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

On Aug 12, 4:48 am, 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.

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

Why exactly do you now show such a great regard for "this century
scholarly work"? Quite recently, you saw the "scholars" as a cabal of
white supremacists who actually had the impertinence not to show due
reverence to Sanskrit, the language you are the more in love with, the
less you are able to actually speak it.
.

Relevant Pages