[tilt]

My apologies the following has already been posted earlier.

I hear a lot of people say (or even write) "one of my friend...". It is actually "one of my friends...".

The implied sentence is actually "one out of all my friends..."

It is OK to say "one friend of mine" or "a friend of mine" but it is never OK to say "one of my friend".

Cheers

[JohnyBoy]

One of my wife's colleagues ordered a set of Philips LED bullbs from Flipkart. ....

Saw this in the online shopping forum.

I'm wondering which of the following he meant.

1) A colleague of one of his wives bought a bulb.
2) One of the colleagues of his wife bought a bulb.

What is the easiest / elegant way to write these 2 sentences?

[jayded]

Originally Posted by JohnyBoy

Saw this in the online shopping forum.

I'm wondering which of the following he meant.

1) A colleague of one of his wives bought a bulb.
2) One of the colleagues of his wife bought a bulb.

What is the easiest / elegant way to write these 2 sentences?

Since "colleague" is singular here, I would say, drop the redundant A/One.
So the line would just be "My wife's colleague ordered blah, blah, and blah"

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by JohnyBoy

1) A colleague of one of his wives bought a bulb.

All I'll say is do not use this where the wife in question may read this.

[tilt]

"One of my wife's colleagues..." is perfectly fine here and clearly means a colleague of my (one) wife.

If there were to be any ambiguity re. the number of wives here, the sentence would've read "one of my wives' ..." (note the position of the apostrophe in the word "wives").

Cheers

[JohnyBoy]

Originally Posted by tilt

"One of my wife's colleagues..." is perfectly fine here and clearly means a colleague of my (one) wife.

If there were to be any ambiguity re. the number of wives here, the sentence would've read "one of my wives' ..." (note the position of the apostrophe in the word "wives").

Cheers

Makes sense. Thank you.
But 'one of my wife's...' doesn't sound right. I mean when you read it aloud and hear it.

[tilt]

Originally Posted by JohnyBoy

Makes sense. Thank you.
But 'one of my wife's...' doesn't sound right. I mean when you read it aloud and hear it.

Well, actually the "one" here qualifies the "colleagues" and not the "wife". The "wife" here takes the possessive avatar in that the colleague belongs (so to speak) to the wife.

Read it as though it is the following conversation:

A: One of her colleagues...
B: One of whose colleagues?
A. My wife's.

Ergo, "one of my wife's colleagues..."

If one wants to be pedantic, one would say "a colleague of my wife's", but in conversational English "one of my wife's colleagues..." is perfectly acceptable and is quite unambiguous in meaning.

If you are concerned about sounding right vs. sounding wrong, look at the following example:

A. Knock knock
B. Who's there?
A. It's me. (sounds right but is wrong)
A. It's I. (sounds wrong, but is right)

Cheers

[JohnyBoy]

Thanks tilt for the detailed explanation. Appreciate your efforts.

[mayankk]

Caught this on the interweb :

English can be weird.
It can be understood through tough thorough thought though.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Even for an Englishman, that's hard to read!

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Even for an Englishman, that's hard to read!

At first glance, it looks unfathomable!

Or this guy :
That that exists exists in that that that that exists exists in.

I've checked on it, but it's impossible to get my head around it.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I think that, if we knew the context, we would make easy sense. Standing alone, like that, at first sight, or third even, I can't make it out.

I think there is some made up sentence with a record number of "that" repeated. Google probably knows. Or maybe it was "had." Can't find it.

I'm trying to mentally parse this this, and I've got something like

that that exists, exists in that that , that that exists, exists in

But have got to the point where, like saying a word over and over, t-h-a-t is getting meaningless to me

[mayankk]

[The fact] that "that" exists occurs in a situation which this "that" exists [also] occurs in.

- is what it was.

[tilt]

One of the things that makes me feel like someone's dragging nails across a blackboard is the phrase "be rest assured". I even saw it on VW India's website about "emission-gate".

The correct phrase is "rest assured". There's no "be".

Cheers

Edited to add: @Mayank, I just read your signature. I should point out that the last portion should read "lass es in Benzin schwimmen" and not "lass es schwimmen in Benzin". Verb am Ende

Actually I think it should also be "ins Benzin" and not "in Benzin", but I am not sure.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by tilt

One of the things that makes me feel like someone's dragging nails across a blackboard is the phrase "be rest assured". I even saw it on VW India's website about "emission-gate".

The correct phrase is "rest assured". There's no "be".

Cheers

This one is horrible. I have heard "rest is assured" as well.
In my experience, rest is NEVER assured in such situations.

Originally Posted by tilt

Edited to add: @Mayank, I just read your signature. I should point out that the last portion should read "lass es in Benzin schwimmen" and not "lass es schwimmen in Benzin". Verb am Ende

Actually I think it should also be "ins Benzin" and not "in Benzin", but I am not sure.

It was written by an ex rock breaker, current rock/metal god. I think I'll keep his version rather than the correct one.