0
  1. My book = book of mine
  2. Mathematics games = games of mathematics

Questions

  1. How to represent "A new type of food" without "of" as shown on the left side in the given examples above?

  2. Is "food of a new type" also grammatically correct?

1
  • 3
    "A new food type" comes naturally ("type" is the subject, "food" the modifier). With "food of a new type", you are talking about the food (subject), not the type (modifier). It is correct, just different in meaning.
    – MorganFR
    Aug 23, 2016 at 12:51

1 Answer 1

1

As @MorganFR says, you could say "a new food type".

Yes, "food of a new type" is valid and would mean essentially the same thing. Arguably it shifts the emphasis from "type" to "food".

If you're asking this for practical reasons, I think "a new type of food" is the natural way to say it. I don't know why you'd want to avoid the "of". But maybe you're wondering about the principle and not the best phrasing for a real document.

"Type" is a rather vague word. Depending on what you're actually talking about, you might want to look for something more specific. (As a programmer, I constantly struggle with every classification being called a "type": "customer type", "product type", "order type", etc. And what if there are two ways that we classify the same thing? Like a customer could be "individual" or "business", and a customer could also be "domestic" or "foreign". We can't call them both "customer type". Etc.)

You must log in to answer this question.

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