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

On Aug 12, 1:48 pm, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.

No, I gave you a straightforward answer. You weaseled out of answering
the "So?".


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

Since I haven't been looking for it, I couldn't say. You could
probably find a corpus to search, if you're really curious. But what
all this pseudo-questioning is leading to is obviously the one point
you keep banging on about: That "off of" is disapproved by the
arbiters of modern English grammar and style. You seem to believe that
citing authority after authority repeating this same point, amounts to
a justification of using terms like "dumb" to describe it.

OED notes that "later" (i.e. after its use by perfectly respectable
16-17c writers) "off of" becomes regional, dialectal, non-standard.
This is the most interesting point, for me. Why? If I had to guess I
would guess that some 18th century pedant like Lowth or Lyndley Murray
noted that "off" and "of" are etymologically the same word, and
decided that this was an offense against logic. This would be no
sillier than many other "grammatical" taboos.


> 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.

?? What part of that did you consider "unnecessary"?

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.

I.e. MW rejects your suggestion that the "of" is redundant.

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.

I assure you that if you had made any such strides, I would be
admiring rather than resentful. I hate to have to say it again, but on
this score you are entirely self-deluded.

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.

No, you have given a number of citations to the efffect _that_ it is
"unacceptable" (i.e. disapproved by people in positions of authority).
Not one of them has given a reason _why_ it is disapproved.


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'

So it is really just a matter of your personal taste? Why on earth
would you bother posting to tell us about such an insignificant
matter?


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.


I can't sort out Burchfield from your interjections there. But as I've
been trying to explain, the whole thing is beside the point.

Let me suggest what's really going on. As far as you're concerned,
everybody should be aware of the approved and disapproved features of
English as laid down by Burchfield, Columbia Journalism Review, Online
Dictionaries, etc. Anybody who uses a disapproved feature, therefore,
is either ignorant (doesn't know the approved standards) or foolish
(goes ahead and uses such a disapproved feature anyway, probably from
some base motive such as pleasing "bourgeoise" newspaper readers).
These two could be subsumed under the term "dumb". You have yet to
offer any evidence that "off of" is _intrinsically_ stupid, illogical,
careless, or anything else you have implied. And of course exactly the
same logic would apply to the thousands of other disapproved-but-
nevertheless-used features of English. So it turns out that "dumb"
means no more than "disapproved".

You could make a stride forward in your linguistic awareness by
recognizing this.

Ross Clark



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 ...

read more »

.