Cause I've got faith of the heart.
I'm going where my heart will take me.
I've got faith to believe.
I can do anything.
I've got strength of the soul.
And no one's going to bend or break me.
[ Faith of the Heart, by Diane Warren, for movie and television (sample) ]
It's formatted in a way that feels indicative of the material of substance (of the second term), but I think it's rather the origin, like with the preposition from. At the same time it doesn't use a personal pronoun i.e. it's not faith in my heart; neither is it I have a faithful heart. What I'm trying to describe seems to be further emphasized by the fact you have the verb to have (I've got) i.e. it's not to be as in I'm strong of/with the soul, it's not phrased as an attribute but rather as something you possess/hold.
- Why is it of and not from the heart/soul; is it really about the origin; is the type of origin better suited for either preposition in this very case or is it just a choice?
- What does using to have do here that to be doesn't/couldn't do; is that to undergo; does the native speaker pick up the bill of materials feeling or any other connotation with this sort of phrasing?
- Can you provide an idiomatic and/or well known example of this
sort of [ to have + noun + of + noun ] construction (without a personal pronoun) which would better showcase its meaning and whether there's more to this than the sum of its parts (1+2)?