A very simple question.

[Harlequin]

This is a simple question, I know, but it's been so long since I've had to actually take grammar lessons.

What's the proper grammatical term for a section of a sentence using 'of' to indicate ownership, such as, "The Queen of England?" I'm sure I knew this at one point, but I need a memory refresh.

And, on the off-chance that anyone here happens to know some french, what's the grammatical rule for this kind of arrangement? I know they reverse in the case of adjectives, but this case eludes me.

Thanks for any help.

- Harlequin

[vreddy]

I am not well versed in French, but I am supporter of the opinion that English is not of Germanic, but of French!

That's just calquing le francais. French uses de "of" in ways that
English "of" just goes along with.

The city of New York--New York City
State university of New York--California State Univ.


The City of New York--New York City
The State University of New York--California State University

[Harlequin]

Thanks for the quick reply. I wasn't aware there was a school of thought suggesting that English was formed out of French, but seeing as France was inhabited largely by Germanic tribes(the Franks), I suppose it's possible that English was a derivative specifically of French, as opposed to having derived directly from Germanic. But both are derivatives of Germanic in the end, so.

But I'm not sure your post really answers my questions, unless I'm misreading it. Do you mean to say that, in the case of using 'of,' or 'de,' grammar dictates a similar use, IE, isn't reversed grammatically?

- Harlequin

[Nobody]

I have a different opinion. The latest research shows more evidences that English is more likely a root from germanic. The explanation would be too long to post.
I can tell from our teaching experience only.
My friends and I are teaching English in different collages.
At the beginning of my job I had difficulties answering questions such as why this or that English grammar became like that, how do you understand on using them, ....
I searched answers both from celtic root and germanic root. But I always found answers from germanic root. There were many specific questions.
If you understand dutch, you will know that English came from germanic.

Later, England as a commonwealth. English, French and German had changed their languages step by step. <business and political porpuses>
But England's vocabulary increased, because of their commonwealth. Today we even can find some vocabulary roots from India, China and other countries. With those vocabulary England had influenced Europe's languages.

I studied 5 languages, but I still love English the best

[Nobody]

If you use "de", "of", "von", "van" to explain. Those words became popular in renaissance.
Because of the dukes' titles over Europe.

[vreddy]

I am not talking of etymology-based history, but about functors. As recent studies of creole languages show, the etymology does play a little role in the grammatical structure of a language.

well, the usage is similar to that of French 'de,' that's what I was trying to point out.

[Nobody]

I did know what you mean.
But what I'd tried to explain is, that loads of words had appeared much later, so that we cannot use them as evidences on germanic or celtic roots.

"de", "of", "von"(German) have all the similar usage.
The Queen of England.
Die Koenigin von England. (German)

However and no matter whereabout English orignal birth was. English language became a mixture and form her own culture.

They are two different topics.
About the etymology I totally agree with you.
About the origin or/and birth is another topic.

Vreddy, probable you won't believe there are some other institutes they believe the English language is not a culture. (The critics were very hard. Those institutes are "surprisingly" from the USA and England )

Fact is, germanic <> celtic <> or non-culture, they are all with their philosophy correct.

[vreddy]

well, your way of saying goes like thus: There exists usage of 'of' in any other lingo--be it Zakada in Africa, or German. The point is not just comparing. It is about calquing process in the creole langauges. A group of people in India migrated to Carebbian Islands; they too learned English there. But they crammed local vocabulary into the grammatical structure they borrowed from some Indian languages. Of course, they are many uses of 'of,' I was referring to dummy 'of' phenomenon.

From a book:
[quote]
Don’t readers of grammars sometimes wonder why grammarians force English into an alien mould? Wasn’t the dummy-of in outside of (which simply calques French hors de and is quite consistent with the English system) formerly denounced simply for not being Germanic (Anglo-Saxon)? Doesn’t a quick look at the small difference between comparatives and superlatives in French show why English might prefer the superlative to the comparative in "That’s the best of the two"? Grammarians seem to think that English is a direct descendent of Anglo-Saxon because both were spoken on the same territory, though such reasoning would mean that English in Ireland descends from Gaelic!

The traditional abhorrence of dummy-of following all and both, and in many other contexts is based on grammarians' false idea that English comes from Anglo-Saxon (a Germanic language) rather than from Old French
[unquote]

[Nobody]

lol, I know this article.
It reminds me of a funny situation!
Once when I took a train I heard two elder men quarreling about the existence of Europe's languages. One was from India, the other man was Greek. The Greek one was the noisiest.
I still remember he said:
"Without Greece there won't be any language possible, without language we won't have computers today."
I smiled
However, Vreddy, I do not say he was wrong. They were all correct with their philosophy.
Since I became a teacher, I changed a lot. I like to listen to different opinions. I would give my opinion. But I would never think others' opinions are incorrect.
If only one opinion is the "ultra-solver", I would know one side of the coin only.
In fact I love it if my students have different opinions with me.
That let me know, that they pay attention.

I want remind you:
That's just calquing le francais. French uses de "of" in ways that
English "of" just goes along with.
That's correct!
May I add something?
French uses de and German von "of" in ways that
English "of" just goes along with.

[vreddy]

That's the rhetoric of social sciences.

Do I read it to see that the you also have good arguments for your point of view like many of the others have good arguments for their point of view? To feel that none of their accounts are either true or false? And then to happily conclude that another 'truth' has been added to the many 'truths' which inhabit our planet? Taking this route, I will not learn anything about the world.

Compare the situation to the following: Galileo claimed the earth revolves around the sun, while his contemporaries claimed that the sun revolves around the earth. As an inhabitant of the 17th century, one could not just assess these two isolated claims to find out whether the Copernican system was to be preferred. One had to consider Galileo's entire hypothesis including all of its theoretical implications and empirical evidence before concluding which description of the universe was superior.

When Galileo said that the earth revolves around the sun he was not
just expressing his personal view, his investigations allowed him to
*demonstrate* to other people that this was the case.

So, it is about implications, not the normative dogma--listen and respect(in your world, accepting it as another explanation/truth) everybody's opinion. LOL