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

On Aug 11, 8:36 pm, "benli...@xxxxxxxxxx" <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 12, 12:14 pm, analys...@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:

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?)

You are being seriously dishonest here.

No I'm not. Stop being such a pompous ass.



Have    you        used           'off of'           in
serious         writing?

Probably not. It's not part of my normal English, spoken or written,
formal or informal. So?


I expected a weasel, and here it is.

Have you seen it in recent (say, this century) scholarly work?


 >  It is just slovenly speech and inexcusable writing.



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

How many times can it be said that  the 'of' is unnecessary?

You could keep on saying it and find out.
After you had said it as many times as possible, we would still be
none the wiser.
How "necessary" is the "to" in "according to" or "next to"? Or the
"of" in "out of"?

we had exactly the same argument with respect to "hopefully' as a
sentential adverb.

Merriam Webster says

start quote:

The of is often criticized as superfluous, a comment that is
irrelevant because off of is an idiom. It is much more common in
speech than in edited writing and is more common in American English
than in British.

end quote.

That pretty much sums it up.


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.

You don't agree?





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.

Oh, that was so mature.

Im beginning to feel sorry for you.  Problems in real life?

You seem to have expanded your repertoire from just the "sad" face to
quite an assortment of trite moralizing. Why not examine your own
absurdities?


I tried to embarrass you from baleful hostility to a stance of good
homored repartee but I have a suspicion that you resent the strides I
have made mastering this sad excuse of an academic discipline called
hist/comp ling from the early days of my posting here and already have
a premonition of the thorough demolition the field awaits at my
hands.





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.

quit the enigmatic crap.

enigmatic?????

 >If you have something to say in support of
 >'off of'' say it or STFU.

You see? You don't really understand the problem even at its most
basic level.
*You* made the derogatory comments about "off of". We are waiting for
*you* to explain why it is "dumb", "slovenly" etc. Therefore it would
be incumbent upon *you* to STFU if you are unable to do so.

this is only casuistry. the burden is actually on your side, given
the number of citations I have given as to why it is not acceptable in
formal usage.

your asking me to explain why it is 'dumb' is like asking why i find a
certaim joke funny. I used 'dumb' etc., another 'barbarity'

Burchfield, reviwed by John Simon says:


In The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R. W. Burchfield

start quote:

Burchfield writes: “Off of is still strongly present in the language
of the less well educated but is indisputably non-standard in
Britain.” It is just as non-standard in polite America; and what is
that “still” doing there? In fact, off of, which was virtually unknown
in America until a couple of decades ago, has now burst out all over,
even among college graduates. So; not “still,” but “already,” and
“even the educated.”

end quote.





  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.

I am gald you think so.  Will you please stop embarrassing yourself
further on this topic?

I am not embarrassed in the slightest. I am freshly amazed at every
turn at your inability to recognize any of your errors.






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.

You seem to have developed a learning disability in this regard.

Let's see, another vacuous insult, which means that we move on to the
next  item...







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.

OK let us see the attestation from Shakespeare.

Check the OED, s.v. "off".





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.

Something bad must have happened recently in your personal life for
you to be displaying such dishonesty and slimy vituperation.

Are you really incapable of anything but moralizing projections of
your own personality problems onto others?


You call gung-ho, can-do spirit etc personality problems?

Thanks for the compliments but you are completely wrong about my
readiness to admit error and in this case I am not wrong but seem to
have attracted a veritable buzz-saw of attack-posts from the usual
suspects, and I still don;t know what ox got gored by my observation.


Have    you        used           'off of'            in
serious         writing?

Answered above. Still no answers from you on anything of substance.

Ross Clark- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.