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

analyst41@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 11, 7:47 pm, "benli...@xxxxxxxxxx" <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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:
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.

Thats so dishonest and infantile at the same time.

It's dishonest and infantile to tell a hypocrite he's a hypocrite?


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.

quit the enigmatic crap. If you have something to say in support of
'off of'' say it or STFU.

It's perfectly good English, just like "inside of" and "over there" and the obviously redundant "underneath", not to mention "up above". Don't like "up above"? Well, how about "above", which but oh, wait, that is, after all, a- + bufan = "on" + "above". And unfortunately for you, "bufan" came from be- + ufan ("by" + "above"). And of course even "ufan" is "uf" plus a locative suffix. That must make you want to curl up and die. I'm certain you will *never* use the word "above" again as long as you live, let alone "up above". But then "underneath" should make you nauseous too.
.

Relevant Pages