0
Stenka25 Posted 12 years ago
Vocabulary
The most notorious of capitalists vs. the most notorious capitalists
The sentence below is from “Rational Optimist”.
In the sentence the underlined part causes me to wonder not only that whether it somehow means almost the same as “the most notorious capitalists” but also whether it is, however subtle, different from the latter since it has ‘of’ followed by ‘capitalists’. I have read in a book a linguistic maxim, which says that if we have different word order or composition its meaning is different in precise sense.
Do you agree with my line of thought? If you do, can you tell me the subtle difference between the two almost same phrase in appearance and meaning? I have already tried several reference books to work out this question without success.
In addition if you can, can you also present a few example phrases to show that difference?
http://governmentgirl1943lp.typepad.com/blog/2011/09/idea-log-15092011.html
Even the most notorious of capitalists, the robber barons of the late nineteenth century, usually got rich by making things cheaper.
In the sentence the underlined part causes me to wonder not only that whether it somehow means almost the same as “the most notorious capitalists” but also whether it is, however subtle, different from the latter since it has ‘of’ followed by ‘capitalists’. I have read in a book a linguistic maxim, which says that if we have different word order or composition its meaning is different in precise sense.
Do you agree with my line of thought? If you do, can you tell me the subtle difference between the two almost same phrase in appearance and meaning? I have already tried several reference books to work out this question without success.
In addition if you can, can you also present a few example phrases to show that difference?
http://governmentgirl1943lp.typepad.com/blog/2011/09/idea-log-15092011.html
Even the most notorious of capitalists, the robber barons of the late nineteenth century, usually got rich by making things cheaper.
Top answer
In this context, the 'of' is necessary because it denotes a (one) group of capitalists ( the robber barons) , rather than all the most notoriuos capitalists , regardless of which group they belonged to.
- In this context, the 'of' is necessary because it denotes a (one) group of capitalists ( the robber barons) , rather than all the most notoriuos capitalists , regardless of which group they belonged to.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
In this context, the 'of' is necessary because it denotes a (one) group of capitalists ( the robber barons) , rather than all the most notoriuos capitalists , regardless of which group they belonged to.
00
0
Stenka25I have read in a book a linguistic maxim, which says that if we have different word order or composition, its meaning is different in a precise sense.That could very well be, but does it also say in that book that it may be impossible to express in words what this difference might
0
Related Questions