Very precise, very easy question on EU.

(Altought a surprising one...)

Well, what is exactly the difference between something like ''The Hand of Thrawn'' and ''Thrawn's Hand'' ? I mean, gramatically, why the first form was taken, instead of the second ?

(I must explain that in my first language, french, The Hand of Thrawn and Thrawn's Hand are translated exactly the same way : La Main de Thrawn)

 

The difference is really just a plot device. Mara Jade was known as the "Emperor's Hnad" so when they heard about "Thrawn's Hand" they just asssumed it was a person. Then they found out it was a building, shaped like a hand, a "Hand of Thrawn." Gramatically, there's really no difference.

 

Gramatically, there's no difference. But 'The Hand of Thrawn' sounds more imposing than 'Thrawn's Hand', IMHO.

 

The construction "Hand of Thrawn" implies a metaphor-- we know we're not talking about Thrawn's literal hand.

"Thrawn's Hand" is a bit more ambiguous. It might be a metaphor, it might be a literal hand.

The "of" possessive construction implies formality. The "'s" construction implies informality or familiarity (most of the time.)

 

I thought VoF made it pretty clear what the Hand of Thrawn/Thrawn's Hand was....

 

No difference. "Hand of Thrawn" was it's official name, "Thrawn's Hand" is simply a shorter way of saying it. The translation simply translated equivalent terms into one term. The same thing happens when translating French into English.

 

If you were going to use it in terms of the Emperor, the Emperor's hand implies a physical object, be it Mara Jade or his actual hand. The Hand of the Emperor could mean his sphere of influence or refer to his power. It could also refer to military plans/buildings/ships. In this last case, the Emperor's Hand would not be used. It might just be a formality issue, but usually placement of words in the English language directly influence their meaning, unlike other Latin-based languages.