English Language & Usage Asked on December 11, 2020
Are the following two constructions substitutes? In other words, can they be used as an alternative to each other?
• The boy broke the knob of the door.
• The boy broke the knob on the door.
If the answer is ‘Yes’, would there be any difference in meaning?
“The boy broke the knob of the door.” All we know is that the knob belonging to the door was broken by the boy. We do not know if the knob was attached to the door or not. It may have been on the door or it may have been removed for repair, or was being prepared for installation.
“The boy broke the knob on the door.” This is ambiguous. He may have struck a hard door with a delicate knob - perhaps ceramic, thus breaking the knob. Or he may have broken the knob (that was) on the door while the knob was attached to (=on) the door.
In conclusion, your statements are not necessarily saying the same thing.
Other prepositions such as off or from pose the same problems. For example: “The boy broke the knob off the door.” This is ambiguous. He may have forcibly removed (broken off) the knob. Or he may have broken a knob that was already off the door. This use of off the door as synonymous with of the door is idiomatic.
Correct answer by Anton on December 11, 2020
As Robusto points out the second is the most commonly used but they mean the same. One conceivable use of number two would be if the boy had broken the knob against the door, as in breaking a melon against the pavement. The first would be a more stilted use, perhaps in answer to a specific question about what had been broken or how. In any event the boy seems to have issues.
Answered by Elliot on December 11, 2020
Get help from others!
Recent Questions
Recent Answers
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP