tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post5264936931655711592..comments2024-03-16T00:21:43.240+00:00Comments on Separated by a Common Language: off (of) and out (of)lynneguisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comBlogger57125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-8034656971969577472021-04-14T12:56:14.972+01:002021-04-14T12:56:14.972+01:00What about the Viz-ism "Mick Hucknall (out of...What about the Viz-ism "Mick Hucknall (out of Simply Red)"? (He had a season playing for Fulchester United, you may recall; his name appeared exactly like that on the teamsheet.)Phil Ramsdenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11681811441893235279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-62937453520001666732020-12-09T20:16:24.634+00:002020-12-09T20:16:24.634+00:00I (an American) once said "get out of the car...I (an American) once said "get out of the car" to another American with a different dialect who informed me the "of" was extraneous and that he would have said "get out the car."<br /><br />But (I explained) "get out of the car" means exit the car. "Get out the car" could mean get the car out of the garage. <br /><br />I suspect these differences which are sometimes needed just lead to habit where they are not always needed. Shaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233573237604123727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-67685904763492334052020-11-20T18:30:02.628+00:002020-11-20T18:30:02.628+00:00With respect to "off of," it seems to me...With respect to "off of," it seems to me that it depends on that exact phrase. I would say that I'm taking a sweater off of my child, but I would tell her to take her feet off the table. The usage that really bothers me is when "off of" is used in place of "from": I got this bicycle off of Joe." My other, slightly related, peeve is "not that big of a deal." I am an AmE speaker from Alabama.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05070025113308584002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-4156752646270607082020-11-20T11:39:40.247+00:002020-11-20T11:39:40.247+00:00As a American who has lived in Britain for over tw...As a American who has lived in Britain for over twenty years now I've always found the British use of 'off of' or 'off' when applied to someone taking something from someone to be very strange! You take things off or off of objects, like coffee tables, you take things from people. I took the keys off the table/I took the keys from Julie.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16039301774815376412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-60984993791213928062020-11-19T17:04:03.715+00:002020-11-19T17:04:03.715+00:00And it is only within the last 100 years or so tha...And it is only within the last 100 years or so that one would be based (or live) in Toronto - before that, one lived (in BrE, at any rate) AT Toronto....Mrs Redboots (Annabel Smyth)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11270027663691257254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-66114828388107715362020-10-14T07:51:39.139+01:002020-10-14T07:51:39.139+01:00That's because there is no distinction between...That's because there is no distinction between 'of' and 'from' in some Hebrew constructions.Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10560531639514956503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-29035596504436373102020-08-17T12:53:38.582+01:002020-08-17T12:53:38.582+01:00BrE (Scot). The Scottish sitcom Two Doors Down (so...BrE (Scot). The Scottish sitcom Two Doors Down (some time ago) used a construction I’d forgotten about: “Ah’ll get kilt aff ma mammy”. Literally, “I’ll get killed off my mummy”, or more normally, “ My mother will kill me”.Shy-replyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891566073375322808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-5509013195625286822019-07-14T00:03:04.346+01:002019-07-14T00:03:04.346+01:00Based out of, I think, indicates a remote perspect...<i>Based out of</i>, I think, indicates a remote perspective. I wouldn't say "They're based out of Toronto" if I was <i>in</i> Toronto, but in Montreal I would say "They have an office here, but they're based out of Toronto." Same story with the sloop <i>John B.</i>John Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452247999156925669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-28622307988227147582019-05-18T10:41:53.777+01:002019-05-18T10:41:53.777+01:00Also, I would never refer to John Brown out of Sou...Also, I would never refer to John Brown out of Southampton, but I would talk about the sloop John B out of Southampton.Shy-replyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891566073375322808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-16484374626536126572019-05-17T19:26:12.954+01:002019-05-17T19:26:12.954+01:00BrE, Scot. I could say “he poured all the milk”, b...BrE, Scot. I could say “he poured all the milk”, but I am more likely to say “he poured all of the milk”. My grammar checker will always change the latter to “he poured the entire milk”.<br /><br />BrE maritime parlance uses phrases like “off the port bow”. Would AmE say “off of the port bow”?<br /><br />Often heard from a British bus conductor/conductress ejecting a passenger: come on, get off.Shy-replyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891566073375322808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-30970680692563298062017-02-03T18:17:38.442+00:002017-02-03T18:17:38.442+00:00Into: David Crosbie calls this a 'motion/locat...Into: David Crosbie calls this a 'motion/location pairing', the 'in' being location and 'to' the motion. That reflects the BrE I have spoken and heard most of my life. However I have noticed a recent tendency to use 'into' where there is something wrong with the motion element that I can't quite put my finger on. These three spring to mind as those I hear most often: 'This train will arriving INTO X station' (I suppose possibly because it will terminate there; previously 'at'); 'Invest INTO X' (previously 'in'); 'Put it INTO the fridge / your pocket' (preciously 'in'). I do notice others but I can't bring them to mind at the moment.<br /><br />I think what jars for me is that 'into' emphasises the motion element, when the important element of these sentences is the end location. Graham thought maybe 'Get into the car' is more passive than 'Get in the car'; my take would be that the former slightly emphasises the motion and the latter slightly emphasises the end location. I do know that these sentences would never work: 'Put it into!' (vs 'Put it in!') and 'Get into!' (vs 'Get in!').<br /><br />I have a hunch this is a form of hypercorrection, but language changes often catch on so quickly (cf response-initial 'so') that whatever it started as, it seems now to be perceived by many speakers to be standard English. As unfortunately does beginning a response with 'So'.KeithDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10451059429340892054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-26222926030803617072012-06-29T18:44:51.704+01:002012-06-29T18:44:51.704+01:00I am of British descent. I am also from Britain. ...I am of British descent. I am also from Britain. I don't know why, but when using it to talk about a person, I just feel that "I got it off John." feels ruder and less formal than saying "I got it off of John.".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-732390647839172682011-08-25T13:10:41.817+01:002011-08-25T13:10:41.817+01:00I forgot to add that we do have ways of denoting &...I forgot to add that we do have ways of denoting 'in a position that is not in a stipulated location'. <br /><br />For most speakers the word is <i>outside</i>, but Scottish English possesses a sort-of double preposition <i>outwith</i>.<br /><br /> I wonder whether anybody says <i>outwith of</i>. Some speakers do say <i>outside of</i> — I think I say it myself occasionally.<br /><br />[Mrs Alexander confused countless young hymn-singers with<br /><i>There is a green hill far away, without a city wall</i><br />Another double preposition.]David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-61169140437540750662011-08-25T12:56:07.952+01:002011-08-25T12:56:07.952+01:00J Davies
A closer Russian-English parallel is tha...J Davies<br /><br />A closer Russian-English parallel is that из combines to make double prepositions из за 'from behind' and из под 'from under'. Like English <i>off of</i> they denote both motion and location. The difference is that the English combination denotes the location <b>after</b> the motion, while the Russian combinations denote the location <b>before</b> the motion.<br /><br />For myself and (I believe) other British speakers of my generation this motion-location pairing is frequently separated in <i>into</i> and <i>onto</i> (or <i>on to</i>) — but frequently merged in simple <i>in</i> or <i>on</i>. For no discernible reason, we never separate motion-location as others (allegedly only Americans) do with <i>off of</i> 'moving so as to be no longer on'. Nor do we use it in the position-result of motion sense 'away from after preciously being on'.<br /><br />Lynne's examples <i>off of a couch, off of a tree</i> and <i>get off of the difficultyes</i> are like:<br /><br /><b>on</b> <i>fall on a couch</i><br /><b>in</b> <i>The squirrel ran in the tree</i><br /><br />But <i>off</i> doesn't always denote motion. It can mean 'located at a distance from' — as in <i>off shore, off message, off piste</i>. Thus:<br /><br />• Someone <i>off the tele</i> is away from the context of appearing on television. Doubling the preposition to form <i>off of the tele</i> separates the senses of out-of-context location and location before the separation. <br /><br />• The company with its basis at a remove from Toronto could be said to be <i>off Toronto</i> just as we say <i>off shore</i>. Quite arbitrarily, nobody says that —but some do say <i>off of Toronto</i>. (The use of the expression <i>be based</i> is a separate controversy.)<br /><br />The double preposition <i>out of</i> generally denotes( in part) motion or metaphorical motion. The one counter example I can think of is <i>out of the question</i> 'located metaphorically outside the wrongly suggested location, namely the metaphorical place <i>the question</i>. However, this could simply be the result of an unidiomatic translation from Latin.David Crosbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01858358459416955921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-74372209397548810502011-08-24T02:30:54.272+01:002011-08-24T02:30:54.272+01:00@J Davis:
In Russian and Greek, for example, prepo...@J Davis:<br /><i>In Russian and Greek, for example, prepositions denoting motion away from something often take Genitive arguments. (Russian из, с, от; Greek ἀπό, ἐκ) In some cases in these languages, the 'motion away' meaning is carried by the genitive case itself! (Greek παρά)<br /><br />I would posit the possibility of a connection here.</i><br /><br />There's certainly a historical connection: ἀπό is cognate with English "off". And, since "of" is merely a weakened form of "of", all three are derived from the same Proto-Indo-European word, which probably meant "away from".<br /><br />According to http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=of the word "of" became a genitive particle in order to translate Foreign texts!vphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16647609487352038948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-31322010934066609482011-08-24T01:30:32.329+01:002011-08-24T01:30:32.329+01:00I notice that nobody here commented on how this ha...I notice that nobody here commented on how this has an interesting parallel in other Indo-European languages.<br /><br />In Russian and Greek, for example, prepositions denoting motion away from something often take Genitive arguments. (Russian из, с, от; Greek ἀπό, ἐκ) In some cases in these languages, the 'motion away' meaning is carried by the genitive case itself! (Greek παρά)<br /><br />I would posit the possibility of a connection here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-60776944515978082642010-03-17T12:19:09.848+00:002010-03-17T12:19:09.848+00:00I remember being puzzled as a child by the Rolling...I remember being puzzled as a child by the Rolling Stones' "Hey, hey, you, you, get offa my cloud". I had never heard anyone say "off of" in the English Midlands. In later life I've associated it with people from the South-East.<br /><br />Kate (Derby, UK)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-61698672413335683742010-03-16T23:15:11.044+00:002010-03-16T23:15:11.044+00:00To Rob:
There are roughly two million and three ve...To Rob:<br />There are roughly two million and three versions of that word/phrase/whatever. All of which bear the same attribute: that they enable people to curse while insisting they're doing no such thing!Cameron MacDonald Gazzola Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11460898271918397890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-39943362490908341772010-03-16T17:00:11.417+00:002010-03-16T17:00:11.417+00:00It exists, as you've shown, so what's ther...It exists, as you've shown, so what's there to be 'put off' by? Does it mark me as a member of the wrong tribe? :)lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-15079521866881610002010-03-16T16:54:08.398+00:002010-03-16T16:54:08.398+00:00Am I the only one put off (but not off of) by &quo...Am I the only one put off (but not off of) by "gumdanged"? I've heard/used "dadgummed," but never the other way around. By ghits, it's half a million to 200 in favor of the latter. <br /><br />I'm from the edge of the Southern /mid-Atlantic region of the US, if that makes any difference.Robnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-31238021316782005262010-03-15T22:41:13.329+00:002010-03-15T22:41:13.329+00:00@biochemist:
I believe "atop" was one o...@biochemist: <br />I believe "atop" was one of several archaic words revivified by Time magazine in the interwar years, when its distinctive prose style was dubbed "Timese".<br /><br />@vp:<br />"How do you know it isn't [He [[walked] [out [of [the door]]]]]"?<br /><br />I'm not sure which scenario you mean to describe:<br />1. [possible, if unusual] The mouse had been scuttling around inside the hollow panel door, and then he walked out of the door.<br />2. He walked out of the doorway in which he had been standing. [I would require "doorway" rather than "door".]mollymoolynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-79848848101769289652010-03-15T15:50:35.926+00:002010-03-15T15:50:35.926+00:00@anonymous:
While there's an example with &#...@anonymous: <br /><br />While there's an example with 'jump off of' in this paper, it doesn't seem to contrast 'off of' and 'off' at all, or even really discuss the meaning of 'off of'...it just mentions that they can be used metaphorically in ways that are consistent with their meaning. So, could you be more specific about what you think it contributes to the discussion of 'off of' versus 'off'? <br /><br />The paper seemingly inadvertently contradicts the idea that different form => different function, since the text refers to the phrase 'fall off of' in example (14), but when reads (14), there's no example of 'fall off of' at all, but instead an example of 'fall off'! :)lynneguisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10171345732985610861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-29532293582901891212010-03-15T15:45:27.282+00:002010-03-15T15:45:27.282+00:00@Cameron
It's possible that it's a hyperco...@Cameron<br />It's possible that it's a hypercorrection, though it would be one that I apply to most P + <i>of</i> constructs.<br /><br />But yeah, I think the <i>of</i>-less variety is the most natural way to speak it for me.Gordon P. Hemsleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08144624867177981541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-45152051380789042452010-03-15T15:39:04.745+00:002010-03-15T15:39:04.745+00:00http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/papers/CogLingHumor...http://www2.hawaii.edu/~bergen/papers/CogLingHumorBergenBinsted.pdf<br /><br />See especially pg. 11 et passim. From the point of view of a linguist, this is a matter of a cognitive construction -- it's merely indicative of different ways of framing and profiling the same phenomenon (the Wikipedia page on cognitive linguistics isn't bad, so I'll link to it: http://bit.ly/q4Uxw). Again, from the point of view of a linguist, neither of these constructions ("off of" versus "off") is better than the other -- it's just different ways of talking about the same thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28787909.post-29071196903590985622010-03-15T14:34:36.352+00:002010-03-15T14:34:36.352+00:00To Gordon P Hemsley:
"Off of" is FORMAL ...To Gordon P Hemsley:<br />"Off of" is FORMAL English to you? I'm staggered by that! I'm a fingernails on the blackboard guy when it comes to that.Cameron MacDonald Gazzola Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11460898271918397890noreply@blogger.com