A friend of John or a friend of John's?
Catch 23
1. a friend of John's
2. a friend of John
?
The first sound better, but feels odd. The second sound odd, but seems
more logical.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
Yes. The first is the usual way of saying it even though there are two
possessives in it: "of" and "'s". This is called the "double possessive"
or the "double genitive".
We also say "Jane is a friend of mine" and "Jane is a friend of yours"
rather than "Jane is a friend of me" and "Jane is a friend of you".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Glenn Knickerbocker
> Is it correct to say either of
> 1. a friend of John's
> 2. a friend of John
Yes. The first means one of John's friends and is by far the more
common expression.
¬R
John Lawler
It is always a mistake to go with what "seems more logical"
in English (or in any language). Language is not logic, nor
even logical, except in spots, unpredictably. (1) is correct;
(2) would be understood, but marked as "foreign".
If it sounds better, it *is* better.
Leave the logic to the logicians.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/McCawley-Lg.pdf
"The relation between logic and thought is similar to that
between medicine and health. If you're healthy, medicine
is useless; but if you're ill, medicine can sometimes help.
"However, you have to take just the right medicine in just
the right dosage, there may be dangerous side effects,
and it can be habit-forming." -- James D. McCawley
Catch 23
Good point.
Steve Hayes
They have different meanings, especially in these days of social networks,
like Facebook.
A "friend of John's" is someone John has friended.
A "friend of John" is someone who has friended John, but John has not
necessarily reciprocated.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
annily
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:30:35 -0700, Catch 23 <cat...@catch23.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Is it correct to say either of
>>
>> 1. a friend of John's
>> 2. a friend of John
>>
>> ?
>>
>> The first sound better, but feels odd. The second sound odd, but seems
>> more logical.
>
> They have different meanings, especially in these days of social networks,
> like Facebook.
>
> A "friend of John's" is someone John has friended.
>
> A "friend of John" is someone who has friended John, but John has not
> necessarily reciprocated.
>
>
don't even recognize "friend" as a verb.
--
Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia,
which probably influences my opinions.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:30:35 -0700, Catch 23 <cat...@catch23.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it correct to say either of
>>>
>>> 1. a friend of John's
>>> 2. a friend of John
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> The first sound better, but feels odd. The second sound odd, but seems
>>> more logical.
>>
>> They have different meanings, especially in these days of social networks,
>> like Facebook.
>>
>> A "friend of John's" is someone John has friended.
>>
>> A "friend of John" is someone who has friended John, but John has not
>> necessarily reciprocated.
>>
>>
>What a weird distinction, but then I'm not into social networking, so I
>don't even recognize "friend" as a verb.
Social networking is a weird world, where everyone wants to be your "friend",
but they don't want to know you.
Peter Moylan
> Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:30:35 -0700, Catch 23 <cat...@catch23.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it correct to say either of
>>>
>>> 1. a friend of John's
>>> 2. a friend of John
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> The first sound better, but feels odd. The second sound odd, but seems
>>> more logical.
>>
>> They have different meanings, especially in these days of social
>> networks,
>> like Facebook.
>>
>> A "friend of John's" is someone John has friended.
>>
>> A "friend of John" is someone who has friended John, but John has not
>> necessarily reciprocated.
>>
> What a weird distinction, but then I'm not into social networking, so I
> don't even recognize "friend" as a verb.
>
to unfriend.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Ian Jackson
<haye...@telkomsa.net> writes
>On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:49:25 +0930, annily <ann...@annily.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:30:35 -0700, Catch 23
>>><cat...@catch23.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it correct to say either of
>>>>
>>>> 1. a friend of John's
>>>> 2. a friend of John
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> The first sound better, but feels odd. The second sound odd, but seems
>>>> more logical.
>>>
>>> They have different meanings, especially in these days of social networks,
>>> like Facebook.
>>>
>>> A "friend of John's" is someone John has friended.
>>>
>>> A "friend of John" is someone who has friended John, but John has not
>>> necessarily reciprocated.
>>>
>>>
>>What a weird distinction, but then I'm not into social networking, so I
>>don't even recognize "friend" as a verb.
>
>Social networking is a weird world, where everyone wants to be your "friend",
>but they don't want to know you.
>
It's funny how the prefix "be-" makes all the difference.
Just thinking about it, normally "be-" indicates a positive change of
situation (as in "befriend"). But I don't know what to make of "behead".
Surely this should be "dehead"? After all, we do have "decapitate".
--
Ian
Eric Walker
Only the first is sound English. The genitive, too often carelessly
called the "possessive", indicates that one thing lies within the sphere
of another, is associated with it. It can be indicated in two chief
ways: by the addition of an apostrophe-s combination, or by use of the
particle "of". The apostrophe-s form is normally associated with living
things or things that readily bear personification: John's hat, the
wind's roar.
We could thus, disregarding felicity and idiom, say either "John's
hat" (the idiomatic form) or "the hat of John". But at times, ambiguity
can arise, and in such cases the custom is to use "belt and suspenders",
so to speak. A clear example is the difference between--
"That is a picture of the King."
--and--
"That is a picture of the King's".
--where both the "of" and the "apostrophe-s" are needed in the second
case.
One might argue that "a friend of John" is not really ambiguous in the
way that "a picture of John" might be, but that is the commonly used form.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Stan Brown
>
>
> 1. a friend of John's
> 2. a friend of John
>
> more logical.
This is an example of cast-iron idiom. Even though "a friend of
John" seems more logical, it's "a friend of John's".
Fowler lists this under "of" at "7. Some freaks of idiom."
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Peter Moylan
> A clear example is the difference between--
>
> "That is a picture of the King."
>
> --and--
>
> "That is a picture of the King's".
>
> --where both the "of" and the "apostrophe-s" are needed in the second
> case.
Although every native speaker of English will understand what Eric wrote
there, it might not be obvious to non-native speakers.
The difference is
- In the first example, the picture portrays the king.
The picture might not belong to the king.
- In the second example, the picture belongs to the
king, and we do not know what the picture shows.
Peter Moylan
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:49:25 +0930, annily <ann...@annily.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:30:35 -0700, Catch 23 <cat...@catch23.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it correct to say either of
>>>>
>>>> 1. a friend of John's
>>>> 2. a friend of John
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> The first sound better, but feels odd. The second sound odd, but seems
>>>> more logical.
>>> They have different meanings, especially in these days of social networks,
>>> like Facebook.
>>>
>>> A "friend of John's" is someone John has friended.
>>>
>>> A "friend of John" is someone who has friended John, but John has not
>>> necessarily reciprocated.
>>>
>>>
>> What a weird distinction, but then I'm not into social networking, so I
>> don't even recognize "friend" as a verb.
>
> Social networking is a weird world, where everyone wants to be your "friend",
> but they don't want to know you.
>
that the function of Facebook is to support one's superficial
relationships. My non-superficial relationships are adequately handled
by other mechanisms.
If you recognise me as an aue regular, our relationship is already more
intimate than Facebook "friend" status.
I haven't yet explored Twitter. As I understand it, a Twitter friend
implies a relationship somewhere between "enemy" and "I've never heard
of you".
John Dean
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:30:35 -0700, Catch 23
> <cat...@catch23.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Is it correct to say either of
>>
>> 1. a friend of John's
>> 2. a friend of John
>>
>> ?
>>
>> The first sound better, but feels odd. The second sound odd, but
>> seems more logical.
>
> They have different meanings, especially in these days of social
> networks, like Facebook.
>
> A "friend of John's" is someone John has friended.
>
> A "friend of John" is someone who has friended John, but John has not
> necessarily reciprocated.
cf "Friend of Dorothy" vs "Friend of Dorothy's"
Whereas titles seem to bring meaning together - "A friend of the Queen" = "A
friend of the Queen's".
--
John Dean
Oxford
mm
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:49:25 +0930, annily <ann...@annily.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:30:35 -0700, Catch 23 <cat...@catch23.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Is it correct to say either of
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. a friend of John's
>>>>> 2. a friend of John
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> The first sound better, but feels odd. The second sound odd, but seems
>>>>> more logical.
>>>> They have different meanings, especially in these days of social networks,
>>>> like Facebook.
>>>>
>>>> A "friend of John's" is someone John has friended.
>>>>
>>>> A "friend of John" is someone who has friended John, but John has not
>>>> necessarily reciprocated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What a weird distinction, but then I'm not into social networking, so I
>>> don't even recognize "friend" as a verb.
Me neither.
>> Social networking is a weird world, where everyone wants to be your "friend",
>> but they don't want to know you.
LOL. I had to join for some reason, but I used a phoney name and even
about the person who doesn't exist, I didn't want to give any details
in his profile.
>It took me a while to understand what is going on, but I finally decided
>that the function of Facebook is to support one's superficial
>relationships. My non-superficial relationships are adequately handled
>by other mechanisms.
>
>If you recognise me as an aue regular, our relationship is already more
>intimate than Facebook "friend" status.
>
>I haven't yet explored Twitter. As I understand it, a Twitter friend
>implies a relationship somewhere between "enemy" and "I've never heard
>of you".
It turns out Twitter has something like a keyword search, based only
on the word and not who was talking to whom. On a news article site
there was a picture of this and a link, so I went there and once
everyone put the topic, which took several words, and a verb or
preposition, there was room for only 3 or 4 words in each tweet that
could be different from the others. And within that, there was loads
of repitition.
--
Posters should say where they live, and for which area
they are asking questions. I was born and then lived in
Western Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn, NY 12 years
Baltimore 26 years
mm
<john...@fraglineone.net> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:30:35 -0700, Catch 23
>> <cat...@catch23.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it correct to say either of
>>>
>>> 1. a friend of John's
>>> 2. a friend of John
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> The first sound better, but feels odd. The second sound odd, but
>>> seems more logical.
>>
>> They have different meanings, especially in these days of social
>> networks, like Facebook.
>>
>> A "friend of John's" is someone John has friended.
>>
>> A "friend of John" is someone who has friended John, but John has not
>> necessarily reciprocated.
>
>cf "Friend of Dorothy" vs "Friend of Dorothy's"
Actually, "friend of Dorothy" sounds pretty good to me, sounds like it
means the same as "friend of Dorothy's". Maybe because Dorothy is
longer and with more syllables than John.
Perhaps sentences with names with two parts, like "I am a friend of
Rudy Juliani" also sound correct. Just like with "'s".
>Whereas titles seem to bring meaning together - "A friend of the Queen" = "A
>friend of the Queen's".
But it's very astute of you to bring up titles. Captain, Corporal,
the dentist, the doctor.
John Lawler
wrote:
Eric's explanation is only valid for what are called
"picture nouns" -- nouns denoting something with
semantic content, like "picture", "story", "rumor",
etc. In that case, "of" can refer to the semantic
content -- "picture of the King", "story of Pinocchio",
and the like. Picture nouns have very complex
syntax because of their extra meaning load.
But with a noun like "friend" the use of what's
called the "Saxon genitive" (the inflected form,
usually with -'s) with "of" doesn't really add any
necessary meaning. It's just an arbitrary
convention, like the use of the Saxon genitive
with living possessors and "of" with non-living
ones, viz.
John's head / *the head of John
*the table's head / the head of the table
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler
"Opinions on language are as interesting as
opinions on arithmetic." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Stan Brown
> Actually, "friend of Dorothy" sounds pretty good to me, sounds like it
> means the same as "friend of Dorothy's". Maybe because Dorothy is
> longer and with more syllables than John.
Either is correct IMHO, but with different meanings.
"A friend of Dorothy's" means one of the friends of a real-life
person named Dorothy.
"A friend of Dorothy" is a set phrase meaning "gay". It refers, I
believe, to Dorothy Gale in /The Wizard of Oz/.
mm
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:11:49 -0400, mm wrote:
>> Actually, "friend of Dorothy" sounds pretty good to me, sounds like it
>> means the same as "friend of Dorothy's". Maybe because Dorothy is
>> longer and with more syllables than John.
>
>Either is correct IMHO, but with different meanings.
>
>"A friend of Dorothy's" means one of the friends of a real-life
>person named Dorothy.
>
>"A friend of Dorothy" is a set phrase meaning "gay". It refers, I
>believe, to Dorothy Gale in /The Wizard of Oz/.
He had used Dorothy. Try friend of Melanie or friend of Natalie.
Friend of Miriam didn't sound so good, maybe because the last two
syllables are so weak.
But I just got online and haven't even read my email yet, so no time
to go over all the names.
CDB
the phrase seems transparent to me. "A friend of John's" is one
belonging to (the group of) John's friends. The word "of" is used in
the same way as in "She is of the King's party" or the undefined "He
is one of ours". I suppose it's an idiom in that the defining word is
in the main clause instead of being in the prepositional phrase.
Eric Walker
[...]
> This is an example of cast-iron idiom. Even though "a friend of John"
> seems more logical, it's "a friend of John's".
>
> Fowler lists this under "of" at "7. Some freaks of idiom."
I may be misreading Fowler, but I believe that he offers "a friend of
mine" as normal ("i.e. among my friends"), contrasting it with the
nonsensical "that nose of his", as if the reference were to one of his
several noses ("i.e. among his noses").
Curme puts it this way:
The simple s-genitive cannot be used after the governing noun, for in
talking it would be taken for a plural. As it is often desirable to
employ after the governing noun the s-genitive with its lively
conception of personality, we place the genitive sign 'of' before the
simple s-genitive, thus clearly marking it as a genitive.
An example is "that angry outburst of Father's". Curme expressly cites
"that ugly nose of his" as another example of this usage, removing it
from Fowler's "freaks of idiom" category.
aquachimp
wrote:
> Eric Walker wrote:
> > A clear example is the difference between--
>
> > "That is a picture of the King."
>
> > --and--
>
> > "That is a picture of the King's".
>
> > --where both the "of" and the "apostrophe-s" are needed in the second
> > case.
>
> Although every native speaker of English will understand what Eric wrote
> there, it might not be obvious to non-native speakers.
>
> The difference is
> - In the first example, the picture portrays the king.
> The picture might not belong to the king.
> - In the second example, the picture belongs to the
> king, and we do not know what the picture shows.
Or it's an unintentionally incomplete sentence and we do not knot what
it is that belongs to the king is depicted in the picture.
It might be the king's horse, or his Bugatti (er, the king's Bugatti
and not the horse's, naturally)
Stan Brown
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 07:57:04 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:
>
> > This is an example of cast-iron idiom. Even though "a friend of John"
> > seems more logical, it's "a friend of John's".
> >
> > Fowler lists this under "of" at "7. Some freaks of idiom."
>
> I may be misreading Fowler, but I believe that he offers "a friend of
> mine" as normal ("i.e. among my friends"), contrasting it with the
> nonsensical "that nose of his", as if the reference were to one of his
> several noses ("i.e. among his noses").
"... all of the above either are, or seem to any person ignorant of
any justification that might be found in the history of the
constructions, plainly illogical: ... a friend of mine, i.e. among my
friends, but surely not that nose of his, i.e. among his noses: so
the logic-chopper is fain to correct or damn; but even he is likely
in unguarded moments to let the forbidden phrases slip out."
I interpret that to mean: these phrases are correct idiom even though
you can construct a logical explanation for some of them but not for
others. "That nose of yours" and "a friend of mine" are correct
English not because of some sort of logic (which supports the second
but not the first ) but because they have had a long existence.
"Some will perhaps be disused in time; meanwhile they are recognized
idioms -- sturdy indefensibles possibly, though not without their
defenders. Jespersen, for instance, has shown that the use of /of/ in
such constructions as /A child of ten years old/ and /That long nose
of his/ is as old as Caxton, and has argued that /of/ is here not
partitive but appositional -- merely a grammatical device to make it
possible to join words which for some reason or other it would
otherwise be impossible to join. The latter construction may be
found in the opening lines of /Antony and Cleopatra/: 'Any but this
dotage of our general's o'erflows the measure'."
CDB
long nose, out of all the noses he might have. In all cases, you are
pointing out membership in a group, whether actual or potential.
Eric Walker
[...]
> "... all of the above either are, or seem to any person ignorant of any
> justification that might be found in the history of the constructions,
> plainly illogical: ... a friend of mine, i.e. among my friends, but
> surely not that nose of his, i.e. among his noses: so the logic-chopper
> is fain to correct or damn; but even he is likely in unguarded moments
> to let the forbidden phrases slip out."
>
> I interpret that to mean: these phrases are correct idiom even though
> you can construct a logical explanation for some of them but not for
> others. "That nose of yours" and "a friend of mine" are correct English
> not because of some sort of logic (which supports the second but not the
> first ) but because they have had a long existence.
>
> "Some will perhaps be disused in time; meanwhile they are recognized
> idioms -- sturdy indefensibles possibly, though not without their
> defenders. Jespersen, for instance, has shown that the use of /of/ in
> such constructions as /A child of ten years old/ and /That long nose of
> his/ is as old as Caxton, and has argued that /of/ is here not partitive
> but appositional -- merely a grammatical device to make it possible to
> join words which for some reason or other it would otherwise be
> impossible to join. The latter construction may be found in the opening
> lines of /Antony and Cleopatra/: 'Any but this dotage of our general's
> o'erflows the measure'."
All the muddle arises, I suspect, from a failure in earlier days (such as
Fowler's) to clearly recognize "of" as not a preposition but a particle,
a case marker for the genitive (here, the partitive genitive), which case
has a rather expansive sense far beyond "possession"--something on the
order of "in the sphere of", as with "a swarm of bees" or "the love of
God".
The pattern is explained well enough by Curme, as quoted previously, and
with the pattern set by necessity for some cases ("that anger of
Father's", which means "Father's anger" but is cast so as to emphasize
the anger might else be misheard for "that fathers' anger"), it extends
to all parallel cases ("a friend of mine", "that nose of his").
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:30:35 -0700, Catch 23 <cat...@catch23.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Is it correct to say either of
>>
>> 1. a friend of John's
>> 2. a friend of John
>>
>>?
>>
>>The first sound better, but feels odd. The second sound odd, but
>>seems more logical.
>
> They have different meanings, especially in these days of social
> networks, like Facebook.
>
> A "friend of John's" is someone John has friended.
>
> A "friend of John" is someone who has friended John, but John has not
> necessarily reciprocated.
In the US, a "Friend of John" could well imply that John was some
high-ranking individual and the person being described had no official
position but was known to have a fair amount of influence because of
his personal friendship with John. I think that this started with
(Friends of) Bill Clinton in the early '90s. Where I worked, "Friend
of Joel" and (later) "Friend of Dick" (where Joel and Dick were heads
of Labs) were often heard informal titles for certain people.
Note that this isn't necessarily deprecating to either John or his
friends, just an indication that a person gets to choose at least some
of his advisors at his own discretion.
But you'd get to be a Friend of John typically because you were a
friend of John's.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Never ascribe to malice that which
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can adequately be explained by
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stupidity.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
R H Draney
>
>In the US, a "Friend of John" could well imply that John was some
>high-ranking individual and the person being described had no official
>position but was known to have a fair amount of influence because of
>his personal friendship with John. I think that this started with
>(Friends of) Bill Clinton in the early '90s. Where I worked, "Friend
>of Joel" and (later) "Friend of Dick" (where Joel and Dick were heads
>of Labs) were often heard informal titles for certain people.
It goes back a bit farther in the sense of "someone who is generally supportive
of and stands to gain by the victory of X", with no implication that X has evern
met the "Friend" in question...Steve Martin's detective character in "Dead Men
Don't Wear Plaid" keeps finding lists of names headed "Friends of
Carlotta"...the movie came out in 1982 but appears to take place shortly after
WWII....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
tony cooper
wrote:
"Friends of Bill" goes further back than that. William G. Wilson
co-founded Alcoholics Anonymous, and "Friends of Bill" is generally
recognized to mean members of AA.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On 18 Aug 2010 11:13:03 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Evan Kirshenbaum filted:
>>>
>>>In the US, a "Friend of John" could well imply that John was some
>>>high-ranking individual and the person being described had no official
>>>position but was known to have a fair amount of influence because of
>>>his personal friendship with John. I think that this started with
>>>(Friends of) Bill Clinton in the early '90s. Where I worked, "Friend
>>>of Joel" and (later) "Friend of Dick" (where Joel and Dick were heads
>>>of Labs) were often heard informal titles for certain people.
>>
>>It goes back a bit farther in the sense of "someone who is generally
>>supportive of and stands to gain by the victory of X", with no
>>implication that X has evern met the "Friend" in question...Steve
>>Martin's detective character in "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" keeps
>>finding lists of names headed "Friends of Carlotta"...the movie came
>>out in 1982 but appears to take place shortly after WWII....r
[Spoiler for _Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid]
From the Wikipedia article on the movie, Carlotta isn't a person.
> "Friends of Bill" goes further back than that. William G. Wilson
> co-founded Alcoholics Anonymous, and "Friends of Bill" is generally
> recognized to mean members of AA.
Ah, yes. That does ring a bell. I suspect that that may be why it
resurfaced during the Clinton administration. As with "Friends of
Dorothy", though, the AA use didn't imply an actual relationship with
the person in question. Were there any uses before Clinton in which a
"Friend of X" would likely have been a "friend of X's"?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The purpose of writing is to inflate
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and inhibit clarity. With a little
|practice, writing can be an
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog!
(650)857-7572 | Calvin