Tojo Hoki    630350 Wed, 24 Nov 04 05:33 PM Hello, Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"? What about "a reader of Shakespeare" and "a reader of Shakespeare's" – are both correct? "A friend of John" or "a friend of John's"? "A follower of Mussolini" or "a follower of Mussolini's" These possessive nouns in conjunction with "of" are are quite confusing. Therefore, your clarifications would be much appreciated. Sincerely, Tojo! Tojo Hoki Nouns, Relationships, Friendships, Friends, Possessives

	Don Phillipson    630372 Wed, 24 Nov 04 07:09 PM "Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"? What about "a reader of Shakespeare" and "a reader of Shakespeare's" – are both correct?" Both are grammatically correct. Book of Job is the proper name of one of the books of the Old Testament, thus not obliged to follow general rules of language (if there are any.) ""A friend of John" or "a friend of John's"? "A follower of Mussolini" or "a follower of Mussolini's" These possessive nouns in conjunction with "of" are are quite confusing. Therefore, your clarifications would be much appreciated." All these forms are grammatically correct. Differences are merely attributable to local custom, not grammar. (One of the reason ESL is difficult is that English is one of those languages with several different correct ways of saying the same thing.) Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) Don Phillipson Nouns, Relationships, ESL, Friendships, Countries, United Kingdom, Great Britain, Friends, Possessives, Languages

	Kiwi Gill    630356 Wed, 24 Nov 04 07:22 PM "Hello, Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"?" The word "of" can denote possession, and an apostrope can denote possession, but you must choose only one for one act of possession. The examples you give are all a little different. If you are talking about the Book of Job in the Bible, for example, it is common to describe it as "the book of Job". A Bible Study leader might say, for example, "turn to the Book of Job, or the Book of Acts, etc, etc." This usage is usual because some of the books of the Bible carry the name of the author while others do not, so a usage continues that can be applied for all of them. If you bought a new book by Joe Citizen, you would say, "I bought Joe Citizen's new book." "What about "a reader of Shakespeare" and "a reader of Shakespeare's" - are both correct?" Only "a reader of Shakespeare". Here Shakespeare is a subject being studied. But you could say, "I am a reader of Shakespeare's work" and then you would show that the work you are reading "belongs to" or came from Shakespeare. ""A friend of John" or "a friend of John's"?" Either "a friend of John" or "John's friend." I am a friend of John. I am John's friend. But you might hear people say "a friend of John's" because that sort of thing happens in speech, but it is not correct. :-) ""A follower of Mussolini" or "a follower of Mussolini's"" Either "a follower of Mussolini" or "a follower of Mussolini's ideas". Here the apostrophe in Mussolini indicates something possessed by Mussolini. Kiwi Gill Punctuation, Apostrophes, Relationships, Chat, Friendships, Speaking, Usages, Friends, Speeches

	einde. ocallaghan     630381 Wed, 24 Nov 04 09:27 PM "Hello, Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"?" "The word "of" can denote possession, and an apostrope can denote possession, but you must choose only one for one act of possession." This isn't strictly true. There is also the possibility of a so-called "double possessive", e.g. "a friend of John's" - this implies that John has more than one friend, whereas "a friend of John" and "John's friend" has no such implication. Regards, Einde O'Callaghan einde. ocallaghan Regards, Relationships, Friendships, Friends, Possessives

	bogus address    630389 Wed, 24 Nov 04 09:50 PM "Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"?" They have different meanings. The second would have to mean the book Job owned, not the book that was written about him. "What about "a reader of Shakespeare" and "a reader of Shakespeare's" are both correct?" Again, different meanings. The second would have to mean a reader that Shakespeare employed. ""A friend of John" or "a friend of John's"?" These two are synomymous. ""A follower of Mussolini" or "a follower of Mussolini's"" Almost synonymous. For me, the second would tend to imply that the follower was contemporaneous with Mussolini; it implies a sort of personal link, while the first would apply to someone who followed Mussolini's ideology in the abstract. "These possessive nouns in conjunction with "of" are quite confusing. Therefore, your clarifications would be much appreciated." The reason they don't quite fit is that they are imitations of French syntax - no other Germanic language goes in for them to the same extent. They were first made really popular by the King James Bible. ==> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce food intolerance data & recipes, Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music. bogus address Nouns, Relationships, Friendships, Arts, Friends, Possessives, Languages

	Alan Jones    630398 Thu, 25 Nov 04 09:03 AM "Hello, Why does one say "the book of Job" and not "the book of Job's"? What about "a reader of ... of Mussolini's" These possessive nouns in conjunction with "of" are are quite confusing. Therefore, your clarifications would be much appreciated." "Of" has more than one meaning. "The book of Job" is not possessive: it means "the book about Job" or "the book entitled 'Job' ", not "the book by Job" or "the book belonging to Job". The form "book of Job" is very old and traditional, going back to Latin, and would not usually be suitable for anything but references to the Bible. However, I can imagine saying "in the play of Hamlet" if I wanted to make it clear that I meant the complete play and not the character. In any case, it can't be "Job's " or "Hamlet's", because the "of" is not in any sense possessive. The other examples depend on usage rather than meaning. To me (British English) "a friend of John" sounds very odd; the natural form is "a friend of John's", on the model of "one of John's friends" Yet I prefer "a reader of Shakespeare" and "a follower of Mussolini", perhaps because the persons are not really thought of as individual people in those expressions: "Shakespeare" there means "the plays by Shakespeare", "Mussolini" means "the theories and policies associated with Mussolini". I assume that all languages have idiomatic usages not accounted for by logic. They just have to be accepted and imitated; analysis doesn't always help. Fortunately English is fairly flexible: if you say "a friend of John" you will be correctly understood in Britain even if you sound very slightly non-native. Alan Jones Alan Jones Nouns, British English, Business, Relationships, Friendships, Countries, United Kingdom, Great Britain, References, Career, Friends, Possessives, Languages

	Mike Stevens    630404 Thu, 25 Nov 04 12:27 PM "The other examples depend on usage rather than meaning. To me (British English) "a friend of John" sounds very odd; ... people in those expressions: "Shakespeare" there means "the plays by Shakespeare", "Mussolini" means "the theories and policies associated with Mussolini"." While I agree with the above, I find that "a friend of John Smith" sounds rather less stilted than "a friend of John". But perhaps that's just my own idiosyncracy. Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old grammarians never die - they simple parse away Mike Stevens British English, Relationships, Friendships, Countries, Usages, United Kingdom, Great Britain, Friends, Languages