Reply
Sun 14 Sep, 2003 08:32 pm
hi, I have a question about "of".
When reading a newspaper, I found two sentences interesting as follows:
1) the occupation of Iraq ...
2) the occupation of US ...
It's clear that both mean US occupies Iraq. But if I dont't know the fact that US has occupied Iraq, I will NEVER know what the two sentences mean. In 1, of means "to", and in 2, of means "belonging to". So, how confusing the "of' is, how do you think of this?
Hiya Chucker and welcome to a2k. My first reaction is that the second example seems odd. However, I can't really answer your question without more of a context. Do you have the complete sentences?
Hi, Roberta, thanks for your kind reply. I have forgotten the complete sentence. However, I think my sentence 2 is clear--- the occupation of US=US' occupation just like "the victory of US=US' victory". Namely, the question about "of" is of the function of "OF". For pattern "A of B", B is the object of A in some sentences(e.g. the occupation of Iraq) while B is the subject of A in other sentences(e.g. the victory of US). THE question is
how I can distinguish between those two? Do I have to depend on the context to know it?
Hi Chucker, By expanding both examples a bit, I think we can see how the "of" works.
1) the occupation of Iraq ... by U.S. forces
2) the occupation of US ...forces in Iraq
I don't agree that the second example suggests possession. But I do agree that context is key. In effect, both sentences say the same thing.
Number two is a common mistake that persons who are accustomed to romance languages make.
In English the use of of in that scenario is almost always dictated by collocation. When used outside of normal collocation the sentence is odd.
But the converse is also true.
E.G.
Bitch's son vs. Son of a bitch
There are some guidelines but I won't look them up right now.
In any case the #2 sentence is a very very common mistake I saw in translations I proofread from Portuguese.
The second one is confusing because it isn't clear if the US is being occupied or doing the occupying.
One could more be more clear and say "The occupying behavior of US forces in Iraq" except that nobody uses the words "occupying behavior".
"of" vs. "by"
Quote:2) the occupation of US ...forces in Iraq
Much better to say "the occupation by US forces in Iraq". I would argue the second construction is sloppy (though people would understand what you are saying). Sometimes people use "of" too broadly just because they are too indifferent to search for the best preposition.