One Leg, Two Legs; Redlegs, Blue Legs – But Who's Counting?

Last week, we examined this sentence:

The business was started by Ed Kelly – Ryan's grandfather – and Ed's wife's cousin's husband John Flock.

In addition to Mose's vehemet reaction to that awful triple possessive, he suggested that the sentence implied that 1) Ed's wife has only one cousin and 2) that cousin has more than one husband.

Our rewrite was:

The business was started by Ed Kelly, Ryan's grandfather, and John Flock, who is married to a cousin of Ed's wife.

The phrase “his wife's cousin” creates an exclusivity –  which is fine if his wife has only one cousin. But it's unlikely she's “her cousin”; she's more likely “one of her cousins.”

In our editing, we used the phrase “who is married to a cousin of Ed's wife.” The exclusivity is broken with the article a, implying “one of her cousins,” not “the cousin.”

We see that problem in shooting stories, when someone is reported to have been “shot in the leg” or “wounded in the arm.” The use of “the” creates an exclusivity that implies the victim had only one leg or one arm.

You can report he was shot in “the chest” or hit in “the head,” because people have only one of each. But it's always better, with two-legged victims, to designate the wound for the right or left lower appendage.

As for “her cousin's husband John Flock,” a simple comma after “husband” creates the redundancy needed to establish husband as a noun – and that he is her only husband. “That's her husband, Joe,” sets off Joe as an appositive and confirms her monogamy.

Without the comma, we imply that's “her husband John,” as opposed to “her husband Joe,” where “husband” is no longer a noun, but an adjective.

If Bob has two sons, we make reference to “his son John” without the comma, because he also has a “son Tom.” Insert the comma if he has only one son, as in “He sold his business to his son, John.” If he has two or more sons, “He sold the business to his son John” (as opposed to his son Tom).