|
Mates
May 27, 2008 8:59:12 GMT
Post by Paul Doherty on May 27, 2008 8:59:12 GMT
I feel the last word HAS to be plural. Don't know why, it's just the way I think it works.
- one of my sister's weddings - one of my sisters' weddings
Both fine -- although that first sister needs to get a grip.
- one of my sister's wedding - one of my sisters' wedding
Neither work for me.
|
|
|
Mates
May 27, 2008 9:01:55 GMT
Post by Paul Doherty on May 27, 2008 9:01:55 GMT
And the reason is the one osric gave:
- one of my sisters' wedding
becomes
- one of the wedding of my sisters
and you can't have one of my wedding.
|
|
|
Mates
May 27, 2008 13:04:00 GMT
Post by Dave M on May 27, 2008 13:04:00 GMT
Paul: As it has to be one of my stag nights surely if also has to be one of my mates' stag nights?[/]
osric: if we unravel/reconstruct Jeff's phrase "one of my children's wedding" we get "one of the wedding of my children" which doesn't work;
In both of those examples, the focus has slipped. Surely, in one of my mates' stag night and one of my children's wedding the "one" quantifies "mate" (or child) rather than night (or wedding): not one of the nights of type stag, but the as-it-happens-single stag night of one of my mates.
It's like one of my hands skin - we know what we mean, but putting the apostrophe in just messes it up one way or another. As Paul says, we should logically just treat the whole phrase as singular and add an apostrophe ess: one of my hands's skin. In all of these, we should just say "the original is confusing - recast!".
|
|
|
Mates
May 27, 2008 14:00:02 GMT
Post by Paul Doherty on May 27, 2008 14:00:02 GMT
> As Paul says <
Jeff ...
|
|
|
Mates
May 27, 2008 19:56:50 GMT
Post by Tone on May 27, 2008 19:56:50 GMT
>I've cued up a joke for Tone here, haven't I?<Tone is still abstentionizating. Tone
|
|
|
Mates
May 30, 2008 2:56:53 GMT
Post by Paul Doherty on May 30, 2008 2:56:53 GMT
Well, I'd sort of convinced myself that when we have a string of nouns forming a noun phrase, all but the last are acting adjectivally, so it's the last one which counts as "the" noun. So cycle paths are a type of path, and any verb would have to be plural (to match paths) not singular (to match cycle). So the cycle paths are blocked. We also know that one of takes a plural noun: one of my wives, one of my arms.The trouble comes when we have a choice of noun. Can we decide that the first noun will be the plural for one of, giving one of my children's wedding? I don't believe we can, just as we cannot decide the a cycle path is a type of cycle. One of my children's wedding is simply wrong: it has to be one of my children's weddings. Glyn then, very cunningly, came up with one of my children's jewellery. We obviously cannot have one of my children's jewelleries, but I maintain that the plural noun must be the last noun, and as this is not possible, the sentence fails, just as one of my shiny jewellery would fail. So, the nub of it seems to be: is one of my children's jewellery a grammatical construction? Of course we know what it means, just as we know what Toni Morrison’s genius enables her to create novels that arise from and express the injustices African Americans have endured
means. But is it grammatical (the Toni Morrison sentence is arguably not)? - One of my children's jewellery was stolen. Hmm.
|
|
|
Mates
May 30, 2008 3:53:04 GMT
Post by goofy on May 30, 2008 3:53:04 GMT
- One of my children's jewellery was stolen. This is ungrammatical for me. I think jewellery is a noncount noun, like water or furniture. I would have to have "One of my children's pieces of jewellery."
|
|
|
Mates
May 30, 2008 5:32:13 GMT
Post by SusanB on May 30, 2008 5:32:13 GMT
- One of my children's jewellery was stolen. This is ungrammatical for me. I think jewellery is a noncount noun, like water or furniture. I would have to have "One of my children's pieces of jewellery." That's interesting. One of my children's jewellery was stolen is not a problem for me at all. Similarly, one of my children's water/furniture was stolen, would not bother me. Perhaps I am having grammatical shortcomings this morning! This bodes well for the day... Susan.
|
|
|
Mates
May 30, 2008 7:45:56 GMT
Post by Trevor on May 30, 2008 7:45:56 GMT
Susan,
Would you accept "one of my jewellery"?
|
|
|
Mates
May 30, 2008 7:59:28 GMT
Post by Pete on May 30, 2008 7:59:28 GMT
- One of my children's jewellery was stolen. Hmm. This is clumsy but seems to me to be grammatically correct and completely coherent. It obviously refers to the jewellery of one of my children.
|
|
|
Mates
May 30, 2008 7:59:31 GMT
Post by Dave on May 30, 2008 7:59:31 GMT
I'm with goofy on this one. Take children's out of the sentence: You wouldn't say (or write) one of my jewelery (or one of my furniture) either. However, you would say some of my jewelry/furniture/water.
|
|
|
Mates
May 30, 2008 8:01:22 GMT
Post by Pete on May 30, 2008 8:01:22 GMT
- One of my children's jewellery was stolen. This is ungrammatical for me. I think jewellery is a noncount noun, like water or furniture. I would have to have "One of my children's pieces of jewellery." This says something different, as it refers only to a piece of jewellery. I think Paul's example implied the all of the child's jewellery was stolen (or at least it referred to the jewlellery generically, implying that several pieces were stolen.
|
|
|
Mates
May 30, 2008 8:02:41 GMT
Post by Pete on May 30, 2008 8:02:41 GMT
Susan, Would you accept "one of my jewellery"? And I don't think this is a like-for-like comparison, as there is only one of you, Trevor. So you would never need the "one of ... " construction.
|
|
|
Mates
May 30, 2008 8:07:21 GMT
Post by Trevor on May 30, 2008 8:07:21 GMT
Susan, Would you accept "one of my jewellery"? And I don't think this is a like-for-like comparison, as there is only one of you, Trevor. So you would never need the "one of ... " construction. Of course. I got caught by thinking about "a piece" of jewellery. I'd still rather recast it somehow as it just feels clumsy.
|
|
|
Mates
May 30, 2008 8:13:57 GMT
Post by Dave M on May 30, 2008 8:13:57 GMT
I think one of my children's jewellery is entirely grammatical (just as much as the only winner of the competition's jewellery, for example - even though the competition doesn't have any jewellery). The problem is not one of grammar, but of style and understanding.
We can make long sentences and, although, as my aunt used to say when she was in India, during her third marriage - to the bread salesman, rather than the supposed "prince" who conned her out of her inheritance from the first marriage, as so famously reported in The Times under the now perhaps libellous headline "Suckers - born every minute" - "size does matter", it's not the length that counts: it's the style.
Grammar is a different thing.
|
|