meta: This is my first time on your site. I have been teaching English for longer than I care to mention (native speaker).

I am trying to find a way of explaining to some intermediate students why we can say, for example, "the Channel Tunnel entrance" (in Folkestone) but we cannot say "the Eiffel Tower top".

I have seen some discussions on use of noun adjuncts/possessive but not on this example using of.

  • You could technically use 'the Eiffel Tower upper floors'. No-one would literally be on 'the Eiffel Tower top' :)
    – Ronan
    Mar 18, 2014 at 16:09
  • 1
    Why can't we say "the Eiffel Tower top"? Isn't it just another way to say "the top of the eiffel Tower"? Mar 18, 2014 at 16:12
  • Thanks for your answer. I certainly would be inclined to say we went to the top of the Eiffel Tower but never say Eiffel Tower top. It's usage, but I don't know the rule (if there is one ;-)
    – Jennifer
    Mar 18, 2014 at 16:17
  • The general tendency -- and it's no more than a tendency -- is for the Germanic -'s possessive to be used for persons (or living beings) possessing, while the Romance of possessive is used for non-living things. Even (perhaps especially) metaphorically: e.g, Bill's foot ~ ??the foot of Bill, the dog's nose ~ ?the nose of the dog, ??the table's head/leg/foot ~ the head/leg/foot of the table. Mar 18, 2014 at 17:06
  • I don't see much that is discordant about 'The Eiffel-Tower summit'. But I tend to agree that some of these expressions sound right, others don't; and I suppose it is a question of custom. For example I might say the 'Everest summit', but 'the summit of Mount Everest'. With the full formal name it seems more essential to use the 'of' form.
    – WS2
    Mar 18, 2014 at 18:06

1 Answer 1


I'm intuiting that it's to do with compositionality - that is, the Channel Tunnel entrance is a component of the Channel Tunnel, but the top of the Eiffel Tower isn't a part of the Tower - it's a location on it. Just as you can't say the Channel Tunnel middle/end/beginning. Channel Tunnel start is questionable.

I think the explanation would be:

  • If the entity is a component of the whole (Eiffel tower base/stairs/lifts) then you can use it as a qualifier, otherwise;
  • You need to use it as a focus (the bottom/top/middle/outside of the Eiffel Tower)
  • 2
    Thank you for your input, sounds pretty good to me. This is really a difficult area for learners of English as I have never found a hard and fast rule. I have just looked up compositionality which is apparently a hotly debated subject, thank you for your insights.
    – Jennifer
    Mar 19, 2014 at 14:08
  • @jennifer Agreed, in fact, as native speakers, often concepts that we can intuit are difficult to verbalise. Although you and I can look at any given utterance and "feel" whether it is grammatical, this unconscious mastery means that we can necessarily teach it to others.
    – jimsug
    Mar 19, 2014 at 14:34
  • @jimsugDid you mean to say "doesn't mean" rather than "mean"? I hope so;-) otherwise I don't understand. Thanks.
    – Jennifer
    Mar 19, 2014 at 16:11
  • @jennifer absolutely.
    – jimsug
    Mar 19, 2014 at 20:11
  • I am not shouting from the roof tops but this argument holds little water.
    – Kris
    Feb 6, 2015 at 12:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.