Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-11-30
Double Possessiye.
RIcuMoyD, Va, November p, 800

RICHMOND, VA, November ~ 1000
To the Editor OF the Dispatch;
In reading your explanation md the
reply of ). S. OF last sunday no
ticed that you quoted the sen
fence. "That boy OF his IS n bad
bov." rs meaning "that boy OF his
bows is bad boy" How can this ex-
planation hold in cases whore there IS
only one boy? And yet we use the eG.
preston "that boy of his is n bad boy
in such cases. For instance, two gen
tlemen are talking about their friend
whose only boy "a bad boy, too,) hap
pens TO pass while they are talking
Thew point TO this boy and remark
"That boy of bis dheir friends IS a
bad bow" In this case it would be I'M
possible to insert the word "boys, be-
cause the friend has only one boy.
Though the meaning OF this double
possessige is clear, its origin seems to be
shrouded in uncertainty. There Is;
however. one certain fact connected
with il. and that is ownership, author.
ship. &c. The expression, work OF
Sbakspeare's, means simply work by
Sbakspeare. | think it is straining the
meaning to say that it means a WORK OF
Shakspearo's works, OF course 1t might
be forced into such meaning; but the
most natural explanation to me would
seem 10 be a work by Shakespeare.
The origin Of this construction might
arise from the fact that. in the begin
ming, all languages are spoken. Inc ell
f. Il. then, Of the speakers to produce
more rounded periods, greater empha-
Sis upon certain words, and stronger
climaxes may have induced them to seek
another form of expression in addition
70 the monotonous use of theipossesslon
before its noun. But here might arise
grave difficulty. In speaking assuming
that the use OF their double possession
had not vet been introduceD 1t would
be impossible TO determine, In the use
OF such an expression as q book OF
brown, whether color authorship we're
meant. or whether, in fact, 1t might not
mean n book concerning brown, Tor
Brown. as when we read the title OF
such a book-as book Of birds. The
speaker, then, noting this difficulty, may
have seen that it could be obviated by
tho repetition OF the possessiye
when necessary. Hence may have
been its origin. What rule then
was employed by the speaker was sub
sequently applied to written language
Such is. We know. the origin of all the
laws of rhetoric and grammar. A book
of Shakespeare would, then, mean las 1t
certainly does, a book concerning Sbaks-
peare and his writings; whereas book
Of Shakspeare's would mean Gas 1t GER
tainly does book owned or written by
Shakespeare. In conclusion, the express
sion. a work of Shakespeare, seems TO
contain an objective genitive; whereas
I the expression. q work Of Shakespeare 8,
seems TO contain q subjective genitive.
| make these few passing suggestions
as an effort, on my part, to partly ex-
plain knotty expression, and not Tor
the sake OF any further controversial re-
ply. WIsrEh ARoHLA'
Ignorant people add many words and
phrases to their yernacular, To use the
phrase ga boy of his " in the case of O
man who had several boys would be full
justification for an ignorant person to
use the same phrase in speaking OF the
case of a man who had only one boy
Just as the proper employment Of such
phrases as 81 do not object TO haring
nv name used" has led to the improper
use Of 81 do not object to have my
name used" In the one case the Z" to
is q proposition governing the objective
case. In the other, it is tho sign Of the
infnitive mood, or part of q verb in
tho infnitive mood.
"a book of Shakespeare" is an uDob-
jectionable phrase, but to use that would
be to discard the better phrase "a book
Of Shakspeare's." 1t does not belongi in
this discussion. We like our core
spondent's article