0

I am struggling with when to use "be of", its different meanings and alternatives like "have". I did read another thread on this on this site but still not quite sure.

These two pictures are of 8.5-day-old mouse embryo. (The Economist)

The theologian Basil the Great reported that the dominant view of hell among the believers he knew was of a limited, “purgatorial” suffering. (NYT)

Some definitions say "be of" means:

  • possess intrinsically; give rise to. "this work is of great interest and value"
  • indicating a quality or other distinguishing mark by which a person or thing is characterized, identified or described.

But both don't seem to fit the meaning in The Economist example on pictures. If we just use "have", do we lose some subtle meaning?

For the second example on dominant views of hell, does it mean the views "have a quality/element of purgatorial suffering" or "give rise to purgatorial suffering"?

Sphinx
  • 7
  • 1
    If I take a picture *of* you. Then that picture *is of* you. – Jim Sep 03 '22 at 05:25
  • But that important sense of be of (the mimetic sense) takes a lot of philosophical ink to unpack or explain at all fully. And that it has certainly received, starting with Plato and Aristotle, who regarded the fine arts as generally mimetic. – Brian Donovan Sep 03 '22 at 12:18

2 Answers2

1

The first example could be rephrased as

These two pictures are pictures of 8.5-day-old mouse embryo.

The additional "pictures" has been dropped.

To rephrase the second example similarly I would start by noting that the reference to suffering is a reference to hell, not a reference to a view. I would get

The theologian Basil the Great reported that the dominant view of hell among the believers he knew was hell of a limited, “purgatorial” suffering.

This is not quite clear or grammatical, but indicates the believers thought that the suffering of souls in hell would be a limited, purgatorial suffering.

Peter
  • 4,830
  • 11
  • 25
  • 1
    … dominant view of hell was of a hell with limited “purgatorial” suffering. – Jim Sep 04 '22 at 17:47
0

These two pictures are of 8.5-day-old mouse embryos.

You have analysed the sentence wrongly.

These two pictures = noun phrase as subject

are = copula

of =preposition

8.5-day-old mouse embryos = noun phrase as the object of the preposition "of"

Preposition + NP = modifier

In this case, "of 8.5-day-old mouse embryos" is the adjectival complement of "These two pictures."

Consider

These two pictures are 8.5-day-old mouse embryos. -> it is patently obvious that the pictures are photographs - they are not mouse embryos.

These two pictures are of 8.5-day-old mouse embryos. = These two pictures depict 8.5-day-old mouse embryos.

Greybeard
  • 41,737
  • Thanks! Then what does "of + noun phrase", the modifier, mean? From the answer in this post, it seems to be able to mean many things including possessing, giving rise to, having some quality of (the noun phrases) and many others... ?https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/205571/how-does-be-of-combine-to-mean-possess-give-rise-to – Sphinx Sep 03 '22 at 10:58
  • That sounds like a new question - the short story is that "of" = from. It indicates the origin of the picture. – Greybeard Sep 03 '22 at 12:40
  • But only with the word picture. Picture nouns have their own grammar. – John Lawler Sep 03 '22 at 16:25
  • @Greybeard - Surely of in a picture of means 'showing, depicting'? – Kate Bunting Sep 03 '22 at 17:08
  • @KateBunting :) although that fits, I think it is coincidental. I can't think of another, distinct, instance of that meaning. – Greybeard Sep 03 '22 at 22:26
  • 1
    The 'depicting' sense comes from the grammar of picture nouns. Picture nouns depict, and we search for the image. Of has no meaning outside its use in various constructions; it's just a gear that fits a lot of other gears with particular purposes. – John Lawler Sep 03 '22 at 23:02