Re: observable language change - "off of" makes it to the NY Times

On Aug 12, 11:11 am, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 11, 5:42 pm, "benli...@xxxxxxxxxx" <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Aug 12, 8:05 am, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Aug 11, 3:04 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2008-08-10, Brian M. Scott wrote:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:18:29 -0700 (PDT),
<analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:47020cff-57cc-4340-9bd7-2956455923af@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
in sci.lang:

start quote:

Overnight, Russia landed ground troops off of warships
into the disputed territory of Abkhazia and broadened its
bombing campaign to the Georgian capital’s airport.

end quote.

Whats next - "I'm like" for "I said" ?

Different category altogether. See, for instance,
<http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html> (search
for 'off of').

I agree with you. There are plenty of other "compound prepositions"
in English: "He came down from the top of the hill while we were
walking up to it."

Of course, "off of" doesn't seem to add any information in comparison
with "off", but I'm not convinced that's much of an objection to
adding just one syllable or two letters.

--
Bob just used 'canonical' in the canonical way. [Guy Steele]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Would you use it serious writing?

Why not? You still haven't explained why it's "dumb".

You are obviously posturing

No, in fact it was a serious question. The one you continue to evade.

(have you ever used it in serious
writing?)
It is just slovenly speech and inexcusable writing.

You continue to do nothing but apply derogatory labels. The analytical
level remains at zero.

There cannot be a shadow of a doubt that the NY Times has started
using it to make its bourgeoise readers feel at home, who it thinks

"bourgeoise"?? You really ought to check a dictionary, for both
spelling and meaning.

Sad.

You assume your "sad" face whenever you have no answer.
Someone who rails about "slovenly speech" ought to be more careful how
they use words.


would be put off by too strict an adherence to the rules of proper
usage and therefore occasional "down home" expressions like this would
be a good marketing ploy.

"down home"?? Try to avoid using terms like this that just make you
look silly.

It is a scientific socio-linguistic observation -

;-D;-D;-D!!!!
Alas, you would not know a scientific sociolinguistic observation if
it walked up and asked you where the men's shoes were.

how a journalistic
product is changing to keep up with the linguistic changes (it thinks
is) going on among it target audience.


http://cjrarchives.org/tools/lc/fused.asp

says

start quote:

(And while in technical land, we should note that "off of" is a
barbarism; drop the "of.")

end quote.

So you found some journalist who shares your prejudice and thinks
"barbarism" makes him sound learned.
You still haven't explained what's wrong with "off of".

I am sure you understand what 'drop the 'of'' means.

Of course I do. That is not the problem.

And what makes
the redundancy worse is the unintended rhyme.

1) It's not redundant.
2) It doesn't rhyme.

I think that covers everything.

Here is what the online dictionary says

start quote:

Usage Note: The compound preposition off of is generally regarded as
informal and is best avoided in formal speech and writing: He stepped
off (not off of) the platform. Off is informal as well when used to
indicate a source: formal style requires I borrowed it from (not off)
my brother.

end quote.

That's wonderful. So the online dictionary, just like you and just
like Mr Columbia Journalism Review, makes no attempt to explain _why_
this expression is "best avoided". At least it doesn't call it "dumb",
"slovenly" etc.

At any rate "off of" has a legitimate use

"In a war characterised by such atrocities as the hacking off of
civilians’ limbs and the widespread use of rape to"

That's not "off of" anyway, so it's not a "use" of anything.

Genuine "off of" is attested from the 15th century on.

Where?

King James Bible? Shakespeare? MIlton?

Shakespeare, Andrew Marvell, _Pilgrim's Progress_, Steele in the
_Spectator_, as well as lesser known writers.

While "where are you at" is equally inapporpriate, somehow it is cute
whereas "off of" is preternaturally annoying.

I'm sure you could regale us with a recital of your likes and dislikes
all day long. Some might find this cute, and some annoying. But unless
you can explain rationally what's wrong with "off of", take it to
a.u.e.

This is sad also.

Sad face again. No answers.

But it is sad. You seem not only disinclined (like most
prescriptivists) to analyze your judgments, but really totally
unequipped to do so. I guess this is the same gung-ho, can-do, what-
the-hell spirit that led you to think you could overthrow Indo-
European with your bare hands. Sad.

Ross Clark
.