Possessives - do u agree?

Milton   Mon Apr 13, 2009 5:29 pm GMT
''When the inflectional and of possessive forms are both grammatical,
there are still stylistic differences between them.
In general, the inflectional forms are somewhat less formal, and the
of possessive forms are more formal. For example, if you were writing a
report, you would probably choose -the population of the city- rather than
-the city’s population- as the title of a section.
Everything else being equal, the inflectional possessive implies shared
or previous knowledge, while the of possessive does not. For example,
compare the following:

Inflectional: We met Jim’s friend last night.
Of possessive: We met a friend of Jim’s last night.

The inflectional sentence implies that the listener already knows who Jim’s
friend is. The of possessive sentence implies that the listener is not expected to know who Jim’s friend is.''

McGraw-Hill's Essential ESL Grammar



Do you agree with this?
Skippy   Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:05 pm GMT
Yes. I favor the genitive ending, but in writing most people avoid it... I'd assume it's because of the apostrophe, which makes it look like a contraction, where the of-possessive is more akin to Romance construction, which for some reason English speakers frequently try to emulate.
Sparticus   Mon Apr 13, 2009 9:20 pm GMT
I forechoose the genitive ending as well.

<<The inflectional sentence implies that the listener already knows who Jim’s
friend is. The of possessive sentence implies that the listener is not expected to know who Jim’s friend is.''
>>

Although mightingly deduced from this example, I'm not so wiss that this is always the case. You've definitely given this a lot of thought and analysis. I would say rather that the difference between the two is not so much a difference of meaning as it is a matter of style.


<<Of possessive: We met a friend of Jim’s last night. >>

This is actually a combination of both (--a nested possessive)


<<where the of-possessive is more akin to Romance construction, which for some reason English speakers frequently try to emulate. >>

Although it has parallels in Romance languages, it's also very common among Teutonic languages like low forms of German, Netherlandic and Frysk. I don't earnestly think anyone is actually trying to emulate anyone in using it.
possesssed   Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:42 am GMT
<<<<Of possessive: We met a friend of Jim’s last night. >>

This is actually a combination of both (--a nested possessive)>>

Isn't this sometimes called the "double possessive"?
gilipollas   Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:01 am GMT
Тhe 's in that sentence is redundant
CID   Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:45 am GMT
<<Тhe 's in that sentence is redundant >>

<<Of possessive: We met a friend of Jim’s last night.>>

Redundant, well, not really.
Though it can be written "We met a friend of Jim last night" and still be grammatically correct, it's not conventional usage.

As touching the double possessive, it is and it isn't. Here's why, try and think of it this way: "We met a friend of all of Jim's acquaintances last night" => "We met a friend of Jim's [acquaintances]..."

i.e. "We met a friend of all of Jim's [friends]" or "...of all who belong to Jim"

so that "Jim's" is possesive but refers to something other than what "of Jim" would. It's really "of Jim's" (of that which is of Jim)

so we have on the one hand "of Jim" (what belongs to Jim) and "of Jim's" (what belongs to what belongs to Jim)
Meijse   Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:13 pm GMT
One more thing: adjective possessive:

1. California accent
2. California's accent
3. Californian accent
4. the accent of California


1. Belgium prince
2. Belgium's prince
3. Belgian prince
4. the prince of Belgium

1. -
2. Belgium's Jean-Claude Van Damme
3. Belgian Jean-Claude Van Damme
4. Jean-Claude Van Damme of Belgium