1

Upd.: I added the results of Ngram at the ending of this post.

I have some sources below which I can make the next conclusions from:

  1. "the bowl of the dog" is incorrect

  2. "the house of the dog" is correct

  3. "the tail of the dog" is correct

Why are numbers 2. and 3. correct, but 1. not? What is the difference between them all?

Now, in detail:


1) forum.wordreference.com:

I think "That's a bowl of my dog" is grammatically wrong.

forum.wordreference.com:

'This is the house of the dog' may be grammatically correct, but it's a pretty unlikely sentence. We would naturally say 'This is the dog's house.'

'This is the bowl of the dog' ... would sound ... odd.

So, 1. "…the bowl of the dog" is incorrect


2) englishforums.com:

the double possessive is pretty much always used with people ...: "This is a friend of Laura's" ... a dog isn't a person. So "This is the house of the dog" is fine.

So, 2. "…the house of the dog" is correct


3) english.stackexchange.com:

Of the two:

  • The dog's tail.
  • The tail of the dog.

Grammatically, both are correct.
[…] when writing, it is advantageous to communicate your point with as few words as possible making your point clear and concise. Hence, why "The dog's tail" is preferential in colloquial english as opposed to "The tail of the dog."

So, 3. "the tail of the dog" is correct


Why are numbers 2. and 3. correct, but 1. not? What is the difference between them all? For me they are all the same.


Upd.:

"house of * dog" vs "dog's house" — Nobody uses "house of * dog":

"house of * dog" and "dog's house"

"bowl of * dog" vs "dog's bowl" — Nobody uses "bowl of * dog" (without taking into account "bowl of dry dog food"):

"bowl of * dog" and "dog's bowl"

"tail of * dog" vs "dog's tail" — Sometimes people can use "tail of * dog":

"tail of * dog" and "dog's tail"

To make it clearer:

"tail of a/the dog" vs "a/the dog's tail":

"tail of a/the dog" and "a/the dog's tail"

"tail of my/your/... dog" vs "my/your/... dog's tail":

"tail of my/your/... dog" and "my/your/... dog's tail"

So, why can people use "tail of * dog" but not use "bowl/house of * dog"?

Thanks!

Loviii
  • 537
  • 1
  • 6
  • 18
  • The bowl of the dog and the house of the dog may be grammatically correct, but they are both incredibly uncommon. Your second source is just wrong. – Peter Shor Jun 25 '19 at 23:22
  • Why are the phrases with "bowl" and "house" very unlikely? 2) Why do you not say that the phrase with "tail" is very unlikely too? Thanks!
  • – Loviii Jun 25 '19 at 23:26
  • Because Google shows that the tail of the dog, the head of the dog, the feet of the dog, the hair of the dog, the teeth of the dog are not incredibly uncommon. (And they all sound okay to me as a native English speaker, which the other two sound wrong.) – Peter Shor Jun 25 '19 at 23:30
  • Cascabel, I didn't quite understand what you mean. After each source I placed the quote from this source. – Loviii Jun 25 '19 at 23:32
  • Peter Shor, 1) Why do the phrases with "bowl" and "house" not sound okay to you? 2) Why does the phrase with "tail" sound ok to you? 3) What is the difference between them? Thanks! – Loviii Jun 25 '19 at 23:40
  • Cascabel, Did I do now as you want or not? – Loviii Jun 26 '19 at 00:08
  • Please notice that I gave you a +1 for the edit – Cascabel_StandWithUkraine_ Jun 26 '19 at 00:20
  • I think these distinctions often result from the chance fact that some phrase became familiar. For example the saying "the hair of the dog that bit you" seems more natural and less confusing than "the dog's hair that bit you." Maybe phrases like that one habituated us to "the hair of the dog," and by more comfortable analogy "the tail of the dog," but not "the bowl of the dog." It appears from the comments that we don't all have the same intuition about what sounds natural. – Chaim Jul 26 '19 at 16:24
  • 1
    @Chaim - and in that context, “the bowl of the dog with long hair is empty” sounds fine to me, as does “The long-haired dog’s bowl is empty.” – Jim Jul 26 '19 at 19:41
  • @Jim Well I'm not sure what's at stake any more. The original question was, why do some speakers object to "the bowl of the dog" but not "the house of the dog" or "the tail of the dog." My suggestion was that the difference is just one of idiom and that different speakers will have different senses of what's idiomatic. You're agreeing with that remark? – Chaim Jul 30 '19 at 18:16