1
   

question about "of"

 
 
chucker
 
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?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 847 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 08:37 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 10:02 pm
listening...
0 Replies
 
chucker
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2003 10:40 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
Roberta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 12:14 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 12:19 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 01:07 pm
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".
0 Replies
 
step314
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 01:31 pm
"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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » question about "of"
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 06:13:57