Interested in Language
I have a question about the following passage.
(A solicitor with his two cat's-paws, Kokomo and Leila Adams, tried to force his client to give him her power of attorney for a week, and make a big money by moving huge volumes of stock the client possesses, but he failed.)
(The solicitor says:) There would have been nothing criminal in that, and no way for her to prove afterward that she hadn't given the power of attorney voluntarily, because it would have been her word against myself, Kokomo and Leila Adams.
I am not sure what "her word against myself, Kokomo and Leila Adams" part means. My guess is that "no matter what the client would have said, there would have been three people who would refute her statement, so odds would have been against her." Is this interpretation correct?
Thank you, naomimalan, for your explanation and correction. You helped me very much.
... and generally, unless there is a reason to do otherwise for emphasis, you would put yourself last in any list like this.
To avoid all those apostrophes/possessives which are both complicated to configure (Adams' / Adams's) and even worse to pronounce, you could say, "her word against that of Kokomo, Leilia Adams, and myself." The possessive is inverted/covered by the "of," which is often used when we want to avoid awkward constructions (an example cited elsewhere is "the constitution of Illinois" rather than "Illinois's constitution).
Last edited by jlinger; 11-Oct-2008 at 20:45.