“Of” used to say which specific thing belonging to a more general type you are referring to





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}






up vote
1
down vote

favorite












"Of" can be used to describe the relationship between two close things, one thing being kind of an explanatory element. And gerund is frequently used. For example:




The idea of getting into the cave unnerved me.



The test of enduring heat as long as I can resulted in some major burns.




But if I apply this principle to certain sentences....




The irresponsibility of leaving the trash behind angered his boss.



The thoughtlessness of running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




This sounds stretched and kind of unnatural... But I'm not a native speaker, so I thought it better to ask you guys. Are they grammatically wrong? And if yes, why is that? And if no, is it possible to use this characteristic of "of" with every other nouns?










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    All of the subject noun phrases in your example sentences require a definite article: The idea, the test, etc. In the second sentence, why is it "as long as I can" if I is not otherwise mentioned? In the third sentence, trash is a mass noun and has to be singular. In the fourth, running into a ghost house is a strange verb phrase; it seems to refer to a Hallowe'en traffic accident.
    – John Lawler
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:39










  • Does the second pair sound ungrammatical? Not to me (AmE), at least no less grammatical than the first pair. Can you use it with every other noun? Well, there is what is grammatical and what is customary. Rearranging the sentences into more conversational English: "I hate the irresponsibility of dog owners who don't pick up after their pets", "His death in the ghost house was the result of thoughtlessess."
    – anongoodnurse
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:40










  • As for the question itself, of is the most general relator possible in English. The possessive constructions can refer to any relationship whatsoever between noun phrases, including the relationship between a noun phrase and its complement.
    – John Lawler
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:42










  • @John Lawler In the sentences above, is the complement gerund phrase or single word noun? It's quiet confusing for me.
    – maxmad
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:45










  • They're all gerunds. Two of them have direct objects (enduring heat and leaving the trash); only gerunds can have direct objects. And none of them can take an article -- *of the leaving the trash behind is ungrammatical. Gerunds can't take articles.
    – John Lawler
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:53



















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












"Of" can be used to describe the relationship between two close things, one thing being kind of an explanatory element. And gerund is frequently used. For example:




The idea of getting into the cave unnerved me.



The test of enduring heat as long as I can resulted in some major burns.




But if I apply this principle to certain sentences....




The irresponsibility of leaving the trash behind angered his boss.



The thoughtlessness of running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




This sounds stretched and kind of unnatural... But I'm not a native speaker, so I thought it better to ask you guys. Are they grammatically wrong? And if yes, why is that? And if no, is it possible to use this characteristic of "of" with every other nouns?










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    All of the subject noun phrases in your example sentences require a definite article: The idea, the test, etc. In the second sentence, why is it "as long as I can" if I is not otherwise mentioned? In the third sentence, trash is a mass noun and has to be singular. In the fourth, running into a ghost house is a strange verb phrase; it seems to refer to a Hallowe'en traffic accident.
    – John Lawler
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:39










  • Does the second pair sound ungrammatical? Not to me (AmE), at least no less grammatical than the first pair. Can you use it with every other noun? Well, there is what is grammatical and what is customary. Rearranging the sentences into more conversational English: "I hate the irresponsibility of dog owners who don't pick up after their pets", "His death in the ghost house was the result of thoughtlessess."
    – anongoodnurse
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:40










  • As for the question itself, of is the most general relator possible in English. The possessive constructions can refer to any relationship whatsoever between noun phrases, including the relationship between a noun phrase and its complement.
    – John Lawler
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:42










  • @John Lawler In the sentences above, is the complement gerund phrase or single word noun? It's quiet confusing for me.
    – maxmad
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:45










  • They're all gerunds. Two of them have direct objects (enduring heat and leaving the trash); only gerunds can have direct objects. And none of them can take an article -- *of the leaving the trash behind is ungrammatical. Gerunds can't take articles.
    – John Lawler
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:53















up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











"Of" can be used to describe the relationship between two close things, one thing being kind of an explanatory element. And gerund is frequently used. For example:




The idea of getting into the cave unnerved me.



The test of enduring heat as long as I can resulted in some major burns.




But if I apply this principle to certain sentences....




The irresponsibility of leaving the trash behind angered his boss.



The thoughtlessness of running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




This sounds stretched and kind of unnatural... But I'm not a native speaker, so I thought it better to ask you guys. Are they grammatically wrong? And if yes, why is that? And if no, is it possible to use this characteristic of "of" with every other nouns?










share|improve this question















"Of" can be used to describe the relationship between two close things, one thing being kind of an explanatory element. And gerund is frequently used. For example:




The idea of getting into the cave unnerved me.



The test of enduring heat as long as I can resulted in some major burns.




But if I apply this principle to certain sentences....




The irresponsibility of leaving the trash behind angered his boss.



The thoughtlessness of running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




This sounds stretched and kind of unnatural... But I'm not a native speaker, so I thought it better to ask you guys. Are they grammatically wrong? And if yes, why is that? And if no, is it possible to use this characteristic of "of" with every other nouns?







grammaticality sentence-structure prepositions






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Oct 29 '17 at 8:21









Sven Yargs

110k18234490




110k18234490










asked Oct 22 '15 at 1:09









maxmad

63




63








  • 1




    All of the subject noun phrases in your example sentences require a definite article: The idea, the test, etc. In the second sentence, why is it "as long as I can" if I is not otherwise mentioned? In the third sentence, trash is a mass noun and has to be singular. In the fourth, running into a ghost house is a strange verb phrase; it seems to refer to a Hallowe'en traffic accident.
    – John Lawler
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:39










  • Does the second pair sound ungrammatical? Not to me (AmE), at least no less grammatical than the first pair. Can you use it with every other noun? Well, there is what is grammatical and what is customary. Rearranging the sentences into more conversational English: "I hate the irresponsibility of dog owners who don't pick up after their pets", "His death in the ghost house was the result of thoughtlessess."
    – anongoodnurse
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:40










  • As for the question itself, of is the most general relator possible in English. The possessive constructions can refer to any relationship whatsoever between noun phrases, including the relationship between a noun phrase and its complement.
    – John Lawler
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:42










  • @John Lawler In the sentences above, is the complement gerund phrase or single word noun? It's quiet confusing for me.
    – maxmad
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:45










  • They're all gerunds. Two of them have direct objects (enduring heat and leaving the trash); only gerunds can have direct objects. And none of them can take an article -- *of the leaving the trash behind is ungrammatical. Gerunds can't take articles.
    – John Lawler
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:53
















  • 1




    All of the subject noun phrases in your example sentences require a definite article: The idea, the test, etc. In the second sentence, why is it "as long as I can" if I is not otherwise mentioned? In the third sentence, trash is a mass noun and has to be singular. In the fourth, running into a ghost house is a strange verb phrase; it seems to refer to a Hallowe'en traffic accident.
    – John Lawler
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:39










  • Does the second pair sound ungrammatical? Not to me (AmE), at least no less grammatical than the first pair. Can you use it with every other noun? Well, there is what is grammatical and what is customary. Rearranging the sentences into more conversational English: "I hate the irresponsibility of dog owners who don't pick up after their pets", "His death in the ghost house was the result of thoughtlessess."
    – anongoodnurse
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:40










  • As for the question itself, of is the most general relator possible in English. The possessive constructions can refer to any relationship whatsoever between noun phrases, including the relationship between a noun phrase and its complement.
    – John Lawler
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:42










  • @John Lawler In the sentences above, is the complement gerund phrase or single word noun? It's quiet confusing for me.
    – maxmad
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:45










  • They're all gerunds. Two of them have direct objects (enduring heat and leaving the trash); only gerunds can have direct objects. And none of them can take an article -- *of the leaving the trash behind is ungrammatical. Gerunds can't take articles.
    – John Lawler
    Oct 22 '15 at 1:53










1




1




All of the subject noun phrases in your example sentences require a definite article: The idea, the test, etc. In the second sentence, why is it "as long as I can" if I is not otherwise mentioned? In the third sentence, trash is a mass noun and has to be singular. In the fourth, running into a ghost house is a strange verb phrase; it seems to refer to a Hallowe'en traffic accident.
– John Lawler
Oct 22 '15 at 1:39




All of the subject noun phrases in your example sentences require a definite article: The idea, the test, etc. In the second sentence, why is it "as long as I can" if I is not otherwise mentioned? In the third sentence, trash is a mass noun and has to be singular. In the fourth, running into a ghost house is a strange verb phrase; it seems to refer to a Hallowe'en traffic accident.
– John Lawler
Oct 22 '15 at 1:39












Does the second pair sound ungrammatical? Not to me (AmE), at least no less grammatical than the first pair. Can you use it with every other noun? Well, there is what is grammatical and what is customary. Rearranging the sentences into more conversational English: "I hate the irresponsibility of dog owners who don't pick up after their pets", "His death in the ghost house was the result of thoughtlessess."
– anongoodnurse
Oct 22 '15 at 1:40




Does the second pair sound ungrammatical? Not to me (AmE), at least no less grammatical than the first pair. Can you use it with every other noun? Well, there is what is grammatical and what is customary. Rearranging the sentences into more conversational English: "I hate the irresponsibility of dog owners who don't pick up after their pets", "His death in the ghost house was the result of thoughtlessess."
– anongoodnurse
Oct 22 '15 at 1:40












As for the question itself, of is the most general relator possible in English. The possessive constructions can refer to any relationship whatsoever between noun phrases, including the relationship between a noun phrase and its complement.
– John Lawler
Oct 22 '15 at 1:42




As for the question itself, of is the most general relator possible in English. The possessive constructions can refer to any relationship whatsoever between noun phrases, including the relationship between a noun phrase and its complement.
– John Lawler
Oct 22 '15 at 1:42












@John Lawler In the sentences above, is the complement gerund phrase or single word noun? It's quiet confusing for me.
– maxmad
Oct 22 '15 at 1:45




@John Lawler In the sentences above, is the complement gerund phrase or single word noun? It's quiet confusing for me.
– maxmad
Oct 22 '15 at 1:45












They're all gerunds. Two of them have direct objects (enduring heat and leaving the trash); only gerunds can have direct objects. And none of them can take an article -- *of the leaving the trash behind is ungrammatical. Gerunds can't take articles.
– John Lawler
Oct 22 '15 at 1:53






They're all gerunds. Two of them have direct objects (enduring heat and leaving the trash); only gerunds can have direct objects. And none of them can take an article -- *of the leaving the trash behind is ungrammatical. Gerunds can't take articles.
– John Lawler
Oct 22 '15 at 1:53












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













The part after "of" in your examples is not a mere specification, it's a subordinate clause which determines the subject of the main clause.



I would call them declarative sentences, but I see that Otto Jespersen calls them content clauses. It's irrelevant that in your examples the declarative is a noun phrase (with an indefinite verb), while that followed by a definite verb is more common. Perhaps some transformations can show this better.




Thinking that I would go into the cave unnerved me.




Can become:




The thought of going into the cave unnerved me.




And in the last two sentences you could do without the noun which is nominally the subject of the main sentence:




The thoughtlessness of running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




could just be




Running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




The term "content clause" ties well with this example: it's not the mere thinking that killed him, but the content of his (not) thinking, i.e. the act of running into the house (without thinking).






share|improve this answer





















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "97"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f281715%2fof-used-to-say-which-specific-thing-belonging-to-a-more-general-type-you-are-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    0
    down vote













    The part after "of" in your examples is not a mere specification, it's a subordinate clause which determines the subject of the main clause.



    I would call them declarative sentences, but I see that Otto Jespersen calls them content clauses. It's irrelevant that in your examples the declarative is a noun phrase (with an indefinite verb), while that followed by a definite verb is more common. Perhaps some transformations can show this better.




    Thinking that I would go into the cave unnerved me.




    Can become:




    The thought of going into the cave unnerved me.




    And in the last two sentences you could do without the noun which is nominally the subject of the main sentence:




    The thoughtlessness of running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




    could just be




    Running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




    The term "content clause" ties well with this example: it's not the mere thinking that killed him, but the content of his (not) thinking, i.e. the act of running into the house (without thinking).






    share|improve this answer

























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      The part after "of" in your examples is not a mere specification, it's a subordinate clause which determines the subject of the main clause.



      I would call them declarative sentences, but I see that Otto Jespersen calls them content clauses. It's irrelevant that in your examples the declarative is a noun phrase (with an indefinite verb), while that followed by a definite verb is more common. Perhaps some transformations can show this better.




      Thinking that I would go into the cave unnerved me.




      Can become:




      The thought of going into the cave unnerved me.




      And in the last two sentences you could do without the noun which is nominally the subject of the main sentence:




      The thoughtlessness of running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




      could just be




      Running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




      The term "content clause" ties well with this example: it's not the mere thinking that killed him, but the content of his (not) thinking, i.e. the act of running into the house (without thinking).






      share|improve this answer























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        The part after "of" in your examples is not a mere specification, it's a subordinate clause which determines the subject of the main clause.



        I would call them declarative sentences, but I see that Otto Jespersen calls them content clauses. It's irrelevant that in your examples the declarative is a noun phrase (with an indefinite verb), while that followed by a definite verb is more common. Perhaps some transformations can show this better.




        Thinking that I would go into the cave unnerved me.




        Can become:




        The thought of going into the cave unnerved me.




        And in the last two sentences you could do without the noun which is nominally the subject of the main sentence:




        The thoughtlessness of running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




        could just be




        Running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




        The term "content clause" ties well with this example: it's not the mere thinking that killed him, but the content of his (not) thinking, i.e. the act of running into the house (without thinking).






        share|improve this answer












        The part after "of" in your examples is not a mere specification, it's a subordinate clause which determines the subject of the main clause.



        I would call them declarative sentences, but I see that Otto Jespersen calls them content clauses. It's irrelevant that in your examples the declarative is a noun phrase (with an indefinite verb), while that followed by a definite verb is more common. Perhaps some transformations can show this better.




        Thinking that I would go into the cave unnerved me.




        Can become:




        The thought of going into the cave unnerved me.




        And in the last two sentences you could do without the noun which is nominally the subject of the main sentence:




        The thoughtlessness of running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




        could just be




        Running into a ghost house resulted in his death.




        The term "content clause" ties well with this example: it's not the mere thinking that killed him, but the content of his (not) thinking, i.e. the act of running into the house (without thinking).







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Jan 1 '17 at 12:02









        Nemo

        3251316




        3251316






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f281715%2fof-used-to-say-which-specific-thing-belonging-to-a-more-general-type-you-are-r%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Morgemoulin

            Scott Moir

            Souastre