"of which...of"

[Victor Steinbok]

I see all three different--he was ignorant _of the cause_ *of [the
phenomena]*, replacing [the phenomena] with "which". The first "of" goes
with "explanation of phenomena"--that does not seem to bother anyone.
The second is "cause *of the phenomena*". The third is ignorant _of the
cause_". No two of these are actually the same. This is about as well as
I can do without diagramming the sentence.

      VS-)

On 5/18/2012 3:13 PM, Dan Goncharoff wrote:
> Which two of the three ofs are you referring to? I believe the second and
> third are the same.
> DanG
>
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Barbara Need<bhneed at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> But the two _of_s are different--at least in the example below:
>>
>> The early mariner is ignorant of the cause  of numerous phenomena.
>>
>> Barbara
>>
>> Barbara Need
>> Etna, NY
>>
>> On 17 May 2012, at 7:18 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>>
>>> Unless I miss my guess, this truly nonstandard construction is usually
>>> associated with latter-day neophyte writers.
>>>
>>> However, here's a 1928 ex. from an academic writer that sailed through
>>> copy-editing. I assume it was a slip of the pen:
>>>
>>>
>>> 1928 Angelo S. Rappoport _Superstitions of Sailors_ (London: S.
>>> Paul) vii:
>>> It may be attributed to three sources, viz.: Firstly, the
>>> interpretation and explanation of numerous phenomena actually observed, but the
>>> cause of which the early mariner was still ignorant of.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org