We're playing a game where it's possible to use our ancestors as measurable monetary units at a pawnshop to release new family members. Today, we had a funny situation where someone stated this.
Sir Jack is my collateral and, also, my collateral.
Nerdy, as we truly are, we started to look up the definitions and, indeedely-doo, that's a factually correct statement. Sir Jack was in fact used a security for another payment (being a collateral by his value) but also happened to be a descendant of the speaker (being a collateral by blood).
While it's factually correct, I wonder if it's grammatically and/or stylistically correct as well.
If it isn't, I also wonder if it'd be more natural to substitute both instances of collateral to each own synonym or only one. And in the latter case, which one, if any, would seem more appropriate to get rid of.