I met with a friend of Molly's
I met with a friend of a friend
I met with a friend's friend

Is the first right and the other two wrong?
I understand that one might use such phrasing for aesthetic value; so does that mean that it's use is 'wrong', or rather, should be avoided, if purely utilitarian? E.g. 'The Tempest of Shakespeare’s'.

Spend your weekend well!

I would feel comfortable using any of the three. When I tell someone a story or anecdote that I have been told is gospel truth, but still seems of dubious veracity, I call it a "friend of a friend story", as in, "This really happened to my best friend's friend's cousin's roomate's ex-girlfriend, I swear!"

I met with a friend of Molly's
I met with a friend of a friend
I met with a friend's friend

This just points that we are not yet completely comfortable with the fact that we have *almost dumped all vestiges of case structure in the English noun†. Originally we didn't much use prepositions, relying on case to tell us the relationship among nouns in a sentence. We now use word order and prepositions. One of the characteristics of the transitional phase was the requirement that the case of a noun was linked to the preposition. Since the only case we show by inflectional endings is the possessive (formerly known as the genitive) and the only preposition we use it with is of it is something of an anomaly and therefore raises questions. To take the example one by one:

A) I met with a friend of Molly's

This fits the discussion above. Given the meaning there really isn't any other way you can say it. You can't say a Molly's friend. The a here does have a meaning that can't easily be said any other way.

2) I met with a friend of a friend

Nothing wrong with this.

Þ) I met with a friend's friend

Just another way of saying 2)

†We are also in the process of losing it in pronouns, causing a great weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth among the grammatically hypersensitive.

You can't say 'a Molly's friend'.

Well, you could, if the Molly was a Molly Maguire.

In reply to:

---

I met with a friend of Molly's
I met with a friend of a friend
I met with a friend's friend

Is the first right and the other two wrong?

---

No. The first one's wrong and the other two are right.
It should be: 'I met with a friend of Molly', shouldn't it?

No. The first one's wrong and the other two are right.
It should be: 'I met with a friend of Molly', shouldn't it?

Ah, such courage from the Red Centre! I agree with you Rusty. When I see "I met with a friend of Molly's" I immediately wonder, "Molly's what ?"

Ok, this is what the AHD has to say about it:

Grammarians have sometimes objected to the so-called double genitive construction, as in a friend of my father's; a book of mine. But the construction has been used in English since the 14th century and serves a useful purpose. It can help sort out ambiguous phrases like Bob's photograph, which could refer either to a photograph of Bob (that is, revealing Bob's image) or to one in Bob's possession. A photograph of Bob's, can only be a photo that Bob has in his possession, which 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 awkward or inaccurate.

fwiw, I agree with the AHD. besides, life's more like a double negative.

While we're (sort of) on the subject, I found myself writing the other day "... he's gone to one of his student's birthday party." Does the panel prefer "one of his student's" or "one of his students'"? Neither feels quite right.

Bingley

> ..life's more like a double negative.
Quite. The title was a play on that.

> 'one of his student's'
Looks fine to me.


Thanks to Faldage and all!

Oh, I agree that "a friend of Molly's" is regarded as correct. But "a friend of Molly" is no more ambiguous and can only mean that and nothing else. Nothing's left dangling. It's just another little example of the way English can be completely internally inconsistent and yet remain useful as a means of communication.

> can be completely internally inconsistent and yet remain useful as a means of communication.

True, true. Now I know why learning foreign languages is important!

Bingley asks: "... he's gone to one of his student's birthday party." Does the panel prefer "one of his student's" or "one of his students'"? Neither feels quite right.
None of them pass the test of the long MIA xara; that is, none of them tastes right. I would say ...he has gone to the birthday party of one of his students.

tsuwm notes: life's more like a double negative.

But would that be a logical double negative or an emphatic double negative?

"... he's gone to one of his student's birthday party."

I would be inclined to use students'. When you make the phrase one of his students possessive, students is still plural, so you stick the apostrophe after. Rather than above, where it looks like you started with one of his student and made that possessive. And we don't really say things like "Jane was one of his student." But the rewriting for clarity option is probably the wisest.

> But the rewriting for clarity option is probably the wisest.

Indeed. I thank you all for muddying the waters (or my watery understanding of the topic) yet further!

tsuwm notes: life's more like a double negative.

But would that be a logical double negative or an emphatic double negative?


consider the outcome, and then you tell me...

Thank you for your input, BY, Faldage, and Bean. I think the problem is that the possessive really refers to the (singular) one, rather than the (plural) students. So in writing I'd have to go with Faldage's suggestion and avoid the problem, although I don't think it's something I'd ever actually say . Fortunately we don't have to worry about apostrophes when speaking.

Bingley

But would that be a logical double negative or an emphatic double negative?

Judged by your test, tsuwm, I’d say it’s a genetically-modified emphatically illogical double negative…

The original: "... he's gone to one of his student's birthday party."

My suggestion: ...he has gone to the birthday party of one of his students.

Unless there were several students having birthday parties that day, in which case it might be: ...he has gone to one of his students' birthday parties, which could be disambiguated* as ...he has gone to one of the birthday parties of... no, no, that's going to be too awkward, let's try ...he has gone to one of the parties that... no that's still going to be ambiguous, ...he has gone to one of the birthday parties that... no that still won't get it, how about ...he's not here.

*I originally had disambguified† in here but Ænigma suggested disambiguate so I went with that.

†Yeah, I had to misspell disambiguified to get disambiguate; it wanted to disappear disambiguified

it wanted to disappear disambiguified

Hell, that would have been a loss to poetry

"he's not here."

Ah! Avoidance is the Sparteye-preferred method of solving such grammatic conundrums. Otherwise, I get all tanglied-up.

It's only a bonus if his name happens to be Dave, man.

Unfortunately not, it's Candi.

Bingley

. I thank you all for muddying the waters
Let me stir it a little more: He went to the birthday party of a student of his.

But "a friend of Molly" is no more ambiguous and can only mean that and nothing else. Or does it? To me, there is a slight disparaging note to this version: Molly is somehow objectified, compared with a friend of Molly's.

If we change the phrase from "a friend of Molly's" to "the friend of Molly's", then I think the additional possessive does perform a function. Compare:

That's the friend of Molly who always falls down the stairs at parties.

That's the friend of Molly's who always falls down the stairs of at parties.

I think the second sentence leaves us in no doubt that it is the friend who gets legless rather than that fine upstanding specimen of womanhood, Molly, while the first sentence causes some momentary doubt.

Also I think there is an implication in "the friend of Molly" that this is her one and only friend, while "the friend of Molly's" lets us know that Molly has lots of friends, of whom this is one.

Bingley