|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 21, 2016 22:16:44 GMT
Why do journalists talking about the recent air crash refer to the stricken vehicle as an 'air plane' rather than the correct aeroplane?
Why do a significant proportion of the population, including some highly educated people, seem unable to answer a question without the first word of their answer being 'so'?
Why is it that on the BBC everything is incredible? Do their reporters/ journalists not realise that the best way to use language, especially our rich one, is to use a variety of adjectives rather than slavishly trotting out the same word? Did these people not go to school? were they asleep? If you slipped on your freshly painted gunwales and ended up in the cut would you tell family, friends, and anyone else who might be interested:
a/ I slipped on my freshly painted gunwales, fell off of the boat and into the canal. The water was freezing.
Or:
b/ I slipped on my freshly painted gunwales, fell off the boat and into the canal. The water was freezing.
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on May 21, 2016 22:45:27 GMT
a/ I slipped on my freshly painted gunwales, fell off of the boat and into the canal. The water was freezing. Or: b/ I slipped on my freshly painted gunwales, fell off the boat and into the canal. The water was freezing. I'll bite. What's the supposed big difference between a) and b)? "...fell off of the boat" or "...fell off the boat" the "of" just isn't that significant, is it?
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 21, 2016 22:54:00 GMT
The 'of' after 'off' in a/ is unnecessary and as such should be omitted.
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on May 22, 2016 2:19:16 GMT
I can see from your original post that you have a good command the formalities of the English language. As a former English teacher, I can tell you that about the only thing more boring than learning grammar is teaching it - over and over and over again. It's refreshing to see someone who paid attention in class. As regards your unnecessary "of", though, I think you will find necessity often has little to do with how we say things. I'm not even sure you meant "necessary" in the strictest sense because a/ is essentially grammatically incorrect with the "of" in there. Well, at least it was grammatically incorrect back in the 1950's when I studied grammar. Today, maybe not so much so. I remember looking up "get" in the dictionary sometime in the early 1960's and Mr. Webster said: " get - past tense of got. Got is not a correct word and good speakers do not use got." Obviously that has changed, and the reason that the use of got is now acceptable is that language is dynamic, not static. Language evolves over time, and the way that we say things changes. English is very rhythmic language, particularly spoken English. Many times we add unnecessary words to our sentences just because it makes it easier to say. To make it easier on our tongues. Other times we completely omit words in spoken language. Language is oral before it is written, so spoken colloquialism often make their way into written language. The phenomenon of the "of" in a/ probably started with the word "into". You see, your of is not used as a proper preposition showing possession by the boat, but rather as something that is tagged onto the end of off. So I would posit that we are looking at the etymology of "off of" not of "of the boat". Out is another word that often has an of tagged onto it. "She just got out of hospital." somehow seems more correct than, "She just got out hospital." Don't you think? You wouldn't say, "I just got out trouble." You would say, "I just got out of trouble." I think, in the colloquial sense, you will find that both of your sentences above are correct. I wonder if this will make sense in the morning? It seems a bit pedantic.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on May 22, 2016 6:34:13 GMT
Actually I didn't always pay attention in class but caught up a little when I decided to teach EFL.
You're right that language evolves. 'Of' after 'off' is an example of this. Here in Britain off has always been sufficient, until recently. I guess when Hollywood film (movie) stars, the hugely important people they are, insert an unnecessary 'of' the world takes notice. And so we have it, English at home being 'improved' by foreign influence. Another example being v2 of sneak which was always sneaked but has now, apparently, changed to snook.
Despite feeling rather sad about this I have some comfort in that we should be able to retain our word 'pavement' for a little while yet. And I really can't see 'faucet' replacing tap, that really is a strange one
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 22, 2016 8:09:34 GMT
What I find so fascinating about Thunderboat is the contrast between consecutive threads.
The first thread I dipped into this morning almost instantly descended into a childish spat.
The second is an erudite discussion on philology !
I really do like this place !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 22, 2016 8:10:54 GMT
I slipped on my freshly painted gunwales, fell off the boat and into the canal. The water was freezing. Oh my God, did you really? I mean, that's wicked awesome! I should have loved to have seen that incredible event! Or, perhaps it was - amazing!! What I get annoyed with in Britain is that everyone keeps saying "Excuse me" when they feel they have gotten too close to you in a supermarket. Just shut up and get on with your shopping. Enjoy!... (actually I don't mind 'off of' - it's what people say these days - language is a living creature, not a stone relic in a dusty museum. What's wrong with letting it evolve? Who says it's wrong? These word autocorrect systems these days are stifling our freedom of expression.)
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 22, 2016 8:19:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on May 22, 2016 8:27:17 GMT
Well ....... it was erudite !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 22, 2016 8:37:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 22, 2016 8:42:11 GMT
"And so we have it, English at home being 'improved' by foreign influence."
What was English before the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Norman French all came and fiddled with it, not to mention that interfering git Shake-a-Spear? I wonder what jokes were like in the Olden Days in the English Language?:
- Ug?
- Ugg!!
- Haha!
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on May 22, 2016 16:54:55 GMT
Actually I didn't always pay attention in class but caught up a little when I decided to teach EFL. You're right that language evolves. 'Of' after 'off' is an example of this. Here in Britain off has always been sufficient, until recently. I guess when Hollywood film (movie) stars, the hugely important people they are, insert an unnecessary 'of' the world takes notice. And so we have it, English at home being 'improved' by foreign influence. Another example being v2 of sneak which was always sneaked but has now, apparently, changed to snook. Despite feeling rather sad about this I have some comfort in that we should be able to retain our word 'pavement' for a little while yet. And I really can't see 'faucet' replacing tap, that really is a strange one I've never heard snook before - snuck is commonly used though. It could be the same word, depends on how you'd pronounce snuck. I remember the first time I saw gaol I thought, wtf, that's not a real word. Now, how you can mistake a sidewalk for the asphaltic concrete you use for tarmac on streets is beyond me. It probably has something to do with drinking your beer warm.
|
|
|
Post by macwolfelee on May 23, 2016 7:49:15 GMT
I don't think so. Bill Bryson can (sometimes) be an amusing read, but he has some very high hobby horses which he gets up onto.
I prefer Oliver Kamm
Accidence Will Happen
(That was a link BTW; links are still not distinguishable in this pesky forum)
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on May 26, 2016 17:29:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by canaldweller on May 26, 2016 21:20:01 GMT
Why do journalists talking about the recent air crash refer to the stricken vehicle as an 'air plane' rather than the correct aeroplane? Why do a significant proportion of the population, including some highly educated people, seem unable to answer a question without the first word of their answer being 'so'? Why is it that on the BBC everything is incredible? Do their reporters/ journalists not realise that the best way to use language, especially our rich one, is to use a variety of adjectives rather than slavishly trotting out the same word? Did these people not go to school? were they asleep? If you slipped on your freshly painted gunwales and ended up in the cut would you tell family, friends, and anyone else who might be interested: a/ I slipped on my freshly painted gunwales, fell off of the boat and into the canal. The water was freezing. Or: b/ I slipped on my freshly painted gunwales, fell off the boat and into the canal. The water was freezing. May I suggest that, in future, you wait until the paint is dry. Then, hopefully, you will not fall off, or off of, your gunwales.
|
|