Tell me more ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote -1 down vote favorite

Could this:

Jason shared Michael's house.

be an acceptable shortened version of this:

Jason shared Michael's house with Michael.

?

share|improve this question
2  
Suspiciously similar to two recently deleted questions: english.stackexchange.com/questions/106002/… english.stackexchange.com/questions/106069/… – coleopterist Mar 5 at 11:24

closed as not a real question by Andrew Leach, Robusto, RegDwighт♦ Mar 5 at 16:02

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote

Yes, though the wording is ambiguous. In your example, the 'with Michael' is implied. I would suggest rewording to

Jason and Michael shared a house.

to remove the ambiguity and keep the sentence from getting bulky and awkward.

share|improve this answer
1  
But "Jason shared Michael's house" does not necessarily mean Michael lived there with him. If you want to say both that Michael was the owner of the house AND that he lived there with Jason, you need to say something like "Jason and Michael shared Michael's house." – John M. Landsberg Mar 5 at 11:13
As I said, though correct, it is ambiguous. Your version, however, is probably the best, as it contains all the relevant information without any ambiguity or verbiage. – jimbotherisenclown Mar 5 at 11:15
1  
At least in spoken Australian English, Michael's house does not necessarily imply ownership, only prior occupancy. "Where are you living next term? I am moving into Michael's house." might convey that there is a leased house shared by up to half a dozen students of whom one (Michael) is known to both of the speakers. – Fortiter Mar 5 at 11:27
That's true in American English as well, though without context, the possessive should probably be used to assume ownership. (Even in your example, I'd argue that ownership is still being claimed, but at an emotional, rather than legal, level.) You bring up an interesting point. – jimbotherisenclown Mar 5 at 11:32