A difficult question, however, arises with relatives after than. In the next two examples whom is as manifestly wrong as who is manifestly intolerable:
Dr. Dillon, than whom no Englishman has a profounder acquaintance with...—Times.
It was a pleasure to hear Canon Liddon, than whom, in his day, there was no finer preacher.
The only correct solution is to recast the sentences. For instance,...whose acquaintance with...is unrivalled among Englishmen; and...unsurpassed in his day as a preacher. But perhaps the convenience of than whom is so great that to rule it out amounts to saying that man is made for grammar and not grammar for man.
7. Compound possessives.
This is strictly the proper place for drawing attention to a question that has some importance because it bears on the very common construction discussed at some length in the gerund section. This is the question whether, and to what extent, compound possessives may be recognized. Some people say some one else's, others say some one's else. Our own opinion is that the latter is uncalled for and pedantic. Of the three alternatives, Smith the baker's wife, Smith's wife the baker, the wife of Smith the baker, the last is redolent of Ollendorff, the second thrusts its ambiguity upon us and provokes an involuntary smile, and the first alone is felt to be natural. It must be confessed, however, that it is generally avoided in print, while the form that we have ventured to call pedantic is not uncommon. In the first of the examples that follow, we should be inclined to change to Nanny the maid-of-all-work's, and in the second to the day of Frea, goddess of, &c.
Another mind that was being wrought up to a climax was Nanny's, the maid-of-all-work, who had a warm heart.—Eliot.
Friday is Frea's-day, the goddess of peace and joy and fruitfulness.—J. R. Green.
