The use of apostrophes when there is no clear owner [closed]

(1) Apostrophes may be used to show (b) associative as well as (a) ownership relationships:

(a) Fred's bike

(b) the bike's back wheel

(although there is a move to drop the apostrophe from associative relationships: nine days wonder / travellers cheques / working mens clubs / Achilles heel / childrens clothing [generic])

But (2) There are restrictions on the use of the 'double possessive' (a book of Fred's). The following is by Mignon Fogarty [reformatted]:

[T]o help us learn what’s right, let’s look at some possessives and double possessives that native speakers wouldn't use.

It definitely sounds odd to say, “a car of Squiggly.” On the other hand, you could say, “a car of Squiggly's,” assuming he has lots of cars and you’re pointing out one of them. However, “a car of Squiggly's” doesn’t sound as natural to me as “one of Squiggly's cars.”

On the other hand, it’s perfectly normal to say, “the Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom” or “the United Kingdom’s Crown Jewels,” but it turns out that it’s ungrammatical to say, “the Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom’s.”

Here’s a clear-cut rule that helps explain this:

When you’re talking about inanimate objects—objects that aren’t alive, such as “the United Kingdom”—you can’t use a double possessive.

According to The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, for a double possessive to be legal, the object of the preposition “of” has to be “definite and human.” In other words, it’s fine to say, “a friend of my uncle’s” but not “a friend of the museum’s.” You have to say, “a friend of the museum.”

However, according to this rule, it would be OK to say, “He's a friend of a friend’s,” but we’ve all heard the common expression “a friend of a friend.” I guess double possessives don’t always work. That should make some sticklers happy.