I heard a newsreader say “the Liberian capital of Monrovia”, and it sounded strange - I thought it should have been “the Liberian capital, Monrovia”. But then I thought of other similar formations such as “the Canadian province of Quebec”, “the phenomenon of matter-antimatter annihilation” or “the venerable tradition of hazing rookies”.
If “of” is okay for apposition in those cases, why is it not okay in “the Liberian capital of Monrovia”? Or is it?
8 a – used as a function word to indicate a particular example belonging to the class denoted by the preceding noun <the city of Rome> b – used as a function word to indicate apposition <that fool of a husband>
OK, it’s an octenary (if that’s a real word) definition, but it is ok.
These don’t sound right to me. Looking at the dictionary cite of Earl S-H. T., the first part needs to be a generic class, with the object of ‘of’ being the specified member of the class. But with my examples and with “the Liberian capital,” we don’t have a class, we have a specific item.
This calls for an apposition:
The Liberian capital, Monrovia, is in shambles…
The American capital, Washington, DC, swelters in the summer…
The governor’s home, Gracie Mansion, was abuzz…
However, your example of “The Canadian province of Quebec” and the dictionary’s example of “The city of Rome” do work. As would “The Liberian city of Monrovia,” or the “the beltway enclosure of Washington, DC.”
And how exactly, by your own citation, is “the Liberian capital” a “class” to which “Monrovia” is appositive? It’s not, “the Liberian capital” is a specific item, and thus, does not fit definition 8b.
IOW, do you claim that “The French capital of Paris” sounds OK to you?
Dignan: Argh. You’re right. I meant the mayor’s home.
A web search throws up numerous examples of phrases such as “Russian capital of Moscow” (from Wikipedia), “the Columbian capital of Bogota” ([Washington University School of Law website](the Columbian capital of Bogota)), “the Argentinian capital of Buenos Aires” (The Guardian newspaper (London)), “the Dutch capital of Amsterdam” (Brunel University website, London), “the Hungarian capital of Budapest” (Business Day newspaper in South Africa) and hundreds other references to different countries from apparently literate websites.
The use mentioned above is what in Latin grammars is called a genitive of definition, or what the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary more prosaically calls the “(THAT IS/ARE)” sense of “of”. Normally this is used with a general class, as with “the city of Rome”, but the examples show it is also used with unique specifiers such as “the Liberian capital”. (And I’d like to see anyone prove that it’s ungrammatical.)
Oops, I meant 8a. And thus, since 8a mentions class, then it is relevant whether “the Liberian capital” is a class.
Funny that m-w’s definition of apposition:
doesn’t mention the construction of ‘of’ (an in ''X of Y") as a way to construct an apposition. And besides, the example given in 8b fits into the construction of 8a, (“class” of “specific member of that class” – that fool of a husband – husband belongs to the class of fools.)
Well, now we’re venturing into the Great Debates section of philosophy of grammar and whence rules of grammar and the use of grammatical rules derived from popular usage restricting changes of popular usage.
Basically, if it sound wrong to most people, it is not grammatically correct. The OP didn’t think it was correct. And the m-w citation defense doesn’t defend it goodly[sup]1[/sup].
Peace.
[sup]1[/sup]Remember, just because it sounds slightly odd or inelegant doesn’t necessarily mean it is disgrammatic[sup]2[/sup].