colleague of Bruce v. colleague of Bruce's

[ktm]

Can anybody explain the difference between:
"colleague of Bruce" v. "colleague of Bruce's".

The sentence is as follows:
Ed knew a colleague of Bruce's through Roddy Martine, who knew everybody of course,

 

[equivoque]

It would be Bruce's colleague or A colleague of Bruce.

 

[iolanthe]

although, you'd say 'a colleague of mine' or 'my colleague' and not 'a colleague of me'

 

[panjandrum]

It would be Bruce's colleague or A colleague of Bruce.

I guess that makes sense, but I couldn't bring myself to say it - and my thought went to a colleague of me too

There must be a simple explanation.

 

[chat9998]

Hey ktm,

While you might hear "A colleauge of Bruce's" in informal speech sometimes, I don't believe it is correct. It really should be either Bruce's colleague, or a colleague of Bruce.

Hope that helps,
Jeff

 

[mgarizona]

Actually if you check Fowler's Modern English Usage he covers this under a section called "A phrase of Coleridge" and comes down clearly on the side of "a phrase of Coleridge's" as, if memory serves, "having the benefit of being English."

'A colleague of Bruce' would make sense if Bruce was a color, or a material out of which one could construct colleagues, etc. As a substitute for 'a colleague of Bruce's' it's what you might call falsely correct, like saying "between he and I."

 

[iolanthe]

Once again mgarizona, you confirm my suspicions.. I'm going to have to start being more confident with my suggestions

 

[panjandrum]

Thanks mgarizona, I feel a great deal more comfortable now, Fowler is a farourite of me

New Fowler says this is a double possessive.

It is normal usage provided the appositional of-phrase is definite and human. So a colleague of Bruce's is idiomatic, a friend of the British Museum's is not.

I really enjoyed the final sentence:

It is not easy to explain why such constructions are idiomatic: one can only assert that they are.