yield higher bushels per acre than before.
We asked the question, how do they produce the seeds for the ‘sterile’ corn, but never received an answer.
BTW, I think this line led to the problem of the strain that took precedence in the corn producing states being susceptible to ergot, black smut type disease that ruined the corn crop one year all over the US. The seed corn producers scrambled around and again began producing seeds from plants that had to have their tassels removed.
One of the problems with producing the exact same genetic crop year after year for vast tracks of land is that it is susceptible to disease outbreaks. A virus, fungus, or bacterium that can attack one can attack the entire crop. This is what lead to the potato famine in Ireland. The same species of potato was planted all over Ireland, and it practically became the sole source of food. The blight wiped out the entire crop causing massive starvation. Of course, British policy didn’t help the situation.
Bananas are now in a similar position. The Cavendish is under attack. Before the Cavendish, the Gros Michael was the main banana variety. It had a fragrant aroma and was much tastier than the Cavendish and even had a softer texture. The Gros Michael was hit by Panama Disease. It is still the preferred banana in Southeast Asia.
However, that black smut on corn we think of as a terrible blight is highly prized in Mexico where it’s considered as valuable as truffles.
What do you propose?
But that line was quoting “Just askin’”, the person who submitted the question.
Cecil chose that phrasing to emphasize the human part, as juxtaposition for the seedless fruits in question.