We use cookies to enhance your experience on our website. This website uses cookies that provide targeted advertising and which track your use of this website. By clicking ‘continue’ or by continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.Find out more
It does sounds a little strange — but not because of the grammar.
It would be unusual to refer to a person as 'someone's friend' — but not impossible. For example:
— We need four horses for the carnival procession. Can the club members provide them?
— None of the members can help, but someone's friend has four horses.
PS
When I say
It would be unusual to refer to a person as 'someone's friend'
I mean that it would be unusual to use the expression at the start of a clause as the SUBJECT.
It would not be at all unusual to use it elsewhere in the clause. For example:
He's someone's friend. Give it to someone's friend. We could allow someone's friend to do it.
Comments
@Sk78843
The sentence is perfectly grammatical.
It does sounds a little strange — but not because of the grammar.
It would be unusual to refer to a person as 'someone's friend' — but not impossible. For example:
— We need four horses for the carnival procession. Can the club members provide them?
— None of the members can help, but someone's friend has four horses.
PS
When I say
I mean that it would be unusual to use the expression at the start of a clause as the SUBJECT.
It would not be at all unusual to use it elsewhere in the clause. For example:
He's someone's friend.
Give it to someone's friend.
We could allow someone's friend to do it.