those of other linguists/possessive

[navi tasan]

1) Yet Pullum’s and my intuitions about the facts were different from those of Chomsky and other linguists who align themselves theoretically with him ; and, when I used corpus data to check the facts of usage, I found that these were systematically different both from what Chomsky predicted and from what Pullum and I predicted.

2) Yet Pullum’s and my intuitions about the facts were different from the intuitions of Chomsky and other linguists who align themselves theoretically with him; and, when I used corpus data to check the facts of usage, I found that these were systematically different both from what Chomsky predicted and from what Pullum and I predicted.

Source:

Sampson: Grammar without grammaticality

Are the above sentences correct?

I don't know when I can use the possessive 'of' with people. I suppose the above sentences are indeed correct, but can I say the following?

3) I talked to the sister of John.
4) I don't like the theories of Chomsky.
5) I don't like the theories of Chomsky and his followers.
6) He is the boss of you.

I suspect that #5 is acceptable and #3 and #4 aren't.
I suppose #6 is only acceptable in spoken English.

 

[Tarheel]

I talked to John's sister.
I don't like Chomsky's theories.
He is your boss.

There's an expression that goes, "You're not the boss of me."

 

[5jj]

1) Yet Pullum’s and my intuitions about the facts were different from those of Chomsky and other linguists who align themselves theoretically with him [...]

2) Yet Pullum’s and my intuitions about the facts were different from the intuitions of Chomsky and other linguists who align themselves theoretically with him;

Both are OK, but the first is tighter.

3) I talked to the sister of John.

4) I don't like the theories of Chomsky.

Grammatically correct, but we'd normally say John's sister and Chomsky's theories.

5) I don't like the theories of Chomsky and his followers.

OK.

6) He is the boss of you.

That sounds unnatural to me.

 

[Tarheel]

"I don't like the theories of Chomsky and his followers" doesn't make much sense to me unless his followers have some of their own theories. In that case I don't know. Are they really his followers or what?