a/the friend of my father's who

[fcavalheiro]

For me it seems to be more natural not to use the "s" after "father", but that's certainly because I'm not a native speaker. Anyway, Raymott said that "a friend of Laura's" is not ambiguous and that "a president of the company's" is ambiguous and I didn't understand why. Coiuld anyone help me with that? Thanks!

[Raymott]

Originally Posted by fcavalheiro

For me it seems to be more natural not to use the "s" after "father", but that's certainly because I'm not a native speaker. Anyway, Raymott said that "a friend of Laura's" is not ambiguous and that "a president of the company's" is ambiguous and I didn't understand why. Coiuld anyone help me with that? Thanks!

Read post 16 for why "a president of the company's" is potential ambiguous. It's not in writing (because you have the companies'/company's spelling to differentiate) but it is ambiguous in speech.
However, "a friend of Laura's" can only mean one of Laura's friends, unless you consider the unlikely possibility that it means a friend of everyone called Laura.

[2006]

I thought that this thread might have run its course with post 17, but as there are several subsequent posts I will reply again. (and hopefully for the last time)

My aim certainly has not been to try to convince native speakers that they are wrong and should change their speech, but to try to explain to students why I think phrases like "friend of my father" are more logical and are not potentially ambiguous and thus are preferable to phrases like "friend of my father's". Interested students could then decide which phrases they should use.

Originally Posted by Raymott

Yet, you are suggesting that if you say "a friend of Laura's" (which is not ambiguous), you should, by the laws of logic (analogy, perhaps, though that is not exactly a law), say "a president of the company's" (which is ambiguous), rather than following a less consistent rule, but one more fitting to communication, language.
You want logic at the cost of misunderstanding. On the contrary, with "friend of my father" and "friend of the company" you get logic and consistency and you avoid misunderstanding.
Of course language is not always logical and consistent. But when there is a situation in which you can choose logic and consistency and also avoid misunderstanding, it should be pointed out to students.
Obviously the more logic and consistency there is in a language the easier it is to learn.

Originally Posted by Barb_D

I'm quite surprised you claim to have never experienced this usage before.
I don't believe I said that I never experienced this usage. In fact I might even use it myself, but that doesn't mean that I think it is really correct and would recommend it to students.
I won't argue about it any longer - if you don't like it, don't use it, but don't tell others that it's incorrect. Well I have my opinions, as you do, and have given my reasons. Students can decide what makes sense to them.

[acorn]

Originally Posted by 2006

I thought that this thread might have run its course with post 17, but as there are several subsequent posts I will reply again. (and hopefully for the last time)

My aim certainly has not been to try to convince native speakers that they are wrong and should change their speech, but to try to explain to students why I think phrases like "friend of my father" are more logical and are not potentially ambiguous and thus are preferable to phrases like "friend of my father's". Interested students could then decide which phrases they should use.

Speaking of ambiguity, you may want to read the following from http://www.bartleby.com/61/65/O0036500.html:

Grammarians have sometimes objected to the so-called double genitive construction, as in a friend of my father's; a book of mine. But the construction has been used in English since the 14th century and serves a useful purpose. It can help sort out ambiguous phrases like Bob's photograph, which could refer either to a photograph of Bob (that is, revealing Bob's image) or to one in Bob's possession. A photograph of Bob's, can only be a photo that Bob has in his possession, which may or may not show Bob's image. Moreover, in some sentences the double genitive offers the only way to express what is meant. There is no substitute for it in a sentence such as That's the only friend of yours that I've ever met, since sentences such as That's your only friend that I've ever met and That's your only friend, whom I've ever met are awkward or inaccurate.

[2006]

Originally Posted by acorn

grammarians have sometimes objected to the so-called double genitive construction, as in a friend of my father's; a book of mine. but the construction has been used in english since the 14th century and serves a useful purpose. It can help sort out ambiguous phrases like bob's photograph, which could refer either to a photograph of bob (that is, revealing bob's image) or to one in bob's possession. a photograph of bob's, can only be a photo that bob has in his possession, which may or may not show bob's image. yes, there always are some examples that defy a language rule or custom.

moreover, in some sentences the double genitive offers the only way to express what is meant. There is no substitute for it in a sentence such as that's the only friend of yours that i've ever met, but one could say 'that's the only friend of you (him/her) that i've ever met.' if one wanted to avoid a double genitive. But i'm not claiming that most people say that.

that's your only friend that i've ever met and that's your only friend, whom i've ever met are awkward or inaccurate.

2006

[engee30]

Originally Posted by 2006

... but one could say 'that's the only friend of you (him/her) that i've ever met.' if one wanted to avoid a double genitive

So, yet again, you're trying to say that the (only) friend of you is corect to say? Well, I don't know, but we've been dealing with the same thing a few times in this thread, and you don't seem to have learnt a thing, I'm afraid. That example of yours is incorrect, as is friend of me/him/them etc.