ii s. viii. AUG. 2, 1913.] NOTES AND QUERIES.
91
AN AMBIGUOUS POSSESSIVE CASE.
(US. viii. 25.)
I HOPE that MR. CURRY'S authority will not banish phrases like " a friend of Al- fred's " from the use of those who wish to write and speak English carefully.
1. I expect it will be found that the phrase originated by analogy from " a friend of mine, his, hers," &c., which probably has philological grounds into which I should not dare to try to penetrate.
2. In use. as I understand it, "a friend of Alfred's " means "one of Alfred's friends," implying that he has more than one. I should agree with MR, CURRY that it would be better to abolish thQ 's in the cases he quotes : if (a) the duke had only one foible ; (ft) the duke had only one unjust humour;
(c) Charlotte Bronte had only one sister ;
(d) the first baronet had only one brother. In common talk, to the question " Who is
that ? " the reply, " A sister of So-and- so's," would not necessarily imply that " So-and-so " has another sister, but would at least imply " I dare say he (or she) has."
In George II. 's days " a friend of the Prince's " would be one of the party Frederick was understood to have started in opposition to "the King's party." There might have been several persons of the King's party of whom it would be true to say <; He is a friend of the Prince."
3. This is, perhaps, enough as to the general use of this possessive. The instance, however, with which MR. CURRY starts suggests a further remark as to the way in which in use the phrase has come to express a slight difference of meaning in the word " friend," when this possessive is used in relation to it. I should not like to dogmatize, but " Peter is a friend of Alfred " seems to me to have a subtle indication that Peter is active in the friend- ship, more or less befriends Alfred, while
Peter is a friend of Alfred's " at least puts the pair on an equality. If you com- pare " Peter is a great friend of Alfred " with " Peter is a great friend of Alfred's," there may even be in the latter phrase a balance of affection towards his friend in favour of Alfred.
I hope, in any case, that these sugges- tions may incline MR. CURRY to be more tolerant of the offending possessive.
JOHN R. MAGRATH.
Queen's College, Oxford.
The construction deprecated is essentially
that which Addison uses (Spectator, No.
106) when he says that Sir Roger de
Coverley "desired a particular friend of his
at the university to find him out a clergy-
man." If we ask, " A particular friend
of his " what ? and answer, " A particular
friend of his friend," we shall deliberately
land ourselves in confusion. The explana-
tion of the syntactical formula is to be found
in the meaning of the preposition " of,"
which in its primary sense of " proceeding
from," " belonging to," or " among," gives
a partitive force to the expression in which
it occurs. Thus Addison's phrase denotes
" a particular friend of or from among his
friends." Similarly, MR. CURRY'S illustra-
tive example, " Peter is a friend of Alfred's,"
signifies that Peter is one of Alfred's friends.
So also " an unjust humour of the duke's "
is one from among his Grace's tempera-
mental idiosyncrasies, just as " that sister
of Charlotte Bronte's " is one of the novelist's
sisters. If the reference were made when
only an individual or a particular thing
was concerned, then the syntax would be
faulty, as it Would involve no partitive
phrase. Thus " a picture of Rossetti "
means a likeness of the artist, whereas
" a picture of Rossetti's " is one of those
that came from his brush or otherwise
belonged to him. THOMAS BAYNE.
Many will sympathize with MR. J. T. CURRY and see his point ; the real difficulty is the universal acceptance of such a common expression as this, " a friend of mine." According to MR. CURRY it ought to be " a friend of me " ; and no one can say he is not grammatically right. All the same, this ambiguous possessive is part of the vulgar tongue, and has been made use of as correct by many great as well as small writers. So, as they say in India, What can do ? FRANK PENNY.
" A friend of the duke's " or "a friend of Peter's," &c., although so common, must, as MR. CURRY suggests, be ungrammatical, and mean literally " a friend of the duke's friend." There is, however, another form of double possessive which, although it looks and sounds wrong, is surely quite justifiable in those few cases in which it is, or may be, used. At least I know of no rule or reason that can be adduced against it. The difficulty actually occurred to me some years ago on receiving an invita- tion from the late Dean Gregory. If it had been any other dean, the difficulty would not have arisen ; but the correct
