4 ms·
What about it is objectively wrong? Semantics? There are plenty of words that contain 'of' in the definition, yet are used with of "Because of" being the prima
by casey2 3y ago
What about it is objectively wrong?
Semantics? There are plenty of words that contain 'of' in the definition, yet are used with of "Because of" being the primary example, and afaict is allowed on Wikipedia.
Grammar? "Possessed of" "descended from" etc. This is also very common.
- riwsky 3y ago‘Of’ is not itself the problem. The problem is that the direction has flipped from the original usage. It’s like if instead of “my book collection includes all the classics of Russian literature” people started saying “my book collection is included by all the classics of Russian literature”