Problems with usages of “of”
I don’t understand their usages.
Is this a safety check?
My analysis of the algorithm
is useless if I didn’t understand the principles and how they boil down. Even more, I’d argue that a course in algorithms would be of more utilitarian in understanding how most efficient inference schemes boil down.
Why are the examples shown above useful? What is the most complex and amazing example of this point of view? If I remove from 1st sentence, the sentence will be awkward, I feel it but for the last one, I am totally speechless.
Is it legitimate
to say, It’s more like
- a sanity check than anything?
What is the best way to tell a story to an entire generation to give a voice to their opinion?
Of here is neither redundant nor much different from its conventional use. Why do omitted phrases haveellipses in they should be an important part of a sanity check?
“even more” (in the nature) of a hack
of is not much different from like that you correctly, though not accurately guessed.
In last instance, it is the phrase be of and not the standalone of :
I’d argue that a course in algorithm design would be of more utility in understanding how most efficient inference schemes boil down.
Your first two examples are a special use of of that’s not readily understandable by reference to its other uses. I am always shocked. In each of them, the of is optional (More of a Sanity Check” = “More of a Sanity Check”; “More of a Hack” = “More of a hack”), and serves to introduce a singular countable predicate that’s modified by more. What does the same happen with less (“it’s not a problem”) and much (your thoughts on me) and less (“Would you think me less of a man today? “the “), and a few other adverbs of quantity. It doesn’t generally happen with non-count nouns, nor with plural nouns; *”they’re more of sanity checks than anything” and *”there’s not much of reason” are both ungrammatical, or at least, very awkward. Even with singular count nouns, I think this use of of may be specific to some dialects; I (an American) find it perfectly normal, but I’ve heard Britons describe it as a strange Americanism.
You have another example. It’s called ” where ” links together two adjectives. The core of the sentence is, “A course would be of utility”, which means “A course would be useful.” “It’s
more like a sanity check than anything” is grammatically correct but would not have quite the same meaning. If you have to tell someone something about it as a sanity check, and want to rephrase it, ‘It’s a sanity check more than anything.’ Well, this ain’t it. ”
“
Your first two examples are a special use of of that’s not readily understandable by reference to its other uses. I am always shocked. In each of them, the of is optional (More of a Sanity Check” = “More of a Sanity Check”; “More of a Hack” = “More of a hack”), and serves to introduce a singular countable predicate that’s modified by more. What does the same happen with less (“it’s not a problem”) and much (your thoughts on me) and less (“Would you think me less of a man today? “the “), and a few other adverbs of quantity. It doesn’t generally happen with non-count nouns, nor with plural nouns; *”they’re more of sanity checks than anything” and *”there’s not much of reason” are both ungrammatical, or at least, very awkward. Even with singular count nouns, I think this use of of may be specific to some dialects; I (an American) find it perfectly normal, but I’ve heard Britons describe it as a strange Americanism.
You have another example. It’s called ” where ” links together two adjectives. The core of the sentence is, “A course would be of utility”, which means “A course would be useful.” “It’s
more like a sanity check than anything” is grammatically correct but would not have quite the same meaning. If you have to tell someone something about it as a sanity check, and want to rephrase it, ‘It’s a sanity check more than anything.’ Well, this ain’t it. ”
“
