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

On Aug 14, 11:24 pm, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 14, 7:11 am, "benli...@xxxxxxxxxx" <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Aug 14, 10:36 pm, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Aug 13, 9:44 pm, "benli...@xxxxxxxxxx" <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 14, 12:40 pm, analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Aug 13, 12:19 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:00:18 -0400, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<news:6gg478Ffnud8U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> in sci.lang:

analys...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 12, 3:05 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2008-08-12, Harlan Messinger wrote:
For crying out loud, do you think he made this up? From the OED:
?c1450 in G. Müller Aus mittelengl. Medizintexten (1929) 116 Take a
sponfull of {th}e licour..of of {th}e fyir and sette it in good place
tyl {th}at it be ny colde, soo as {th}ou mayst suffryn to holdyn
{th}er-in {th}in hand. a1616 SHAKESPEARE Henry VI, Pt. 2 (1623) II. i.
98 A fall off of [1594 Falling off on] a Tree. 1667 A. MARVELL Corr. in
Wks. (1875) II. 224 The Lords and we cannot yet get off of the
difficultyes risen betwixt us. 1678 J. BUNYAN Pilgrim's Progress 49
About a furlong off of the Porters Lodge. 1712 R. STEELE Spectator No.
306 {page}6, I could not keep my Eyes off of her.
I had no idea the expression had such a respectable pedigree. Maybe
I'll start using it in formal writing after all. :-)
Wiily S was only doing dialect when he used "off of".
Really? Would you care to provide evidence for this assertion? Or are
you just decreeing this to be so because it doesn't fit your theory?

Indeed, one has only to check the other lines spoken by
Saunder Simpcox to see that they are not dialect.

Something must have warned you that all is not kosher with this quote
(witness your "in any case" follow-up below)

From a fascinating source called the American Bibliopolist publsihed
in 1875:

start quote:

Theexpression " off of л thing," " he was getting off of his horse,"
etc., is often heard, and thought to be exceedingly vulgar. Yet
Shakespeare uses it in // Hen. VI, г, f. " Cardinal. What, art thou
lame ? Simpcox. Ay, God Almighty help me I Suffolk. How earnest thou
so ? Simpcox. A fall off of ъ tree. Wife. A plum-tree, master." It is
remarkable that this is the language of the First and second Folios ;
in the Third and Fourth " of " is omitted

end quote.

(This quote is somewhat distorted - "earnest" for "camest" etc.
because I am using the text version of the PDF doc)

If this is correct then OED, Haralan and Ross are guilty of
misinformation. It seems that even contemporaneously with
Shakespeare, there were attempts to edit this solecism out of his
texts.

If you extend "contemporaneously" to include fifty years after his
death....

Just as you studiously avoid actual analysis of your disapprovals, you
will want to avoid looking even fleetingly at the vastness of
Shakespeare textual studies, where thousands of things are edited in,
edited out, and completely rewritten for good reasons, bad reasons and
no apparent reason at all. (OED notes a 1594 text with "fall off on a
tree"!) No, better to imagine that the Language Police were on the
job in the 17th century, saving poor Will from his "solecism".

And now that you have "solecism" in your right hand and "barbarism" in
your left, you could set up your own Usage Blog. Pilgrims would flock
to hear your judgments,linguists wouldn't bother you, and you could
get ahead with your work on the long-sought Panini-Fidditch Synthesis.

Ross Clark

And in
any case this wouldn't explain Andrew Marvell's use of the
compound preposition in his correspondence, or Bunyan's use
in 'Pilgrim's Progress'.

[...]

Brian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nice misdirection, might work with linguistics professors.

I'd ask where you imagined the "misdirection" to be, but you never
answer.

You know the misdirection you attempted (and attempt below) and you
got caught and are now trying to huff and puff your way out of it.

This makes your allegation pretty fireproof, doesn't it? You say I
attempted misdirection (I guess I did pretty well, because you said
"nice"), I ask you where and how, and you won't tell me because you
claim I already know!
Unanswerable!


If anybody has to explain, justify or defend anything its you.

Dare I ask what?


Apparently this was no more than a carrier for a gratuitous

swipe at "linguistics professors", those creatures of your
imagination.

You put out an unequivocal statement that this usage occurs in
Shakespeare.

It does.

OK - looks like the most honorable conduct I can get out of you in
this matter is to expose youself for the record like this.

??




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

LOL! Sorry, chum, as usual you have no idea how these things work. If
*you*, in your desperation to prove that Shakespeare could not
possibly have used "off of" (or he was just kidding, or putting on a
dialect, or whatever), want to plunge into Bardo-textology, nobody
else is going to do it for you. NOTE: I do not actually recommend this
course of action. Your mental health is precarious enough.

Th way the record stands now - you (and the OED and Willaim Safire it
makes you feel better) stand accused of being not fully truthful.

Only by you, and you are so confused the accusation is not worth
worrying about.


Nothing is incumbent on me except perhaps to watch you twist in the
wind.


I was going to say "Don't waste your time waiting for that to happen",
but no doubt I am already twisting, in the same little mental theatre
where you have "demolished" that theory, "humiliated" this person, and
are striding mightily towards the overthrow of comparative
linguistics.


Your conduct in this matter has gone from sad to contemptible.

Your comments on this discussion have gone from goofy to stupid. Not a
long trip, admittedly.

get a grip on yourself. This is really really uncharacteristically
low.


Really? You find "stupid" lower than "contemptible"? Or are you saying
my characteristic tone is higher than this? I really don't agree with
either.

Ross Clark
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: observable language change - "off of" makes it to the NY Times
    ... Saunder Simpcox to see that they are not dialect. ... Shakespeare textual studies, where thousands of things are edited in, ... edited out, and completely rewritten for good reasons, bad reasons and ... better to imagine that the Language Police were on the ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: observable language change - "off of" makes it to the NY Times
    ... 98 A fall off of a Tree. ... Saunder Simpcox to see that they are not dialect. ... Shakespeare textual studies, where thousands of things are edited in, ... edited out, and completely rewritten for good reasons, bad reasons and ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: observable language change - "off of" makes it to the NY Times
    ... 98 A fall off of a Tree. ... Saunder Simpcox to see that they are not dialect. ... Something must have warned you that all is not kosher with this quote ... edited out, and completely rewritten for good reasons, bad reasons and ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: observable language change - "off of" makes it to the NY Times
    ... Saunder Simpcox to see that they are not dialect. ... Shakespeare textual studies, where thousands of things are edited in, ... edited out, and completely rewritten for good reasons, bad reasons and ... better to imagine that the Language Police were on the ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: [PATCH] re-export genapic on i386
    ... > And a shitty thousands of lines out ot tree debugger ported from Novell's ... Most debuggers will always be out of tree for political ... reasons, and because of that the normal "every hook must ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
    (Linux-Kernel)