0

For all the English grammar my teacher taught me, the element put right after the preposition 'of' can be:

1, noun. The leg of the desk
2. gerund leading phrase which acts as a noun - The result of giving your children anything they want.
3. gerund leading phrase which starts with possessive pronoun- The good effect of my giving you aid in time.

However, recently I read such sentence structure following the preposition 'of', for instance,

1.'The spectacle of gunners using science of shatter men's body'.
2.'The result of accumulated knowledge applied to practical life'.

The two examples above are not in the three conditions I know about the usage of preposition 'of'.

Can anybody analyze the grammar for me?? I make the following sentences when i try to imitate the example, and please see if they are right or not.

'The consequence of the troops occupying the abandoned factory'
'The finding of Gus abducted and sent to an unknown place 10 years ago'

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    Didn't you ask this on ELU also? Most people have the same user name for both accounts.
    – user6951
    Dec 8, 2014 at 5:33

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2

I will ignore your examples for now.

Object of the prepositions

All prepositions(including "of") are followed by an object.

See my examples, the prepositions are in italic and the objects are in bold italic:

  • I forgot my homework at home.
  • I forgot my homework at my friend's house.
  • With his friend he found the movie theater.
  • The interviews by radio broadcasters were carried live by the station.

We call it the object of the preposition. You can see that those objects are noun. Well actually, they are not. See the phrase his friend, "his" is a possessive pronoun and "friend" is a noun. Together, they make a noun phrase. Noun phrase is a combination of word(s) that acts like a noun.

Noun phrase

You can see the components of a noun phrase here. And I will place some examples of noun phrase here:

  • the news
  • the house
  • Both of my younger brothers
  • the old picture of Fred that I found in the drawer

You may see that some noun phrase are long like crazy. I will explain the last one for you:

enter image description here

You see that the components are trying to describe picture which is circled around. You can also use past and present participle to describe the noun. And you can also omit that. You get :

  • the old printed picture of Fred (that) I found in the drawer

Which is still a noun phrase.

Conclusion

The fact that prepositions are followed by a noun phrase allows you to construct some sentences which do not obey the rules you have given, the prepositions are in italic and the objects which are a noun phrase are in bold italic:

  • You are standing behind the picture.
  • You are standing behind the old printed picture of Fred I found in the drawer last night.
  • You are taking a picture of the cat eating the mice.
  • You are taking a picture of the mice eaten by the cat.

And so on.

Improve this answer
1

Sentence 1 is using "of" incorrectly because "shatter men's body" is not a science, nor is it grammatically correct. If you are meaning to say "shattering men's bodies" is a science, you would have to write

"gunners using the science of shattering men's bodies."`

Kind of like:

"He used the science of talking to women."`

It's not really a science, but you can use creative license to say something is a science if you're claiming there's a method or formula for it, such as shattering men's bodies or talking to women.

Your sentence

The result of accumulated knowledge applied to practical life.

is using "of" correctly but it is not a complete sentence; rather, it is a dependent clause, which is a clause that needs another clause to make a full sentence. You would have to add a clause to it, like:

"His book of advice is the result of accumulated knowledge applied to practical life."

"His massive fortune is the result of accumulated knowledge applied to practical life."

See, now those sentences make sense since I added another clause to them.

Your last two sentences could almost make sense if you were to add a clause to them, like:

The consequence of the troops occupying the abandoned factory was that the factory burned to the ground.

Simply saying

The consequence of the troops occupying the abandoned factory.

is not a complete sentence. It is a dependent clause.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .