Well, it’s good of you to say so. But there’s another angle to this (and I an afraid I’m not sure I can say this without it risking sounding personally critical, but it genuinely is just an observation in general, with you as the trigger)…
People write what they say. Too many people say “[built - or whatever] off of”. The fact that you would have to carefully and consciously edit your written word to be more elegant, is a significant element of the problem to start with - you say it. What makes it worse is that even if you say it, you are a ‘writer’ (unlike many internet ‘typists’) and some of us old fuddy-duddies would still expect that to necessitate a higher standard - even on an informal blog like this.
With than/than and should have/should of in speech, it may be harder to distinguish, often depending on the speaker’s accent. I know what I hear but I know how it should be written, too. And these types of error are most prevalent in informal internet writing, which propagates simply because others with no better knowledge see it.
But many other infuriating language misdeeds stem from misuse in spoken and written communication. I would (almost?) never write “off of” because I’d never say it. I can only conclude that those who do write it do so because they say it.
(And some of my rants about preposition misuse, elsewhere, are triggered by spoken usage in video, as much as they are in writing.)
This is true. But I’ve also been thinking about how much of the writing we read in the past was heavily edited and certainly a lot of it didn’t reflect the way people actually spoke. Back in the 70s my mom worked as an editor. But I hardly hear of anyone actually working as an editor anymore. They exist, but I doubt most of what we read on the internet these days is actually edited to some kind of publication standard.
I managed to finally make time to read the whole article.
These extracts seem to parallel (re the advent of printing) what we see today with the advent of universal ‘publishing’.
Standard-setting was only partly in the hands of the people setting the type. Even more so, it was down to a growing reading public. The more texts there were, the more reading there was, and the greater the sensibility about what looks right. Once that sense develops, it can be a very powerful enforcer of norms.
Standard-setting on the internet is now in the hands of everyone and anyone who types here.
Some spellings got entrenched this way, by being printed over and over again in widely distributed texts, very early on.
The more we see breaks not brakes and queue not cue the more we will see it again.
When a text was set in type and distributed, it had the effect of propagating the habit it represented, but how much it propagated depended on how widely it was distributed and where. Which specific aspects of the habit would stick and which fall away? The answer could be some or none. The result, ultimately, is a very irregular habit.
It has been creeping up on us as the internet has expanded and now it is unstoppable. (But some of us still fight the good fight.)
Throughout the history of writing, most people have been illiterate [and still are, relatively speaking?]. It was the technology of printingthe internet that made it possible to put bad writing into widespread use. The written word got cheaper and more plentifulmore and more exposure. People had the access and exposure necessary to learn, practise and become literateilliterate by copying their equally ignorant peers. (Maybe I need a /s tag on that one. Not sure.) /s
Part of my problem is that I did spend many years as an editor of other people’s appalling writing. So I am sensitised to the bad stuff I see. Subject matter experts may know their stuff but they are often incapable of writing it down accurately. But at least that fact kept me employed for a while.
