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

Harlan Messinger wrote:
analyst41@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 14, 11:18 am, Harlan Messinger
<hmessinger.removet...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

Good gotcha - you forgot the additional gotcha that there are "off
of"s that aren't "off of"s at all.

Good gotcha? It was glaringly obvious. And I didn't forget anything: that's part of why your characterization of them as "exact synonyms" didn't make sense.

Holy cow. You managed to evade the issue of "above" and "underneath" and "onto" AGAIN. Besides that, you also still haven't addressed what I pointed out about redundancies far and wide being perfectly good usage in English and in other language. And you were calling *Ross* a weasel?
.