[forkies]

(fine, we'll try like this, thx to f1000 for the heads up)

Sue's car ⇒ the car of Sue
Japan's capital ⇒ the capital of Japan
my friend ⇒ the friend of mine

[f1000]

Originally Posted by forkies

Sue's car ⇒ the car of Sue's

The car of Sue, not the car of Sue's.

Originally Posted by forkies

Japan's capitol ⇒ the capitol of Japan's

The capital of Japan, not the capitol of Japan's.

[Doofy]

"The capital of Japan"

No need for the "Japan" to be possessive.

(edit: f1000 beat me to it.)

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by f1000

The car of Sue, not the car of Sue's.

Is this the car of Kate's husband or Sue's husband?

It's the car of Sue's.

I think that's possible. I'm not a native speaker though.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Is this the car of Kate's husband or Sue's husband?

It's the car of Sue's.

I think that's possible. I'm not a native speaker though.

Yes, but you're not answering forkies' original question: are "Sue's car" and "the car of Sue's" equivalent.

[forkies]

if "of" is used to show possession, why is "mine" used not "me"? that's what i want to know

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by f1000

Yes, but you're not answering forkies' original question: are "Sue's car" and "the car of Sue's" equivalent.

No, it's not an answer to that question. I was just thinking that might be possible in some cases to have "of Sue's".

I think forkies' question (as I read it now) is why does "my" in "my friend" become "mine" in "friend of mine".

[f1000]

Originally Posted by forkies

if "of" is used to show possession, why is "mine" used not "me"? that's what i want to know

Me is the objective pronoun of I. My and mine are the possessive pronouns of I.

The prepositional phrase of mine may simply be idiomatic.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by forkies

if "of" is used to show possession, why is "mine" used not "me"? that's what i want to know

‘Of’ is not used to show possession—to show actual possession (ownership or physical ‘holding’ of something), you’ll need the genitive case [which, many argue, is no longer a case at all, but a clitic] itself.

You can’t say “the car of Sue”—it doesn’t make sense, except that you know it’s supposed to mean “Sue’s car”. On the other hand, saying “Japan’s capital”, as your example, sounds wrong too, doesn’t it? Japan does not literally own or possess its capital; therefore, it’s more natural in English to use an ‘of’ construction: the capital of Japan.

‘Of’ is used in cases where many languages with true genitives (Latin, Greek, and Turkish, for instance) would use the genitive case, namely to denote some kind of more or less loose or definable relation between the two ‘parties’ mentioned: a cup of water, the days of the week, etc. These two are, technically, identical, they just denote slightly different relationships between their two ‘parties’ (as can be seen by the difference in meaning that would arise from turning them into compound words: a water-cup being a cup meant for water [as opposed to a cup filled with water] vs. weekdays, which, for all logical purposes, is the same as “days of the week”).

(There are some places where the actual genitive is used in nearly all languages, even though they don’t refer to actual possession; these include such things as family members, for instance. You would normally say “the girl’s mother”, rather than “the mother of the girl”)


The reason that ‘of’ can be used with the possessive pronouns/adjectives, instead of the simple personal pronouns, is that the possessive pronouns can be used to refer to the thing possessed as well. One of the things ‘of’ can be used to denote (so, for instance, in the beginning of this very sentence: “one of the things...”) is the relationship between a part and a whole. Thus, if you take the phrase “a friend of mine”, what it literally (originally, at least) is “a friend [who is a part of the whole that is known as] mine (i.e., ‘my friends’)”.

Originally, “a friend of mine” was not at all the same as “a friend of me”: the former indicated that you have several friends and that this person is one of them; the latter indicated that this person was your friend, without saying anything about any other acquaintances. In Modern American English (fairly recently), this distinction has been lost somewhat, so that they are now fairly identical in meaning, the former having superceded the latter in nearly every context.

This also explains why the thing ‘owned’ in these constructions has to be either indefinite (‘a’) or qualified by a demonstrative pronoun (‘this’, ‘that’) or a qualificative relative clause, but cannot simply be definite (‘the’). Saying “the friend of mine” doesn’t make sense. Originally, you would be singling one friend out from the group of people who qualify to be called “my friends”. If you’re going to be singling out one person in a group as the topic of a conversation like that, you’ll either have to specify which one (“this friend of mine” or “the friend of mine who owns a BMW”), or you’ll have to make him/her indefinite, so that it could be anyone in the group (“a friend of mine is coming tomorrow”). Making the friend definite without specifying what friend it is doesn’t make sense—the listener would know that you were talking about a specific friend, but wouldn’t know which friend it was.

s this the car of Kate's husband or Sue's husband?

It's the car of Sue's.

I think that's possible. I'm not a native speaker though.

Nope, it’s not possible. In all three cases, since we’re dealing with actual ownership of an object here, you’d have to use the real genitive: “Is this Kate’s husband’s car or Sue’s husband’s car?” —“It’s Sue’s car.”



[Note: When the names of people are involved, things change a bit. People are considered ‘closer’ to the personal pronouns, and therefore the real genitive isn’t considered too ‘heavy’ as easily as is the case with regular nouns. The result is that in many places where ‘of’ constructions have penetrated usages that were previously genitive territory with regular nouns, the real genitive is still often used with personal pronouns (using then of course the possessive pronouns instead) and personal names—but not place names, usually!]



Edit: There are probably a few places in this post where I forgot to separate possessive adjectives and possessive pronouns—I was on a roll, and I might have lumped it all together as possessive pronouns here and there. For clarity: “my”, “your”, etc. are possessive adjectives (they need something to qualify in order to function as a nominal unit), while “mine”, “yours”, etc. are possessive pronouns (they function as nominal units by themselves). Sorry ‘bout the mix-up.

[forkies]

THANK YOU
(someone's a grammar machine! )

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by f1000

Me is the objective pronoun of I. My and mine are the possessive pronouns of I.

Me is the accusative case of the personal pronoun I, and the accusative case is the case used as the objective case in English. The term “objective pronoun” is an abomination that mixes morphology and syntax like there’s no tomorrow.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by Oisín

You can’t say “the car of Sue”—it doesn’t make sense, except that you know it’s supposed to mean “Sue’s car”

If it doesn't make sense, then why did Poe entitle one of his works The Fall of the House of Usher?

Originally Posted by Oisín

On the other hand, saying “Japan’s capital”, as your example, sounds wrong too, doesn’t it? Japan does not literally own or possess its capital; therefore, it’s more natural in English to use an ‘of’ construction: the capital of Japan.

"The Chechens who dared seize a theater in Russia's capital are put down, but their cause is on center stage."

As the editors of Time Magazine would agree, there's nothing wrong with saying "Russia's capital." Moreover, suggesting that something sounds "more natural" to a non-native speaker is circular logic, is it not?

Originally Posted by Oisín

‘Of’ is not used to show possession—to show actual possession (ownership or physical ‘holding’ of something), you’ll need the genitive case [which, many argue, is no longer a case at all, but a clitic] itself.

The preposition of coupled with a possessive pronoun certainly does indicate possession. I think you're making distinctions where there are none. Take the idiom "as easy as pie" for example. Although as can be used to compare two like things, "easy" and "pie" aren't comparable. The phrase is grammatically nonsensical.

Originally Posted by Oisín

Originally, “a friend of mine” was not at all the same as “a friend of me”: the former indicated that you have several friends and that this person is one of them; the latter indicated that this person was your friend, without saying anything about any other acquaintances. In Modern American English (fairly recently), this distinction has been lost somewhat, so that they are now fairly identical in meaning, the former having superceded the latter in nearly every context.

I've never heard anyone say "a friend of me" except maybe the Cookie Monster. To say that it's been superceded implies that one has the option of still using it, but I'd be surprised if that were true.

Hint to all foreigners: Don't pick a "friend of me" on any standardized exam!

Originally Posted by Oisín

This also explains why the thing ‘owned’ in these constructions has to be either indefinite (‘a’) or qualified by a demonstrative pronoun (‘this’, ‘that’) or a qualificative relative clause, but cannot simply be definite (‘the’). Saying “the friend of mine” doesn’t make sense.

I can say, "we'll put the paddles in the trunk of mine," as long as the listener(s) knows which trunk I'm talking about (e.g., if I owned a single trunk).

[f1000]

Originally Posted by Oisín

Me is the accusative case of the personal pronoun I, and the accusative case is the case used as the objective case in English. The term “objective pronoun” is an abomination that mixes morphology and syntax like there’s no tomorrow.

And yet it's used by my old undergraduate grammar text, "The Little, Brown Handbook" by Fowler and Aaron.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by f1000

The prepositional phrase of mine may simply be idiomatic.

Now I'm no linguist and I truly hate grammar, but here's what Evan Jenkins at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism says about the phrase "of mine":

Questions and observations from the e-mail have produced a collection whose existence can seem to give logic a bad name.

• Isn't "a friend of mine" a double possessive?* Yes, but idiom loves it and would just hate the alternative, "a friend of me." "A friend of Bob" and "a friend of Bob's," though, are both fine.

None of us who care about the language are immune to twin weaknesses: we hunger for clear-cut rules, and we have a pathological aversion to ambiguity. Sometimes it's best to relax and take what the language gives us.

Within reason, of course.

It seems that he too considers "of mine" to be an idiomatic expression.

[dale]

Has anyone on the forum read Eats Shoot and Leaves?

I read the follow up book about manners, but not the one about grammer.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by dale

Has anyone on the forum read Eats Shoot and Leaves?

I read the follow up book about manners, but not the one about grammer.

It's grammar you fool. And no, I didn't read the follow up book about manners.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by f1000

If it doesn't make sense, then why did Poe entitle one of his works The Fall of the House of Usher?

I don’t know the book, but by the title alone, I’d say “house” here refers not to a building, but to Usher’s family, or at least his descendants. In this case, it isn’t actually a case of true possession: descendants are not objects in your possession, they are just expressed in relation to you.

See the difference between “the destruction of the Houses of Lords” and “the destruction of the Lords’ Houses”?

If the house in Poe’s title does actually refer to an actual house... well, then that’s just one of the quirkinesses of language, I guess. There are plenty of them.

As the editors of Time Magazine would agree, there's nothing wrong with saying "Russia's capital." Moreover, suggesting that something sounds "more natural" to a non-native speaker is circular logic, is it not?

It is perhaps that. And I didn’t say (did I?) that it is unacceptable to say Japan’s capital or Russia’s capital—just that the ‘of’ construction is more common in these cases. GoogleFight agrees: the ‘of’ construction beats the genitive construction hands down (69,000 to 83,000,000 for Japan; 50,000 to 48,000,000 for Russia).

The preposition of coupled with a possessive pronoun certainly does indicate possession. I think you're making distinctions where there are none.

No, I’m making distinctions where there are no longer any. When I said the use of the possessive pronouns in these cases was “fairly recent”, I meant that it had happened within the last 2–300 years, not within the past decade.

The ‘of’ + possessive pronoun construction has, in those two or three centuries, taken on more abstract uses as well (such as “this little light of mine”, where no indication of group is implied), replacing other constructions in some places and adding new possibilities of expression in other places.

Take the idiom "as easy as pie" for example. Although as can be used to compare two like things, "easy" and "pie" aren't comparable. The phrase is grammatically nonsensical.

No, grammatically, the phrase is perfectly acceptable. It’s semantically nonsensical, not grammatically so.

I've never heard anyone say "a friend of me"

I have, both in England and in Ireland. It’s not common there, either, but it does still occur sporadically.

To say that it's been superceded implies that one has the option of still using it, but I'd be surprised if that were true.

‘Superseded’ was perhaps a poor choice of words—‘displaced’ might be better.

And yet it's used by my old undergraduate grammar text, "The Little, Brown Handbook" by Fowler and Aaron.

Ah yes, I know it’s used in many places. That only makes it worse. It’s one of the many cases of technical terms that miss the target altogether, and still seem to be more currently used than their better, more accurate, alternatives.


P.S.: Eats Shoots and Leaves is an excellent book

[Chuckit]

Pronouns and normal nouns don't necessarily work exactly the same in all cases. Similarly, you would say "I want to go to the park," but not "I want to go to there."

[f1000]

Originally Posted by Oisín

I don’t know the book, but by the title alone, I’d say “house” here refers not to a building, but to Usher’s family, or at least his descendants. In this case, it isn’t actually a case of true possession: descendants are not objects in your possession, they are just expressed in relation to you.

You don't know this American classic? It's been parodied by none other than The Simpsons for crying out loud. Blasphemous!

PS: You can download it for free from the Gutenberg Project. Read it and then reread your post.

Originally Posted by Oisín

It is perhaps that. And I didn’t say (did I?) that it is unacceptable to say Japan’s capital or Russia’s capital—just that the ‘of’ construction is more common in these cases. GoogleFight agrees: the ‘of’ construction beats the genitive construction hands down (69,000 to 83,000,000 for Japan; 50,000 to 48,000,000 for Russia).

Maybe you should add quotation marks to your search query, noob:

"capital of Japan" = 151,000
"Japan's capital" = 44,100

"capital of Russia" = 210,000
"Russia's capital" = 57,000

No, grammatically, the phrase is perfectly acceptable. It’s semantically nonsensical, not grammatically so.

OK, I agree, but I'm sure that I can find a much better idiom to prove my point.

I have, both in England and in Ireland. It’s not common there, either, but it does still occur sporadically.

OK, but forkies is in America. I'm teaching him how we rebels speak.

P.S.: Eats Shoots and Leaves is an excellent book

Yeah, it sounds funny. Gotta 3 hour drive ahead of me, so later gator.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Pronouns and normal nouns don't necessarily work exactly the same in all cases. Similarly, you would say "I want to go to the park," but not "I want to go to there."

That’s because “there” is an adverb (of location) and thus does not need any kind of preposition to function as an adverbial unit in a sentence, unlike “the park”, which, by itself, is a nominal unit.

Preposition + prepositional object (nominal unit, phrase, adverb[ial unit]*) = adverbial unit.

Adverbs can of course also function as prepositional objects in adverbial units; but since the adverb “there” already has the meaning of ‘to’ built in (as well as the location ‘at/in/on/etc.’), the “to” is unnecessary. If, however, we choose to use a direction which is not built into the adverb itself (‘from’, for instance), we either have to use a different adverb that has this direction built into it (‘thence’, in this case), or keep the preposition before the adverb:

“He ran home from the park” -> “He ran home from there” or (archaically) “He ran home thence” (or even “from thence”).

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by f1000

You don't know this American classic? It's been parodied by none other than The Simpsons for crying out loud. Blasphemous!

I know, I know! I’m horrible when it comes to classics, simply horrible. I’ve barely read Romeo and Juliet, for crying out loud!

(Ahem, and I don’t really watch the Simpsons, so... )

Maybe you should add quotation marks to your search query, noob:

Oh, I thought that was done automagically in GoogleFight. Well, yeah... this proves very clearly that maths is not my strong point; now I think about it, having 83 million results for “capital of Japan” is of course rather ridiculous. :roll:

Still, although the difference is much smaller, Google still does agree that the ‘of’ construction is about four times more common than the genitive construction.

OK, but forkies is in America. I'm teaching him how we rebels speak.

Ah, I was just commenting on how the idiomatic use arose—which was then mostly back in the Motherland