Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
While I am reluctant to suggest a rationale for prepositions — it is a fool's errand — I can point out several contexts in which "of" is used to discuss distance from a reference point. Specifically, "of" precedes the point of reference. Some examples of physical distance:
He made it to within 10 yards of the finish line.
The library is 1 mile east of the town square.
To discuss temporal distance from a reference point — of course, before and after are the only alternatives here:
You must have received no moving violations within a year of your application.
None of these uses demand a meaning of before. Nonetheless they seem semantically close to the time telling use.
It is a quarter of five.
Finally, here is the entry for "of" in the online American Heritage dictionary. The time telling use is worthy of its own entry (definition 17).
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/of
Billie Dawn said:
Pertaining to the long subtitles discussion – it should be noted that book titles cannot be copyrighted, but I believe that subtitles can, and that may also explain the length and specificity in them.
I can't find any evidence that subtitles are copyrightable. Per Circular 34 from the US Copyright Office, "Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright."
I also searched the Copyright Office's online catalog for a few popular subtitles. They appeared in copyright notices for the book itself, but there are no copyrights for the title or subtitle alone. Further, the search tips specify to search for "the entire title", and the titles displayed include the subtitle, indicating that the USCO considers the subtitle to be part of "the entire title." Apparently, not one jot nor title shall pass through the copyright office.
CheddarMelt said:
Since the "quarter of" construction was rarely used where I grew up, I'm still to this day confused when I hear it. I am always left trying to figure out whether the speaker means "quarter til" or "quarter after." "Quarter after" makes more sense to me, since it's a quarter of the way through the named hour. Could someone suggest how "of" relates to "before"?
Good grief! Are you looking for logic in this? Having grown up with "quarter of" it's hard for me to see the problem. Simply put, it cannot mean "quarter after," because that is served by "quarter after" (or quarter past, though not in my natal neck of the woods). It's my guess, but only a guess, that the "of" usage grew from something like, "It lacks a quarter of two" to "It's quarter of two." I've also encounter "to" instead of "of". I think I was in college before I realized that other forms were in use, and that lack of comprehension might result.
tromboniator said:
Simply put, it cannot mean "quarter after," because that is served by "quarter after"
Neither can it it mean "quarter till," because that is served by "quarter till." Your statement and my sarcastic statement make no sense at all.
I have never had a problem understanding "quarter of" although it was not in common use where I grew up. But it does seem like it lends itself to misunderstandings. After all, isn't a quarter of four, one?
noah little said:
About "different from" and "different than"... your explanation makes perfect sense to me, a speaker of American English.
Since living in Europe, though, I've noticed people saying "different to", which really sounded strange to me. Turns out it's common in spoken British English. Whodathunk?
Oxford Dictionary's take on it: http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/differentfrom_us
Noah, thanks for this. I was going to ask if "different to" was specifically British, as I seem to recall hearing it sometimes from British speakers (mostly in podcasts, I think).
telemath said:
I also searched the Copyright Office's online catalog for a few popular subtitles. They appeared in copyright notices for the book itself, but there are no copyrights for the title or subtitle alone. Further, the search tips specify to search for "the entire title", and the titles displayed include the subtitle, indicating that the USCO considers the subtitle to be part of "the entire title." Apparently, not one jot nor title shall pass through the copyright office.
Boo! Hiss!
In other words, nice pun 
Relative to the prevalence of books with ridiculously long titles, Grant & Martha called for a name for this practice...
How about titulogorrhea?
Just as Ron Draney cited Gulliver's Travels as an example of this style of supplying long subtitles to works in early 18th c. English literature, this practice was also found in American literature of the day. How about Washington Irving's The Whim-whams and Opinions of Launcelot Langstaff, Esq. & Others, the subtitle to the satirical periodical, with official main title Salmagundi, that he published in 1807 to lambaste New York culture? I have two favorite examples of titulogorrhea: Daniel DeFoe's Robinson Crusoe (1719), which had the official title (as seen on the first edition title page) The Life and Strange Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of York, Mariner: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein all the Men perished but himself. With An Account how he was at last as strangely delivered by Pyrates. Written by Himself.; and one that comes from my own little corner of civilization (I am a mathematics professor), a Latin treatise written in 1684 by the philosopher-mathematician Gottfried Leibniz in which he presented an early version of his new calculus: in English, the title is A new method for maxima and minima, as well as tangents, which is neither impeded by fractional nor irrational quantities, and a remarkable type of calculus for them.
telemath said:
Billie Dawn said:
Pertaining to the long subtitles discussion – it should be noted that book titles cannot be copyrighted, but I believe that subtitles can, and that may also explain the length and specificity in them.
I can't find any evidence that subtitles are copyrightable. Per Circular 34 from the US Copyright Office, "Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright."
I also searched the Copyright Office's online catalog for a few popular subtitles. They appeared in copyright notices for the book itself, but there are no copyrights for the title or subtitle alone. Further, the search tips specify to search for "the entire title", and the titles displayed include the subtitle, indicating that the USCO considers the subtitle to be part of "the entire title." Apparently, not one jot nor title shall pass through the copyright office.
True, names, titles and short phrases cannot be copyrighted, BUT then can be trademarked. Trademark law works differently than copyright law but it still falls under the category of intellectual property.
In north Texas, the critter is called a pill bug, although I have seen sow bug in more serious nature literature.
Auctions: Then there is the quicker Dutch auction (named for its use in selling tulips and cheese). Bidders are provided an electrical switch, a clock runs down the price in two minutes. Bidder clicks at their price. Instead of bidding price up, it locks in the price the clock indicates. Very nerve-wracking - how much lower might it have been bought for? But very fast, two-and a half minutes or less and next lot is up for bids.
Long subtitles: We called it colonitis.
In the western expansion, many laundries were run by Chinese immigrants, and the list was written in Chinese. That guarded against anyone getting low-cost clothes by paying someone else's laundry with a forged list. Also the origin of the pigin expression, "no tickee, no laundry".
Gemma said:
Noah, the whole discussion of "different than" and "different from" set my teeth on edge. My brain kept insisting "it's different to". I notice you say it's common in Europe in spoken language. I'm English. I think I would invariably say "different to" even in formal written English (although perhaps I would get pulled up for it?).
Similarly, I was jarred by the discussion, the previous week, of ways to tell the time. Both "ten of five" and "ten till five" sound alien to me. I would understand "till", but I might need to double check "ten of five" before relying on it. In Britain it'd be "ten to five." In Scotland I'm further confused by "the back of five" which I think means "a little before five," but different people seem to use it differently (or I get myself muddled), so I mentally translate it to "around five," then smile and nod.
I've got to agree – being British, the use of “from†and “than†with “different†just sounds completely wrong (it was especially odd when – in the song “Valleri†by The Monkees – Davy Jones was found to be singing “But she sure looks different than/ The way she looked beforeâ€, but in a largly Mancunian accent!). “Different to†seems to be about the only construction used here.
However, “ten 'til five†(“Ten miniutes until five o'clockâ€) would be both easily understood and used in Scotland, especially in the North East dialect (known as “The Doricâ€); likewise “ten of five†probably wouldn't.
“The back of five†as a construction does seem to vary in meaning regionally, but to me is just after five o'clock, not before. It can be used to indicate the time both vaguely, so as to mean any time between the hour and maybe ten-past the hour: “Meet me at the back of fiveâ€); or specifically, thus: “It's now the back of five, there's not enough time, so I suggest that we all go home and meet again tomorrowâ€.
There isn't a concensus on this, so it's probably better not to assume; I've seen this discussed in another forum before, where someone was really put out when he invited guests for a meal at “the back of sevenâ€, and they turned up just after seven instead of at half-past six, or half-past seven (can't remember which way it went), which the host knew was what everyone would know it meant (I've never met anyone who took it to those lengths).
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
2 Guest(s)