From Monday’s NY Times.I think you need to go further in order to make clear if it was the courier, not OBL, who was being surveilled. So modify (b) to make the appositive clear: "Osama bin Laden's trusted courier, whom American spies hand been hunting for years, was finally located ..." Thoughts?
A trusted courier of Osama bin Laden’s whom American spies had been hunting for years was finally located in a compound 35 miles north of the Pakistani capital, close to one of the hubs of American counterterrorism operations.The question is: why do you need the possessive apostrophe after Laden at the beginning of the sentence. You could have written:
a) A trusted courier of Osama bin Laden whom American spies had been hunting for years . . .But it seems redundant to me to have both the word “of” (which denotes possession) and the possessive apostrophe. Of course, in spoken English, I think it is quite common to have the double-possessive construction. “John is a friend of mine.”
b) Osama bin Laden’s trusted courier whom American spies had been hunting for years . . .
Friday, May 6, 2011
A STRANGELY TOPICAL ALOTT5MA FRIDAY GRAMMAR RODEO: From regular commenter Chuck:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My philosophy as an editor always has been that if you're in doubt about anything, rewrite it. So I would have gone with "Osama bin Laden's trusted courier ...," which sounds better anyway, and is easier to scan.
ReplyDeleteI also would have avoided the passive voice, which then meant I could have eliminated the "whom," which I always hate because no one speaks like that. So: "American spies had been hunting Osama bin Laden's trusted courier for year, and finally located him ..."
Of course, that doesn't exactly answer the grammatical questions. It just makes for a better sentence.
There's a dangling modifier problem, as well. When I read it, I wasn't sure if they were saying the courier had been hunted for years or bin Laden had been hunted for years. Fred's right that active voice again solves the problem: "American spies had been hunting [Osama bin Laden's trusted courier / a trusted courier of Osama bin Laden, either way but not both] for years, and finally located him in a compound 35 miles north of the Pakistani capital . . ." Or, "American spies had been hunting Osama bin Laden for years and finally located his trusty courier in a compound 35 miles north . . ." The sentence as written is trying to pack in too much information.
ReplyDelete"A trusted courier of Osama bin Laden" is awkward, because of the unclear apposition--is the courier trusted by OBL or does he courie OBL? There are many options--"OBL's trusted courier," "a courier OBL trusted," etc.
ReplyDeleteSo basically, everyone agrees that the sentence in the NY Times is a total mess.
ReplyDeleteBut looking at the narrower issue, is it clearly incorrect to use a possessive "of" AND a possessive apostrophe? Or is it always redundant and incorrect? I believe it must be incorrect, even if it is done in spoken English.
Chuck, it's not incorrect. The Chicago explanation reads as follows:
ReplyDelete7.28. Possessive with "of." The possessive form may be preceded by of where one of several is implied. "A friend of Dick's" and "a friend of his" are equally acceptable (p. 357).
Thanks, The Other Kate. Sounds like a rule made up to accommodate a pervasive error.
ReplyDelete