A Dictionary of Cont..

word indicating ownership is placed after of. For
example, he found u bone of the dog’s and he
found D bone of the dog mean different things;
and he found a toy of the child is meaningless.
In fact, a genitive form or a possessive pronoun
that does not keep its form after of does not
represent ownership.
At this point it would seem reasonable to say
that the double genitive defines a particular
thing by saying to whom it belongs. That is, the
genitive relation of ownership is used again in
the primary genitive function of a classifying
word. (See genitive case.) This would be a satisfactory
explanation if the double genitive always
implied ownership. There is no doubt that ownership
after of has to be expressed in this way,
but it does not follow that everything that is
expressed in this way is ownership.
If we assert that the double genitive always
implies ownership, some curious things follow.
Since we say a bone of the dog when we mean
a bone from its own body, it would follow that
we think the dog is his body and not the owner
of it. A human being, on the other hand, must
always be spoken of as the owner and not as the
body itself, as in that Zeg of John’s is hurting him
again. But man does not seem to own his appearance,
or likeness, since we say a picture of him.
The expression this life of mine would seem to
imply that we own our lives; for the life of me
would not.
There is no doubt that the construction can
be used for personal relationships, and without
any derogatory implication, as in a son of his.
What makes that mother of his an expression of
contempt is the word that and not any implications
of the partitive genitive. The form is
equally contemptuous in situations where the
idea of “one of many” is not insulting, as in that
son of yours. This is so universally true that in
suburban English a pleasant word is usually
added to counteract the ill effect of that, as in
that dear child of yours has ruined my Iawn.
PARTITIVES
The partitive relation is represented in Latin
by a genitive. In English it is always represented
by a prepositional phrase, which, like other prepositional
phrases, can be followed by a genitive
‘s, as in which of you gentlemen’s name is Snodgrass?.
No difficulties arise until the word following
of is an objective pronoun, as in one of
them, one of US, one of you. If we followed the
pattern of other prepositional phrases we would
say one of them’s mother, one of us’s mother,
one of you’s mother. This is unacceptable with
us and you. The construction is heard with them
but is condemned by most grammarians. On
the other hand, a possessive pronoun is not used
here. We do not say one of their mother or even
one of their mothers. Partitive phrases involving
a personal pronoun are the only type of expression
we have that cannot be handled simply in
the genitive, and for this reason people often
stumble over them. At present there is nothing
to do but recast the sentence and use a second
of phrase, as in the mother of one of them.
143 double
double negatives. In English, two negatives in the
same sentence generally reinforce one another.
Z didn’t say nothing is an emphatic denial and
no one who speaks English can misunderstand
it. This is the normal way of strengthening a
negative in all Teutonic languages, of which
ours is one. In the past, double, triple, quadruple
negatives were quite acceptable; Sir Launcelot
was speaking the purest English when he said,
I never treacherously slew no man.
Today, this repeated negative is considered a
shocking vulgarism. Negative pronouns (such
as no one and nothing), negative adverbs (such
as hardly and scarcely), and negative conjunctions
(such as neither and nor), when used with
a negative verb put a man beyond the pale, provided
the sentence is short enough. No one who
values public opinion can afford to say Z didn’t
hardly hear you or you didn’t hear me, neither.
If the sentence is longer, a supplementary
negative added as an afterthought is not felt to
be a serious offense. He couldn’t sleep, not even
with a sedative contains a redundant not, since
what is meant is he couldn’t sleep even with a
sedative. Sentences of this kind are contrary to
the theoretical rules of grammar and are avoided
by some writers and editors. But they are not the
sort of sentence children are drilled in and they
are not contrary to the spirit of English. As a
result, very few people are offended by them. On
the other hand, the sentence no one thought so,
even you is wrong. Here the phrase after the
comma requires a negative and should be not
even you. (The difference between the two sentences
is easier felt than described. In the first,
even with a sedative is an adverbial phrase; it
tells in what way the man could not sleep. In
the second, not even you is an elaboration of no
one and becomes the subject of thought so. Even
you thought so is not what was meant.) The
writer who used even when he meant not even
undoubtedly dropped the not because he thought
it was a double negative. In attempting to show
that his English is “purer” than it really is, he
has succeeded in showing how worried he is
about it. Mistakes of this kind are inevitable
when one tries to apply a rule that runs counter
to one’s speech habits. It is much safer to trust
one’s ear, and to be satisfied to speak and write
the language used by the great majority of educated
people.
The person who says I shouldn’t be surprised
if it didn’t rain may mean Z expect it to rain.
Here we have a negative in a main clause repeated
in a subordinate construction. This type
of repetition is required in many languages, and
so cannot be called unreasonable. Although it
is condemned by some English grammarians, it
is used by many of the best writers of English.
Jane Austen, for example, writes: there was
none too poor or too remote not to feel an interest;
and Charles Darwin: it never occurred
to me to doubt that your work would not advance
our common object. See also but.
Whenever two negatives make an affirmative
the double negative is a thoroughly respectable