[General] Mary is the daughter of my manager.

[jiamajia]

Suppose I mention Mary on the phone, and after I get off the line, my father asks, ' Who is Mary, honey?'.

'She is the daughter of my manager', I say.

---------------------------------------------------

My question is: does my answer suggest that Mary is the only daughter of my manager? Or it is just another way of saying Mary is my manager's daughter (my manager might have more than one daughter).

 

[shroob]

Not a teacher only a native.

Both could be correct, however I would take it that Mary is the only daughter of your manager. Though it could be your manager has more than one daughter, its just how I would interpret it. If you wanted to clearly say your manager has other daughters than Mary, I would say, 'Mary is one of my managers daughters.'

 

[BobK]

Suppose I mention Mary on the phone, and after I get off the line, my father asks, ' Who is Mary, honey?'.

'She is the daughter of my manager', I say.

---------------------------------------------------

My question is: does my answer suggest that Mary is the only daughter of my manager? Or it is just another way of saying Mary is my manager's daughter (my manager might have more than one daughter).

:up: - all your suppositions are right. If she's the only daughter, and you wanted to be specific, you'd say 'She is the only daughter of my manager' or '...my M's only daughter.

Similarly, if you wanted to be specific the other way, you'd say 'She's one of my M's daughters'. (This is ambiguous in a way that isn't likely to arise - 'she's the [perhaps only] child of one of my managers.' The position of the apostrophe makes it clear in writing, but not in speech.)


b

 

[jiamajia]

:up: - all your suppositions are right. If she's the only daughter, and you wanted to be specific, you'd say 'She is the only daughter of my manager' or '...my M's only daughter.

Similarly, if you wanted to be specific the other way, you'd say 'She's one of my M's daughters'. (This is ambiguous in a way that isn't likely to arise - 'she's the [perhaps only] child of one of my managers.' The position of the apostrophe makes it clear in writing, but not in speech.)


b

Do you mean the sentence 'Mary is the daughter of my manager' does not necessarily give out a secondary meaning that my manager has only one daughter?

 

[Raymott]

Suppose I mention Mary on the phone, and after I get off the line, my father asks, ' Who is Mary, honey?'.

'She is the daughter of my manager', I say.

---------------------------------------------------

My question is: does my answer suggest that Mary is the only daughter of my manager?
No

Or it is just another way of saying Mary is my manager's daughter (my manager might have more than one daughter).
Yes

R.

 

[BobK]

Do you mean the sentence 'Mary is the daughter of my manager' does not necessarily give out a secondary meaning that my manager has only one daughter?

Yes - as Raymott said.

b

 

[jiamajia]

To both Raymott and BobK:


She is the manager of downtown Hilton.----

Does this sentence suggest there is only one manager at downtown Hilton?

What's the nuance between:
She is the manager of downtown Hilton.
She is a manager of downtown Hilton.

(Probably I wonder I should use the preposition 'at'.)

Thank you.

 

[BobK]

To both Raymott and BobK:


She is the manager of downtown Hilton.----

Does this sentence suggest there is only one manager at downtown Hilton?
:up:
What's the nuance between:
She is the manager of downtown Hilton. She's the only one.
She is a manager of downtown Hilton. There are several.

(Probably I wonder I should use the preposition 'at'.)

Thank you.

In the second case, the job-title would probably specify more: 'under-manager', 'associate manager', 'day/night manager', 'junior manager' - something like that.

I think "of" is fine; "at" would also do (with "a", maybe not with "the"... :?

b