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

analyst41@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
You put out an unequivocal statement that this usage occurs in
Shakespeare.

And showed it to you, so whence the use now of "unequivocal statements" as though it were still in doubt?

It is now incumbent on you to either retract it or research the
different versions yourself and set the record staright.

Let's get this straight once and for all about burdens of proof and incumbency. This isn't a court of law where there's an official standard of "burden of proof" that the parties to a trial or lawsuit are required to go by in presenting evidence to a court. This is simply an argument. If you say something and someone else doesn't believe you, either you don't *care* that he doesn't believe you, and then you *drop* the matter, or else the burden is on you to provide a convincing proof, because the other person is under no obligation to believe you just because you say so.

In this case, other people have already explained to you in varied dimensions that the real and imagined attributes of "off of" that you claim make it inferior, don't.

You cited redundancy, yet you've been told that redundancy isn't inherently inferior: it's often useful; it often isn't as redundant as you think it is, sometimes being more specific than the non-redundant equivalent or meaning something slightly different; and many absolutely standard constructions in many languages, such as adjective case and gender agreement, the French and Afrikaans negative, the use of the object pronoun along with the explicit referent object noun in Spanish, are redundant. Even in English, the existence of "onto" and "underneath" and "up above" have been brought to your attention, and you've chosen not to comment at all. Either you think that they're all barbarisms too, in which case your opinion is truly an outlier, or you think those are fine components of the English language, in which case you are contradicting yourself when you object to "off of" for having a characteristics that other words and phrases do.

You treated it as some recent barbarism, yet you've been shown that it was used by eminent writers over 400 years ago.

You've claimed that no one uses "off of" in formal writing and that the New York Times use of it is an egregious case, but you have given no evidence that this use in formal writing is a new phenomenon, and just because you "suspect" that it is doesn't mean that everyone else will share your suspicion. In fact, let's look in the annals of the New York Times:

6 September 1932, "FARM BOARD WHEAT AS WELL AS COTTON TAKEN OFF MARKET": "A refinancing program whereby the surplus of cotton and wheat now held by the Federal Farm Board and its affiliates will be held off of the market during ...."

5 December 1900, "REDUCTION OF WAR TAXES": "When that tariff comes off the tariff will have to come off of other things."

31 January 1875, "BURIED IN THE SNOW; PERILS OF MINING TOWNS IN NEVADA": "About 7:30 o'clock yesterday morning a huge snow-slide or avalanche came down off of the eastern slope of Mount Davidson, ...."

29 March 1860, "THE MYSTERY OF THE SLOOP SPRAY": "Jaruis L. Tyres, Aid to the Chief of Police, was sworn, and testified to taking the two Boats off of the defendant ...."

In short, you've presented your case, and it's been rejected for all the reasons given. You've presented your reasons, and they've been found unconvincing for the reasons given. Either change your mind, or address the challenges that have been presented to your reasons, or present something new, or else accept the fact that your reasons thus far have been rejected, decide that you don't care what we think, and consider the matter closed. *That's* how "burden of proof" works.
.

Loading