of usage

Guest   Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:31 am GMT
We can say:
The city of London
(Meaning: The city 'London'/The city which is London)

The sin of blasphemy
(Meaning: The sin which is blasphemy)

but can we say:

1-The novel of 'War and Peace'
(Meaning: The novel 'War and Peace'; the novel which is 'War and Peace')
2-The name of 'John'
(Meaning: The name 'John'/ The name that is 'John')
guest   Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:53 pm GMT
<<The city of London
(Meaning: The city 'London'/The city which is London)

The sin of blasphemy
(Meaning: The sin which is blasphemy)
>>

These are somewhat like fixed phrases, from the era of French calque influence. Actually, they should be:
"The city London" (i.e. the city, London) and "the sin blasphemy" (the sin: blasphemy) in English.

Constructions without the use of "of" are either inherited before this period, or have been created after it, within more recent English language history. However, the use of "of" is strongly fixed, and sometimes affects new phrases by analogy.
Guest   Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:24 pm GMT
1-The novel of 'War and Peace'

I wouldn't say that.

2-The name of 'John'

This seems okay to me.
Guest   Wed Feb 06, 2008 6:24 pm GMT
Actually, you use 'of' with many political subdivisions:

The State of New York, or New York State

The Commonwealth of Masachussetts

The City of New York, or New York City

The County of Dutchess (fomal), or Dutchess County

The Town of Rhinebeck, but not "Rhinebeck Town'

The Villiage of Rhinebeck, and sometimes Rhinebeck Villiage.

The Hamlet of Rhinecliff, but not "Rhinecliff Hamlet"
guest   Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:04 pm GMT
<<The Town of Rhinebeck, but not "Rhinebeck Town'
>>

This works with "Town (city) of London" - "London Town"
Uriel   Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:46 pm GMT
1-The novel of 'War and Peace'
(Meaning: The novel 'War and Peace'; the novel which is 'War and Peace')

No, you would simply say "the novel 'War and Peace'. No "of" is required. But you could say "the author of 'War and Peace'" or "the plot of 'War and Peace'".

By the same token, you might also say "the racehorse Secretariat won all three races of the Triple Crown during his career" -- you would never call him the "racehorse of Secretariat", because that implies that Secretariat owns the racehorse, instead of being the racehorse. For whatever the reason, that same inplication doesn't exist when you say "city of London" or "sin of blasphemy" or "for the crime of murder", so I don't know if I can give you a rule for when of can be used and when it alters the meaning of the whole phrase -- maybe someone else knows?
Lo   Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:42 pm GMT
The Novel of 'War and Peace' sounds weird, unless it's not the title and you're talking about a novel which discusses war and peace? using "of" instead of "about"?

Guest: do not forget the City of Angels for Los Angeles. Now one would say Angels City. It also works for all the Commonwealths, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
guest   Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:05 pm GMT
<<Now one would say Angels City>>

I think "Los Angeles City" sounds nice

Pennsylavia Commonwealth
Virginia Commonwealth
Kentucky Commonwealth
etc