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

analyst41@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 14, 8:19 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
analys...@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.


Look - anybody and everybody is free to say whatever they want here -
adherence to standards is purely voluntary.

That having been said -

the material I found suggests that simply asserting that Shakespeare
has used "off of" may not be the whole truth. Note that I said "may
not" - what I found is just an assertion on the web.

If you guys don't want to research whats in the different versions of
the play- you are simply saying that you don't care for the truth.

I'm saying that we're convinced already. If you care to convince us of something else, make your case or stop worrying about it. Saying, "I want you to believe me, so you should make the effort to support my side of the argument because I don't want to take the trouble" doesn't work. All it does is support the impression you always give of being fast to have an opinion and slow to have a basis for your opinion.


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.

This is simply a lie.

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.

This is a lie also - since I gave what I think is a brilliant
explanation why "off of" is being resisted.

let me summarize here since you guys are too lazy and deceitful to go
back and check the record.

It is an essentially an exact synonym for "off" (apart from the
diagramming aspect that might be needed for people who move their lips
when they read)

I'm interested that you think that dismissing the opposing view and waving away facts that contradict your assertion with an ad hominem attack can be part of a "brilliant explanation".

that can only be used literally - whereas "off" can be
used both literally and in idioms and metaphors and it is only
recently that "off of" has started contaminating the metaphorical
"off".

Since the recentness is an unsupported assertion by you and since the notion of "contamination" is a purely subjective value judgment that falls outside of the scope of academic discussion, the brilliance quotient of these last few lines of yours is zero.

That it is really awkward is shown by

"fell off the back of the truck" - 10800 hits

"fell off of the back of the truck" - 3 hits.

How exactly does this demonstrate anything about awkwardness? How does a demonstration that a particular construction is used in infrequently in a particular environment show anything about its use in other environments? You are the master of the non-sequitur and the red herring.

This would be one way to measure the impoverishment of American
English outside of inner city vernacular

"Impoverishment" is a subjective value judgment by you that reflects only on your personal outlook and falls outside the realm of rational analysis.

- the invasion of idioms/
metaphors that originally stated with "off" by 'off of".

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 ...."


Thats good research - now compare it against the number of times the
naked 'off' was used.

This isn't an election. Your authoritarian outlook on language, that the way that's most commonly used is THE CORRECT WAY and that every other way is therefore an abomination is your own personal perspective and falls outside of the realm of rational analysis. Besides you *still* haven't addressed "up above" or even "above", "underneath", and "onto", which are all similar constructions, so I have reached the conclusion that you just don't like their implications but can't think of a way to deal with them, so you're hoping that if you ignore them they'll go away.

Thats going to be much harder since there will
be many uses of 'off' for which 'off of' is not a possible
alternative.

You just contradicted your own earlier assertion that "off" and "off of" are "exact synonyms". Congratulations.

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.

Given the lies misrepresentations and disregard for truth by you that
I have noted above - its too early to conclude the debate.

Given that everything that I said is true and correctly represented, your quickness to call them lies and misrepresentations and disregard for the truth just shows your disregard for anything that doesn't support your theories and your inability to tell the difference between the subjective and the objective.
.

Quantcast