Teacher Discussion Forums

The following is taken from My Grammar Is Rich by Michael Brookes:

A sepaker or writer of English may decide to emphasise a noun, and this he can do by placing it at the end of the noun phrase. Compare:

There are many hypotheses concerning J.F. Kennedy's assassination.
The whole world was shocked by the assassination of J.F. Kennedy.

The first sentence therefore focuses on the way he was killed, the second on the fact that it was J.F. Kennedy who was the victim.

Do you agree? I'll say what I think later but I don't want to influence anyone's replies just yet.

lolwhites wrote:The following is taken from My Grammar Is Rich by Michael Brookes:

A sepaker or writer of English may decide to emphasise a noun, and this he can do by placing it at the end of the noun phrase. Compare:

There are many hypotheses concerning J.F. Kennedy's assassination.
The whole world was shocked by the assassination of J.F. Kennedy.

The first sentence therefore focuses on the way he was killed, the second on the fact that it was J.F. Kennedy who was the victim.

Do you agree? I'll say what I think later but I don't want to influence anyone's replies just yet.

In part, I'd agree. But, one feels less formal than the other. So, there could be other reasons for the choice between each use.

lolwhites wrote:The following is taken from My Grammar Is Rich by Michael Brookes:

A sepaker or writer of English may decide to emphasise a noun, and this he can do by placing it at the end of the noun phrase. Compare:

There are many hypotheses concerning J.F. Kennedy's assassination.
The whole world was shocked by the assassination of J.F. Kennedy.

The first sentence therefore focuses on the way he was killed, the second on the fact that it was J.F. Kennedy who was the victim.

Do you agree? I'll say what I think later but I don't want to influence anyone's replies just yet.

I see summat else.
1/ The volume of hypotheses is noteworthy.
2/ The fact that the world was shocked, such was the impact.

My view is:

The first sentence focuses on the way JFK was killed because it says There are many hypotheses concerning... i.e. many theories concerning who/how/why... while the second sentence focuses on the fact the JFL was killed because it says The whole world was shocked (that he was killed - duh!) - word order in the noun phrase doesn't enter into it. The noun phrases could be swapped and the emphasis wouldn't change much. If the sentences were spoken, intonation would override everything else anyway.

I agree with Metal that the main distinction is formality, though there may be contexts (not in Brookes' examples) where 's could be ambiguous. Compare Germany's invasion (of Poland) with Poland's invasion by Germany

I think Brookes is simply wrong with his example here. As lolwhites says, change the genitives round and there is no discernible difference.

Often it is a question of the relative length of the two parts that decides which of the two forms is chosen.

We are more likely to say
Smith's out-of-the blue admissions to a tabloid newspaper
and
The resignation of the Acting Undersecretary of State for Park Bench Procurement (Scotland and Wales)
than the alternative word orders.