On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:54:10 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:

I was recently watching a spelling bee on TV. It occurred to me that
such a contest must seem very silly to those viewers whose mother
tongue is phonetic, as all languages should be. English could have
become phonetic many centuries ago, when the language came under
formal review, but the traditionalists triumphed over the
phoneticists, so we are stuck with a stupid, inconsistent system of
spelling. In a lot of ways American revisionism makes sense, eg
"color" instead of "colour", but I don't understand how "arse" became
"ass", or why Americans say "off of" when "off" will suffice.

- Franc Zabkar


I have noticed that some formal American authors use a double "had".
For instance, they would write "He had had a heart attack". It seems
very silly to me that they would use an extra "had", when one would do
just fine. I then read a biography of this author and he described
that early in his career, he was writing for magazines, and the
publishers would pay the author by the word.

It occurred to me that this might just be a very small way to make a
little extra money. Since America is all about the capitalism, this
makes a little sense. Maybe that would answer the "off of" question.

Thanks.


Remove the BALONEY from my email address.
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fries Minneapolis, MN USA


"Quit eating all my *STUFF*!" - The Tick