possessive - Why do you think the Oxford English Dictionary modified their definition of "of?"

Of 'of': Expressing Possession and Being Possessed

I would like to discuss changes made to the definition of 'of' in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) from the 1989 edition to the 2010 edition. Below are 2 discussion topics regarding 2 changes to the definitions of 'of' that I believe are significant:

Discussion Topic 1:

This was the definition of 'of' from the 1989 edition of the OED:

XIV. In the sense belonging or pertaining to; expressing possession and its converse: 'the owner of the house', 'the house of the owner'.

Formerly expressed by the genitive, and still to some extent by the possessive case (with transposition of order). The use of 'of' began in Old English with senses 47, 48, expressing origin. After the Norman Conquest the example of the French 'de', which had taken the place of the L. genitive, caused the gradual extension of 'of' to all uses in which Old English had the genitive; the purely possessive sense was the last to be so affected, and it is that in which the genitive or 'possessive' case is still chiefly used. Thus, we say the King's English, in preference to the English of the King; but the King of England in preference to England's King, which is not natural or ordinary prose English.

I went on-line and found the September 2010 revision:

X. Expressing possession and being possessed Eg 'the owner of the house', 'the house of the owner'. Generally regarded as one of the central uses of the word.

Formerly expressed by the genitive case, and still to some extent by the genitive of nouns (especially proper names) and possessive adjectives (with transposition of order). The use of 'of' began in Old English with senses 33, 34, expressing origin. After the Norman Conquest the example of the French 'de', which had taken the place of the Latin genitive, caused the gradual extension of of to all uses in which Old English had the genitive; the purely possessive sense was the last to be so affected, and it is that in which the genitive or 'possessive' case is still chiefly used. Thus, we say the King's English, in preference to the English of the King; but the King of England in preference to England's King, which is not natural or ordinary prose English.

The 'pertaining to' condition has been removed and the choice of words condensed to 'Expressing possession and being possessed' along with the comment 'Generally regarded as one of the central uses of the word,' is, in my opinion, significant.

Discussion Topic 2:

I'd like to highlight another change below:

1989 OED version:

50. Belonging to a thing, as something related in a way defined or implied by its nature where the its refers to the 'something' that belongs to the thing.

And the 2010 OED on-line definition of 'of' which reads:

36. Belonging to a thing, as a logical consequence of its nature.

The 'something' that was mentioned in the earlier definition has been strategically removed and been replaced by 'a logical consequence of' the thing's nature.

In my opinion, by not mentioning the 'something' of the earlier definition, valuable information has been lost concerning the intricate nature of the relationship between this word and the thought it is intended to convey in that context, though it could be argued that this is a matter of grammar and not one of definition the change itself seems to me to be overly strategic.

The two OED editions then go on to give the same examples: e.g. the cause, effect, origin, reason, result of; the correlative, counterpart, match, opposite, original of; a copy, derivative, image, likeness of; the square, cube, logarithm, tangent, differential, or other mathematical function of. See under these words.

Grouped as follows: 1) the cause, effect, origin, reason, result of; 2) the correlative, counterpart, match, opposite, original of; 3) a copy, derivative, image, likeness of; 4) the square, cube, logarithm, tangent, differential, or other mathematical function of.

Could you please contact me with your thoughts about these particular changes in the definition of 'of.'

Are people using 'of' differently today than they were 20 years ago? For example, the comment "Generally regarded as one of the central uses of the word." that was not present 20 years ago.

Also, the shift in the logic outlined in discussion topic 2 should be of interest to anyone with a genuine interest in the English language.

My question is about the English language and a change in the definition of one of its most important prepositions and what affect this will have on future generations who will be using this "new and improved" definition who probably will not see the subtle shift in meaning that has occurred since the 1989 edition.

Please keep in mind that as The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language mentions: "'Of' is the most highly grammaticalised of all prepositions."