when I was looking up for a word in the dictionary, as usual I was distracted by a word and assumed not bad to catch a glimpse at the definition, it was ‘oncology ‘ .
the definition says:
(The scientific study of and treatment of tumors in the body).
The more I read this sentence the more I feel that the first preposition “of” is unnecessary and to me this sentence should sound : the scientific study and treatment of the body, as the second “of” refers to both ‘study’ and “treatment” and naturally suggests the omission of first “of”
Source: Oxford Dictionary (advanced learner). 2001.
i will appreciate all answers and comment accordingly.
2007-01-24 02:31:21 · 6 answers · asked by Mr.question 1 in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
thanks to all,so i was right? if i'd read it somewhere else, i'd have simply pass it, but can we expect. oxford Dictionary suchlike?
2007-01-24 02:52:23 · update #1
It is necessary. If there were only one 'of' and the sentence read 'study and treatment of' then oncology would only be when one both studied and treated tumors. Instead, since oncology refers to when one studies OR treats, the additional 'of' must be placed in order to seperate.
If that didn't make sense, look at it this way: there are doctors who treat cancer. There are ones who study cancer. I don't know if ones exist who do both or not, but for the sake of this question, let's assume they do.
The sentence with one 'of' would refer only to the third person named- who treats AND studies. The sentence with 'of' twice seperates the verbs and therefore refers to both of the first two oncologists described above.
2007-01-24 02:53:52 · answer #1 · answered by imjustasteph 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's redundant. One 'of' is enough. If we omit the first 'of', then the sentence would read:
"The scientific study and treatment of tumors in the body"
See? Scientific "study and treatment" of tumors. Why stuff all those unncessary of's? If the author is trying to avoid having the reader read it as "scientific study, and treatment..." he could just avoid using the coma, which he did. I contend that anyone who reads the above quoted sentence would discern that the author is saying "study of tumors in the body and treatment of tumors in the body".
2007-01-24 10:48:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep the first "of" is technically unnecessary. It could read "The scientific study and treatment of tumors in the body" Both the study and treatment applies to tumors, so more than one of is not required.
2007-01-24 10:42:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the 'second of' does not refer to both 'study' and 'treatment'. Do read the sentence again, it is correct.
2007-01-24 10:38:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i SO agree with you. That is something that has been bothering me like crazy. I seem to have developed a slight grammar obsession. I will often find misspellings or people using words wrong (i.e. the over use of "blatantly" or "ironic") ...especially in text books or official documents. Its ridiculous....and annoying.
There should definitely be only ONE "of" in that definition.
2007-01-24 10:42:55 · answer #5 · answered by LadyT 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first "of" is indeed unnecessary, but not incorrect. Sometimes a little redundancy makes the meaning clearer.
2007-01-24 10:43:19 · answer #6 · answered by Goddess of Grammar 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋