This one has been bugging me for a while ... How do I refer to a band that is "owned" by my friend? Is it:

a friend of mine's band
a friend's of mine band
etc

"mine" is already possessive, so "mine's" doesn't make sense, but I can't for the life of me work out what the proper grammatical form for this phrase is.

Talk amongst yourselves.

I just re-word around the confusion: "My friend's band".

Still doesn't answer your question, though. I'd be interested in the answer myself.

My friend's band...

There maybe a correct usage for the form you're suggesting, however I'm not sure what it would be. Personally I find my suggestion a lot simpler. But I bow in advance to Mr. Faulk...

dang it...

Yeah it can definitely be reworded to be clearer, but I'm just curious about the original form ... I happened to use the original phrase when I was talking to someone and for some reason "my friend's band" wasn't the form that came to me at the time, and it's been nagging me ever since.

Hmmm...

Maybe "mine" just doesn't work? I think I would just say, "a friend's band."

In reply to:

---

a friend of mine's band
a friend's of mine band

---

The first one (though it sounds ugly, and is best re-worded if you're writing).

It's the same if you talk of your mother-in-law's house (for instance), though in the above, you don't have the hyphenation to help you.

But pluralized (or pluralised for the America-challenged ), it's mothers-in-law ... I never really bothered to look it up, but it's not the same rule for possessive? So then it would be mothers-in-law's for the plural possessive?

How can you have mothers-in-law? (assuming you aren't breaking the law.)

They might not all be mine, but I could have my mother-in-law and my friend's mother-in-law, those two people would be mothers-in-law (and of course, I suppose their band would be "friends of our's mothers-in-law's band" )

If you lived in Utah?

The best way would be "a band of a friend of mine", formally. Informally, I'd use "a friend of mine's band" because you're possessivizing (it is now) "friend of mine". It also sounds "better".

It also seems to more closely align with the accepted rule of making possessive (happier?) other phrases where it makes more sense, like "Lewis and Clark's expedition" instead of "Lewis's and Clark's expedition".

Oh, here we go:

group possessive. You form the possessive for noun phrases by adding an ’s or an apostrophe at the end of the phrase: Jim and Nancy’s house, the Department of Chemistry’s new requirements, a three months’ journey. This construction gets cumbersome when the noun phrase is long, in which case you should probably use a prepositional phrase instead. Thus instead of saying the house that overlooks the bay’s property line, you should say the property line of the house that overlooks the bay.

(The American Heritage® Book of English Usage.
A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.)

Big can of worms!

Yes, I think that where you add the modifier is different for plural and possessive (but I'm willing to be corrected).

I think it's unfortunate that both involve adding the letter 's' (and even more unfortunate that "it's" ends like a possessive, unlike "its"). English isn't exactly the most intuitive of the natural languages...

Yes, I think that where you add the modifier is different for plural and possessive (but I'm willing to be corrected).

Clearly. You see the news media dealing with this when talking about the actions of attornies general or secretaries of state. I suppose if a group of them had a statement to make, you could refer to the secretaries of state's announcement.

I thought of this approach also, except that "mine" is already the possessive form of "my". Unless you're saying you're making the entire "friend of mine" possessive -- Maybe it's actually "friend-of-mine"?

If my wife's parents divorced and remarried?

English isn't exactly the most intuitive of the natural languages...

I've thought for some time that English is the just vengeance of the island people for being invaded way too many times!

-kj

Yes. You're making the entire phrase possessive. And it's not hyphenated.

Don't know if you heard, but the polygamists here in Utah are starting a lawsuit to get polygamy legalized. But that's a topic for another thread.

Yeah, but aren't they always doing that?

Most likely. Wake me up when there's a lawsuit to get gay polygamist marriages legalized.

Yeah, but aren't they always doing that?

Well, they probably feel they stand a lot better chance now that gay marraiges are being seriously considered. I'd actuallly be interested to hear what the arguments against polyagmy are from those who support gay marriage (that is, if those who support gay marraige are actually opposed to polygamy). Not that the two are really related, but if the argument for gay marriage is that people should be free to marry whomever they please, regardless of gender, should society stand in the way of multiple people getting married if it makes them happy?

if the argument for gay marriage is that people should be free to marry whomever they please, regardless of gender

It's not (primarily). It's about gay partners being given equal protection under the law as heterosexual partners: tax benefits, visitation rights, etc..

It's just that religion wants to keep the "marriage" word to itself.

I've thought for some time that English is the just vengeance of the island people for being invaded way too many times!

Where have you been hiding out since 1066?

It's not (primarily). It's about gay partners being given equal protection under the law as heterosexual partners: tax benefits, visitation rights, etc..

I wonder, though, if the polygamysts are really concerned about tax benefits, etc. There are probably aspects they're concerned about, but I'd bet if some time were taken and people didn't feel morally opposed to the notion of polyagmy (which is just a baseless assumption I'm going on) then something could be worked out where the polyagmy could be made legal. I guess my point is that polygamy is illegal not because of taxes, visitation, etc. but because in general people aren't comfortable with it.

It's just that religion wants to keep the "marriage" word to itself.

Which I think isn't unreasonable. But as someone will quickly point out if I don't say it, the question is whether marraige began as a religious instituation or is just a natural development. But we've hashed this particular issue to death, I'm just interested in how people feel about polyagmy.

But we've hashed this particular issue to death

It's the same issue. In fact, to my mind, there are several issues, which are all confused, whether deliberately or accidentally, by those talking about it.

1: Whether "marriage" should, as a term, be controlled by a religion (in this case, Chrisitianity) and therefore whether couples or (to extend this to polygamy) groups should be able to get "married".

There's nothing stopping a gay couple or a group of people in a polygamous relationship having some sort of ceremony to affirm their love and committment to eachother. It's just that they're not allowed to call it a "marriage".

2. Whether "life partners" should be able to get the benefits currently restricted to heterosexual married couples.

And this is where the confusion arises. Because the government calls this "marriage" and the church calls the other thing "marriage", everybody gets het up about it.

Now, moving on to polygamy: there's almost certainly no way that the church will be happy with it. Thus the only problem with the first definition is that the church reserves the word "marriage" to itself.

As far as the second definition goes, I don't see a problem with it, as long as the electorate wants it. There would need to be a proper framework put into place governing the various rights -- it's not quite so simple as with two people. When the husband dies, for example, in a monogamous relationship, there's no danger of squabbling among the wives.

Now, personally, do I have a problem with polygamy? I'm not sure.

It's the same issue.

Ok, you caught me! Yeah it is the same issue- and that was actually my point (my claim to the opposite notwithstanding). It's just that with all of this talk about people's freedom to marry whomever they choose regardless of gender I haven't heard much discussion about polyagmy. It seems to me that it is the church that has defined marriage as "one man and one woman" and there's nothing to prevent society from adopting a more liberal definitation that restricts neither the gender nor the number. I think it'll be interesting to see how long it will take for polyagmy laws to be put into place if homosexual marriage becomes legal.

And as I've stated before, I completly agree that having a state defined "marriage" and a church defined one is the crux of the problem. It's one tough pickle and no one's going to feel treated farily whatever the outcome.

As far as the second definition goes, I don't see a problem with it, as long as the electorate wants it. There would need to be a proper framework put into place governing the various rights -- it's not quite so simple as with two people. When the husband dies, for example, in a monogamous relationship, there's no danger of squabbling among the wives.

Yes, there are genuine problems here unforeseen by the drafters of laws mentioning marriage. For instance, I could marry everyone named in my will and evade inheritance tax. On the other hand, if everyone is financially dependent on the one breadwinner, it seems moral to ensure they're all provided for. Tricky stuff.

Now, personally, do I have a problem with polygamy? I'm not sure.

I guess i've got a nagging feeling that polygamy is more likely to be coercive and unconsenting than monogamy, but that might just stem from unfamiliarity -- I'm sure people who knew no gay couples (back in the day when gays were very much an underground culture) would have said the same about gay partnerships.

I think there's a cost/benefit thing going on here: it seems implausible that we'll ever have a definitive list of all types of consensual human sexuality, but even in the face of that unattainability it makes sense to design our mechanisms of state to encompass the most common cases. Monogamous gays were obviously missing from earlier mechanisms of state; but the way I've never heard of a polygamy rights movement (outside Utah) says to me that there's not as much inequality there to be rectified.

It'd be interesting to get some viewpoints from countries where polygamous marriage is more widespread or traditional: India? South Africa? At least some polygynous traditions have a notion of "the primary wife", which could tidy up some of the legal rights issues.

Peter

it seems implausible that we'll ever have a definitive list of all types of consensual human sexuality

A point which begs the question of why the government should be involved in the first place. Really, and I think most of us would agree here, the government probably has no business governing people’s sexuality. If we lived in religiously controlled countries it might make more sense because we’d be adhering to an explicit religious law, but the law of a religiously neutral country shouldn’t tell people what they must/must not/can do in their sexual lives.

So why the concept of “marriage” at all at the governmental level? It seems to me that all of the laws and issues regarding what the state uses “marriage” can be more efficiently addressed by properly identifying the problems (can you tell I’m a software developer?). If child rearing is the issue, then offer tax breaks for primary child care givers, whether married or not. If it's a visitation or asset ownership issue, let a person designate whoever they want to fulfill those roles. Not that I'm offereing soltuions or have properly identified the problems, but my point is that identifying each issue individually is probably more constructive than trying to fit it into the concept of a "consensual sexual relationship." I think marriage has been used because in the past it roughly corresponded to the way these needs existed in the real word; however as society changes this concept should be exploded and the real issue addressed. Let marriage be whatever people want it to be: those in my church can define marriage as between a single man and woman without being confused with any legal entity of the same name. In Utah the church can have its own version of marriage with multiple partners. Certainly each church will feel that the other churches are fostering unhealthy relationships, but at least the concept won’t be confused with a legal construction that has nothing to do with the church.

I know, I know . . . it's not going to happen, but that's what I think anyway.

i've got a nagging feeling that polygamy is more likely to be coercive and unconsenting than monogamy

That seems to not be an inaccurate representation of the reality in those remote parts of Utah where polygamy is practiced. Of course, I'm basing this on a few news reports that may, as usual, be overstating the case. Interestingly, I can't imagine that simply having multiple sexual partners and living together is illegal, but just the marriage part. And the Mormon church has officially made polygamy against their tenets (to the point where polygamists are excommunicated, IIRC), so it's really a small cult against the government, as they no longer really have anything to do with the official Church of LDS.

On the other hand, those potentially hyped news reports also claim that those polygamists are in some cases doing so incestuously, too, and that can't be good for anyone.

So why the concept of “marriage” at all at the governmental level?

You have very good points, but the one thing that I can't think of a way to address without a concept of marriage is the homemaker. As an employee of a company that provides benefits to me and my family, I can't think of a way to get the government to define the fact that they also are required to provide benefits to my wife without calling her my spouse or some arbitrary circumlocution that would essentially mean spouse.

define the fact that they also are required to provide benefits to my wife without calling her my spouse

Easy. When you sign the forms, you simply nominate one person to receive those benefits. It could be your wife, your mother, your dog, Elvis or even Santa Claus. OK, it would actually have to be a real, living, person -- but there's no need for any circumlocution.

But then could I also say that my friend living in another town also receives benefits? I mean, I suppose I could, but that seems to ignore the spirit of the idea, that we should all be working except those supporting those who are.

but that seems to ignore the spirit of the idea, that we should all be working except those supporting those who are.

Well, in this particular case I think you've nailed down the concept. Each working person has the opportunity to designate someone who takes on a supporting role, and I'd think this person would have to live at the same address to count. Sure this means that you could designate your brother who moved in and isn't working, but then that's actually closer to the real idea anyway right? To identify those who play a supporting role, regardless of how they're related? Who cares if it's my wife or my brother who assumes that role as long as we all can agree I get to designate one person.

True. I suppose that would work.

Each working person has the opportunity to designate someone who takes on a supporting role, and I'd think this person would have to live at the same address to count.

I have a friend who's primary residence is in Tennessee, yet his job and secondary residence is in Virginia. He only sees his wife once a month, and spends most of his time at the secondary residence. I know this is like comparing apples to oranges, but what about the instances where the couple doesn't live together?

Still, his official residence is the same place as his wife.

I suppose, but he wants all of his business mail sent to his secondary residence. But I guess for tax purposes, his primary residence would do.

Really, and I think most of us would agree here, the government probably has no business governing people’s sexuality.

Which devolves our conversation once again to politics. How can you believe that and even *possibly* vote Republican?

How can you believe that and even *possibly* vote Republican?

Well that's up in the air these days. I just know I won't vote for a Democrat!

Seriously, though, my core beliefs tend to be similar to most Republicans. I DO think that homosexual behavior is sin and therefore unhealthy, I just think that forcing people to conform by legal means isn't going to help much. I'd rather people believe and do the "right" thing because they agree that it is right, not because the Government tells them to.