Which would you normally find yourself using?
Get off of my arm!
Get offa my arm!
Get off my arm!
Get off of my arm!
Get offa my arm!
Get off my arm!
off of/off/offa
By "offa" she means "off o'," contracting the "of." I've heard usage similar to all three, but the "of" seems a little redundant.
Saying 'get off of me' is a distinctly American phrase that is indeed pretty redundant and plain annoys me.
<<Saying 'get off of me' is a distinctly American phrase that is indeed pretty redundant and plain annoys me.>>
Really? Does the "of" here annoy you too?
Get the hell out of/outa here!
Really? Does the "of" here annoy you too?
Get the hell out of/outa here!
It may be semantically redundant, but it often has the discourse function of emphasizing the action.
"It may be semantically redundant, but it often has the discourse function of emphasizing the action."
Indeed. Emphasis being the principal purpose for redundancy of course.
The best example is the much-maligned double negative.
Indeed. Emphasis being the principal purpose for redundancy of course.
The best example is the much-maligned double negative.
One thing is also that the "of" indicates the action is going from a state of being "on" something to being "off" that thing, whereas "off" alone only indicates a state of being "off" such with no initial state of being "on" something being indicated.
<<whereas "off" alone only indicates a state of being "off" such with no initial state of being "on" something being indicated. >>
But isn't it meant to indicate "off" as opposed to "on?
e.g.
The light is off.
He is off the train.
But isn't it meant to indicate "off" as opposed to "on?
e.g.
The light is off.
He is off the train.
<<Indeed. Emphasis being the principal purpose for redundancy of course. >>
Why the emphasis/redundacy here?
it is human utterance
Why the emphasis/redundacy here?
it is human utterance
>><<whereas "off" alone only indicates a state of being "off" such with no initial state of being "on" something being indicated. >>
But isn't it meant to indicate "off" as opposed to "on?
e.g.
The light is off.
He is off the train.<<
At least in the dialect here, the thing is that "off" does not necessarily indicate a change of state, whereas "off of" explicitly indicates a change of state. For instance, take your example of "He is off the train" - all that states is that the individual in question is not on the train. However, "He is off of the train (now)" explicitly states that the individual in question just got off the train and had previously been on the train.
But isn't it meant to indicate "off" as opposed to "on?
e.g.
The light is off.
He is off the train.<<
At least in the dialect here, the thing is that "off" does not necessarily indicate a change of state, whereas "off of" explicitly indicates a change of state. For instance, take your example of "He is off the train" - all that states is that the individual in question is not on the train. However, "He is off of the train (now)" explicitly states that the individual in question just got off the train and had previously been on the train.
I should note that another way to look at it is that "off of" is to "off" what "into" is to "in" and "onto" is to "on", which might make the whole matter clearer.
<However, "He is off of the train (now)" explicitly states that the individual in question just got off the train and had previously been on the train. >
So you couldn't say "he's off of the train at the moment, but it's leaving soon and he'll be on it", could you?
So you couldn't say "he's off of the train at the moment, but it's leaving soon and he'll be on it", could you?
Yeah, that usage of "off of" just does not sound right to my ears, even though I would understand what someone meant if they said it. Rather one would normally say "He's off the train at the moment, [...]" or "He's not on the train at the moment, [...]" here.