"Of" used to say which specific thing belonging to a more general type you are referring to

Question

"Of" can be used to describe the relationship between two close things, one thing being kind of an explanatory element. And gerund is frequently used. For example:

The idea of getting into the cave unnerved me. 
  
  The test of enduring heat as long as I can resulted in some major burns.

But if I apply this principle to certain sentences....

The irresponsibility of leaving the trash behind angered his boss.
  
  The thoughtlessness of running into a ghost house resulted in his death.

This sounds stretched and kind of unnatural... But I'm not a native speaker, so I thought it better to ask you guys. Are they grammatically wrong? And if yes, why is that? And if no, is it possible to use this characteristic of "of" with every other nouns?

Nemo · Answer

The part after "of" in your examples is not a mere specification, it's a subordinate clause which determines the subject of the main clause.

I would call them declarative sentences, but I see that Otto Jespersen calls them content clauses. It's irrelevant that in your examples the declarative is a noun phrase (with an indefinite verb), while that followed by a definite verb is more common. Perhaps some transformations can show this better.

Thinking that I would go into the cave unnerved me.

Can become:

The thought of going into the cave unnerved me.

And in the last two sentences you could do without the noun which is nominally the subject of the main sentence:

The thoughtlessness of running into a ghost house resulted in his death.

could just be

Running into a ghost house resulted in his death.

The term "content clause" ties well with this example: it's not the mere thinking that killed him, but the content of his (not) thinking, i.e. the act of running into the house (without thinking).

"Of" used to say which specific thing belonging to a more general type you are referring to

One Answer

Add your own answers!

Ask a Question