Have enjoyed reading the exchange of comments and the obvious good humor on this forum. I would like to participate when I have something to offer.
I came across an interesting magazine article recently and would like to offer this item for your consideration and comments. I will pose it as a question and see if it merits any discussion.
Is the following sentence properly punctuated?
"He is a good friend of Robert's."
This may be too basic a question to raise for this level of scholarship--if so, I apologize and will restrict my future participation to commenting on other people's posts.
Welcome aBoard, JohnHawaii! Don't you dare even think of restricting yourself to responding to other people's posts....Jump in and enjoy!
As to your question, I'd say: yes, that sentence is properly punctuated. (Have you been reading the "apostrophe" posts, by any chance?!)
With the possessive like that, it refers to an unidentified object, as in: "He is a good friend of Robert's acquaintance." Probably better is to drop the possessive, and say merely: "He is a good friend of Robert." Usually less is more.
it refers to an unidentified object Hey, spike, where were you when I was posting about two weeks' worth? I meant to say what you said, uh huh, I did.
Welcome aBoard, and you too, Cap'n. (Hey, Ms. wow, you gotta talk to this guy!!) Mercy--as was said very recently here, Dear, the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Please don't restrict yourself to commenting on others' posts.
Welcome, JHawaii!
Hmmmm. I'm in disgreement with the majority.
He is a good friend of Mary. He is good friend (let's replace Mary with a pronoun here) of her. That flat doesn't ring right to me. He is a good friend of her. Nope. Don't like it at all.
He is a good friend of Mary's. He is a good friend of hers. Now that sounds right.
I'd go with: He is a good friend of Robert's. He is good friend of his. Not: He is a good friend of Robert. He is a good friend of him.
>He is a good friend of Robert's. He is good friend of his. Not: He is a good friend of Robert. He is a good friend of him.
to tell you the truth, i don't really understand why..?_?
Rav,
I'm not sure what you don't understand, but let me list here some examples so you might understand my viewpoint better.
First, we can replace nouns and proper nouns with pronouns. Pronouns come in handy when figuring out points of grammar.
I'll list below some examples:
1. Jackie and AnnaS posted only three times in one week on the board.
2. Jackie and she (not her) posted only three times...
3. They posted only three times...
4.. I read two posts of Jackie's.
4. I read two posts of hers (but not: her).
I wouldn't write:
5. I read three posts of Jackie.
Or:
6. I read three posts of her.
Now back to Robert and his friends.
We can get at this idea many ways:
1. Who is Robert's friend?
2. Who is his?
They both work.
1. John is a good friend of Robert.
Now we've got a problem if we want to replace the object of the preposition with a pronoun. Strictly speaking, Robert must be replaced with third person singular objective case: him. So we end up with:
2. John is a good friend of him.
That doesn't work for my ear.
Even worse, suppose I replace Robert with myself:
1. John is my good friend. John is a good friend of mine. (2 examples that work.)
2. (But this doesn't work:) John is a good friend of me.
Yuck!
So, now take a look at the original sentence offered by John Hawaii:
1. He is a good friend of Robert's.
Like Modestgoddess, I think that sentence is perfectly grammatical. Test it out with a replacement by a pronoun and you get:
1. He is a good friend of his.
That works, too, grammatically. Where I have a problem is when we replace "Robert" with him--He is a good friend of Robert...He is a good friend of him. That doesn't work. You would be better off having: He is a good friend of Robert's; and replacing 'Robert's' with 'his' in He is a good friend of his. Or a friend of yours. Or a friend of hers. Or a friend of mine.
But the sentence is a tricky one and I can see where the others are coming from. If I were to read: He is a good friend of Robert--I'd understand, wouldn't parse, would just keep on trucking at a steady beat.
This is just my opinion. It's just mine.
Best regards,
WW
From xrefer discussing this very topic(
http://xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=592807):
It is not easy to explain why such constructions are idiomatic: one can only assert that they are.Bingley
No one's noticed the obvious: He's a good friend of mine. NOT He's a good friend of me.
yeah.. think now it's clear.. :)
It is not easy to explain why such constructions are idiomatic
It is fairly easy to explain. Back when case meant something in English, when we had nominative, dative, accusative and genitive, prepositions governed cases. Some took more than one case depending on the specific meaning. Thus in took the dative if it was expressing motion into something and accusative if expressed location in something.
Nowdays, we have lost much of the notion of case. We have, at best, three cases, subjective, objective and possessive, and then only in pronouns. This is why reverting to pronouns can be helpful in resolving these questions, as Wordwind pointed out so ably. In the case of nouns we have only two cases that we can determine from the form of the word, let's call them common and possessive. This being the case we have lost the feeling for prepositions taking certain cases. It's only those that take the possessive that we notice and of is maybe the only one that takes the possessive, and, as the portrait of the king('s) in Bingley's link shows us, it doesn't always take the possessive.
No one's noticed the obvious
You saying Dub's no one?
...We have, at best, three cases, subjective, objective and possessive...
It sounds like *American english to me... the personal, the material and the fantasia.
Well, but WW, one might say:
He is her good friend and I read three of her posts.
That sounds right.
Thanks for the welcome.
As several posters have pointed out, the sentence is correct, as punctuated. The example used in the article I read illustrated the correctness of the "double possessive" as follows: If one were describing, for example, a portrait of Frank versus a portrait owned by Frank, the only acceptable distinction would be the possessive apostrophe in the latter case.
As pointed out by some, the test in such cases is the substitution of a pronoun.
Oh, Clarity! As has been posted elsewhere, it is better when faced with such ambiguity to rephrase the sentence to avoid same.
In reply to:
Well, but WW, one might say:
He is her good friend and I read three of her posts.
That sounds right.
And I wouldn't argue, although the sentence itself is awkward.
Rephrase it just for fun:
He is hers and I read three of hers.
However, I don't understand the point you're making.
Thanks, Faldage, for the note. I'm becoming accustomed to the muted voice here.
I just reread what I wrote, and the word hers has taken on that other-worldly appearance that words sometimes assume.
hers
Weird. Just plain weird.
Don't see where Dub said anything about me and mine. She used other pronouns, but I think it's most evident what the best way is when you see how me and mine work in the sentence.
the word hers has taken on that other-worldly appearance that words sometimes assume.
welcome to the wonderful world of semiotics.
Ted:
My voice is often invisible when I'm long-Wordwinded. If you go back and read all the many things I wrote, somewhere in that invisibiity you might find:
Even worse, suppose I replace Robert with myself:
1. John is my good friend. John is a good friend of mine. (2 examples that work.)
2. (But this doesn't work:) John is a good friend of me.
Yuck!
But I dunno. I'm often invisible.
Best regards,
WW
In reply to:
Even worse, suppose I replace Robert with myself:
1. John is my good friend. John is a good friend of mine.
No, WW, that's better, not worse, because John is no friend of mine.
Bingley
Bingley,
John aside, I meant that #2 is a poor-sounding construction: John is a friend of me.
But I offered #1 as examples of constructions that work.
Now you and John should make up. Really. He's not a cad that I've notcied. That is, he isn't so bad if you and I are referring to the same John.
Mary #1: John is a friend of mine.
Mary #2: No, John is my friend!
Mary #1: I am John's friend!
Mary #2: Well, I am a friend of John's!!
ron obvious: evidently you are both friends, to John, so stifle.
In reply to:
Now you and John should make up. Really. He's not a cad that I've notcied. That is, he isn't so bad if you and I are referring to the same John.
Not unless by some amazing coincidence you know my landlord.
Bingley
Sorry, DD, I read it three times and missed it! [humble grovel-e]
Heahea John Hawaii ! Aloha. Please click on "Check Private"
for a note from me.
A hui ho!