"help you off with your coat"

[Ross Clark]

I came across this verb phrase in a Katherine Mansfield story ("An Ideal
Family"). What struck me was that while it's perfectly normal English
for me, its syntactic structure suddenly seemed problematic. Why?

"Help" of course commonly takes an object (who is helped) and a
"with"-phrase which specifies the focus of the helping. The above could
just as well have been "help you with your coat", with only a slightly
broadened meaning (it could also cover helping you by carrying it,
finding a coat-hanger for it, etc.).

But "help" doesn't commonly go with "off". If I had to interpret "help
you off", it would be something like "help you off the stage". Here the
"off" (or fuller phrase) indicates the direction in which the object
(you) is going. Similar to "throw you off", "send you off", "vote you
off"...

But that's not what "off" is doing in the first example. It's not the
object (or the subject) of "help" that's going off, but the coat (in the
adjunct phrase).

This is not an invariant, fossilized expression. Any (human) object is
possible; I'm pretty sure "off" can be replaced by "on"; and of course
there are many things you can help someone off/on with.

But I don't think the order of the elements can be varied at all. That's
another way in which this "off" does not look like the adverb "off"
closely connected to the verb. That "off" readily moves to the left of a
heavy object (or the object moves, if you wish):

sent his two young sons off ~ sent off his two young sons

In the "coat" construction, I don't think this is possible:

help his two young sons off with their coats
?help off his two young sons....? Nah.

Suggestions from any perspective welcome. Are there syntactically
parallel constructions with any verb other than "help"? Anybody who
doesn't like this construction?

[Paul Wolff]

On Mon, 10 May 2021, at 21:38:19, Ross Clark posted:

Consider "do" which is said to be elided in 'don' and 'doff'.

>Anybody who doesn't like this construction?

--
Paul

[Ross Clark]

Ah yes. I'm reluctant to introduce a second verb.

However, I have been thinking about that interesting verbless minor
sentence pattern that includes "Off with his head!", "Down with school."
and "Away with you!".

[Madhu]

* Ross Clark <s7b5d0$m23$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Mon, 10 May 2021 23:28:24 +1200:

> However, I have been thinking about that interesting verbless minor
> sentence pattern that includes "Off with his head!", "Down with
> school." and "Away with you!".

"help you off with your head" was the first thing that came to mind.

I;ve come across a "Take yourself off with your oath" (talmud
translation in english) - where the off applies to the oath. not sure
how if you accept that

--
Robin Hood tore his leather jerkin off.

[semir...@my-deja.com]

Over-analysis will only lead to confusion.

The phrasal verb here is to "help (somebody) off with" (a garment).

The point, as far as I am concerned is that phrasal verbs can take words
you know and put them together to mean something quite different.

My favourite example
1. He took off his jacket.
2. The plane took off.
3. The thief took off.

1. is literal.
2. is widely understood.
3. is not obvious unless you already know the meaning.

Basically I believe that phrasal verbs are to be learned
and remembered, not to be over-analysed

[Jerry Friedman]

A lot of people aren't really fond of it--there are no hits at iWeb (14
billion words). And there are no similar constructions with other
verbs there. However, "help someone off with something" does
show up COHA in the 2010s. The small peak in COHA was in the
1930s through '50s.

Is "help someone out" distantly related? And along the lines of
Madhu's joke, "If Billy Jack was riding an elephant and couldn't
get off, would you help Billy Jack off the elephant?"

One of the recent COHA hits also contained

"You have five years to catch us up on," said Beatrice.

Similar?

--
Jerry Friedman

[Lewis]

"help you off with your coat"

In message <s7auuj$51a$1...@dont-email.me> Ross Clark <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> I came across this verb phrase in a Katherine Mansfield story ("An Ideal
> Family"). What struck me was that while it's perfectly normal English
> for me, its syntactic structure suddenly seemed problematic. Why?

> "Help" of course commonly takes an object (who is helped) and a
> "with"-phrase which specifies the focus of the helping. The above could
> just as well have been "help you with your coat", with only a slightly
> broadened meaning (it could also cover helping you by carrying it,
> finding a coat-hanger for it, etc.).

Yes, and "help you with your coat" is also perfectly normal English,
though it usually means "Help you with putting ON your coat".

> But "help" doesn't commonly go with "off".

Think of the full phrase as being "help you with taking off your coat" if
that helps, with the traveling 'off' standing in for the entire phrase.

> This is not an invariant, fossilized expression. Any (human) object is
> possible; I'm pretty sure "off" can be replaced by "on"; and of course
> there are many things you can help someone off/on with.

On is certainly possible, but my feeling is that it is implied if it's
not there, but I am not at all sure about that. It's been a long long
time since anyone asked for help putting on or off their coat, or much
of anything else, for that matter.

> But I don't think the order of the elements can be varied at all. That's
> another way in which this "off" does not look like the adverb "off"
> closely connected to the verb. That "off" readily moves to the left of a
> heavy object (or the object moves, if you wish):

> sent his two young sons off ~ sent off his two young sons

To me this is a phrase that would need context to make sense.

> In the "coat" construction, I don't think this is possible:

> help his two young sons off with their coats
> ?help off his two young sons....? Nah.

He helped his two young sons take off their coats.

> Suggestions from any perspective welcome. Are there syntactically
> parallel constructions with any verb other than "help"? Anybody who
> doesn't like this construction?

I am sure there are people who do not like it for ¿reasons? but it is
perfectly normal English understood by any speaker.


--
Mos Eisley spaceport. You will never find a more wretched hive of
scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

[Ross Clark]

OK, I guess it's a phrasal verb construction, but the way it fits
together is (I think) unique.

I'm not over-analysing; I'm just raising the question of whether further
analysis is possible. You apparently think not.

[Ross Clark]

Slightly, but I think that one fits within known patterns better.

[Ross Clark]

On 11/05/2021 7:28 a.m., Lewis wrote:
>
> "help you off with your coat"
>
> In message <s7auuj$51a$1...@dont-email.me> Ross Clark <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> I came across this verb phrase in a Katherine Mansfield story ("An Ideal
>> Family"). What struck me was that while it's perfectly normal English
>> for me, its syntactic structure suddenly seemed problematic. Why?
>
>> "Help" of course commonly takes an object (who is helped) and a
>> "with"-phrase which specifies the focus of the helping. The above could
>> just as well have been "help you with your coat", with only a slightly
>> broadened meaning (it could also cover helping you by carrying it,
>> finding a coat-hanger for it, etc.).
>
> Yes, and "help you with your coat" is also perfectly normal English,
> though it usually means "Help you with putting ON your coat".
>
>> But "help" doesn't commonly go with "off".
>
> Think of the full phrase as being "help you with taking off your coat" if
> that helps, with the traveling 'off' standing in for the entire phrase.

Just to remind you -- I am a native speaker, and I'm not having trouble
accepting or understanding this example. I'm trying to figure out how it
works grammatically.

>> This is not an invariant, fossilized expression. Any (human) object is
>> possible; I'm pretty sure "off" can be replaced by "on"; and of course
>> there are many things you can help someone off/on with.
>
> On is certainly possible, but my feeling is that it is implied if it's
> not there, but I am not at all sure about that. It's been a long long
> time since anyone asked for help putting on or off their coat, or much
> of anything else, for that matter.

I had the same feeling when I read it: "Yes, this is how you would say
it, but I haven't said it for a long time."

>> But I don't think the order of the elements can be varied at all. That's
>> another way in which this "off" does not look like the adverb "off"
>> closely connected to the verb. That "off" readily moves to the left of a
>> heavy object (or the object moves, if you wish):
>
>> sent his two young sons off ~ sent off his two young sons
>
> To me this is a phrase that would need context to make sense.

You could think of it as him sending them off the field (if he's a
referee and they're players), or sending them off to war... "Off" by
itself can just mean "away", but not all varieties of English have that.

>> In the "coat" construction, I don't think this is possible:
>
>> help his two young sons off with their coats
>> ?help off his two young sons....? Nah.
>
> He helped his two young sons take off their coats.

Yes, that's a paraphrase using a second verb -- again not what I'm
looking for. The point of the two versions above is that the first one
is OK, but the "help off" one is not. I'm contrasting that with the two
versions with "sent/off", where both seem to be OK. That's typical for
these Verb + Adverb combinations. But the "help" one seems to be different.

[Lewis]

In message <s7cmji$p7m$1...@dont-email.me> Ross Clark <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> On 11/05/2021 7:28 a.m., Lewis wrote:
>>
>> "help you off with your coat"
>>
>> In message <s7auuj$51a$1...@dont-email.me> Ross Clark <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>> I came across this verb phrase in a Katherine Mansfield story ("An Ideal
>>> Family"). What struck me was that while it's perfectly normal English
>>> for me, its syntactic structure suddenly seemed problematic. Why?
>>
>>> "Help" of course commonly takes an object (who is helped) and a
>>> "with"-phrase which specifies the focus of the helping. The above could
>>> just as well have been "help you with your coat", with only a slightly
>>> broadened meaning (it could also cover helping you by carrying it,
>>> finding a coat-hanger for it, etc.).
>>
>> Yes, and "help you with your coat" is also perfectly normal English,
>> though it usually means "Help you with putting ON your coat".
>>
>>> But "help" doesn't commonly go with "off".
>>
>> Think of the full phrase as being "help you with taking off your coat" if
>> that helps, with the traveling 'off' standing in for the entire phrase.

> Just to remind you -- I am a native speaker, and I'm not having trouble
> accepting or understanding this example. I'm trying to figure out how it
> works grammatically.

Sure, but part of figuring out why it works is pretty much the same as
figuring out why you understand it.

I suspect that it is a shortening of an earlier (and outdated form) so
it doesnt' necessarily make grammatical sense; but then a lot of thing
don't.

>> He helped his two young sons take off their coats.

> Yes, that's a paraphrase using a second verb -- again not what I'm
> looking for.

But that is what it means, which is why I think this may just be an
elision of a early more formal form. Did someone else suggest 'doff'?
"Let me help you doff your coat"? Perhaps the near complete death of
doff lead to a change from doff to "off with"

--
Aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 9:00:41 AM UTC-4, Lewis wrote:
> In message <s7cmji$p7m$1...@dont-email.me> Ross Clark <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > On 11/05/2021 7:28 a.m., Lewis wrote:

> >> He helped his two young sons take off their coats.
> > Yes, that's a paraphrase using a second verb -- again not what I'm
> > looking for.

(And a very different image from the original.)

> But that is what it means, which is why I think this may just be an
> elision of a early more formal form. Did someone else suggest 'doff'?
> "Let me help you doff your coat"? Perhaps the near complete death of
> doff lead to a change from doff to "off with"

"Doff his head!"

[semir...@my-deja.com]

benl... wrote:
>semir... wrote:

>>benl... wrote:
>>Over-analysis will only lead to confusion.
>>The phrasal verb here is to "help (somebody) off with" (a garment).

>OK, I guess it's a phrasal verb construction, but the way it fits
>together is (I think) unique.
>I'm not over-analysing; I'm just raising the question of whether further
>analysis is possible. You apparently think not.

To learners of English the phrasal verb can be a nightmare.
They expect total logic, and have great difficulty in coming to terms
with the fact that sometimes you put two words together and the
resultant meaning seems to bear no relation to the constituent parts.

The Oxford Dictionary of phrasal verbs has over 11,000 references.
The Spanish printed "Phrasal Verbs EPASA Inglés -> Español",
a "complete and useful guide" has over 3,000 English phrasal
verbs translated into Spanish.

From a sheer volume point of view I think that the analysis of phrasal
verbs is a superhuman task and best not tackled to any great extent.

A way to make sense of " To help someone off with their coat" would
be to think of it as "To help someone doff their coat". Whether this
bears any relation to the real origin, I know not.

[Ross Clark]

On 12/05/2021 4:14 a.m., semir...@my-deja.com wrote:
> benl... wrote:
>> semir... wrote:
>>> benl... wrote:
>>> Over-analysis will only lead to confusion.
>>> The phrasal verb here is to "help (somebody) off with" (a garment).
>
>> OK, I guess it's a phrasal verb construction, but the way it fits
>> together is (I think) unique.
>> I'm not over-analysing; I'm just raising the question of whether further
>> analysis is possible. You apparently think not.
>
> To learners of English the phrasal verb can be a nightmare.
> They expect total logic, and have great difficulty in coming to terms
> with the fact that sometimes you put two words together and the
> resultant meaning seems to bear no relation to the constituent parts.

This is not the case with the "help" construction I'm interested in.
There is no idiomatic meaning which cannot be derived from the
constituent parts. The puzzle is exactly how they fit together.

> The Oxford Dictionary of phrasal verbs has over 11,000 references.
> The Spanish printed "Phrasal Verbs EPASA Inglés -> Español",
> a "complete and useful guide" has over 3,000 English phrasal
> verbs translated into Spanish.
>
> From a sheer volume point of view I think that the analysis of phrasal
> verbs is a superhuman task and best not tackled to any great extent.

I can understand your reluctance -- it's largely a lexicographer's task,
which means long hard work and not much glory (Johnson's "drudgery").
Syntactically, most of them fall into a small number of recurrent patterns.

[Janet]

In article <bfb2bf28-7536-4d9c...@googlegroups.com>,
semir...@my-deja.com says...

But that would be misleading because then they wouldn't recognise
common usage like " He saw off his sister at the station then helped an
old lady off the train and up the steps"

When you've taken that in I'll round up some more examples.

Janet

[Adam Funk]

It works better with "drop off" = "doff".

> When you've taken that in I'll round up some more examples.

Sure, that will be helpful! Meanwhile, I'll go round up some numbers.


--
rise to claim Saturn, ring and sky

[Peter T. Daniels]

The first one is a particle, the second (also up) is a preposition.
Thus not parallel. (And not relevant to the "doff" proposal.)

[Helen Lacedaemonian]

The construction may not be popular today, but it has a venerable
history: "I will help you off with your irons" appears in The Pilgrim's
Progress (1678).

Some parallel variants to consider:

make off with [something]
get off with [someone]
run/walk/take off with [someone or something]

Best,
Helen

[Helen Lacedaemonian]

Or, how about these:

to run [someone] off [something]
Examples:
"The survivalist at the end of the road will run you off his property if he catches you sniffing around."
"Tomorrow I'll run you off a dozen copies of the document."

to cook [someone] up [something]
Example:
"After work I like to cook him up a late supper of salad and spaghetti alla carbonara."

to sic [someone] on [something]
Example:
"The officer did not issue a warning before siccing the dog on the suspect."

Best,
Helen

[Lewis]

In message <6atsmhx...@news.ducksburg.com> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> On 2021-05-12, Janet wrote:

>> But that would be misleading because then they wouldn't recognise
>> common usage like " He saw off his sister at the station then helped an
>> old lady off the train and up the steps"

> It works better with "drop off" = "doff".

But that is not what doff means, so how would it be better?

--
'You're wizards!' she [Esk] screamed. 'Bloody well wizz!' --Equal
Rites

[Lewis]

'Thank you very much,' said Alice. 'May I help you off with your helmet?
(Through the Looking Glass)

"For two hundred I want the shades too ."
The boy whipped off the wraparound mirrored sunglasses. “You got 'em."
"Here , let me help you off with that." In a quick move, Doug yanked the
boy's jacket off,,, --Something called "Hot Ice" from 2011.


The least I can do when I am about to take your boots from you , is to
help you off with them . -- Duval and the Duchess, Or, A Midnight Row at St. James's (1869)

--
Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

[Peter T. Daniels]

preposition

> "Tomorrow I'll run you off a dozen copies of the document."

particle

> to cook [someone] up [something]
> Example:
> "After work I like to cook him up a late supper of salad and spaghetti alla carbonara."

particle

> to sic [someone] on [something]
> Example:
> "The officer did not issue a warning before siccing the dog on the suspect."

on? preposition

[Helen Lacedaemonian]

As opposed to....?

[Peter T. Daniels]

I didn't/don't see how that is an example of what we've been talking about.

[Helen Lacedaemonian]

Why not? Because of the absence of "with"? Then how about this:

to set [someone] up with [someone or something]

How would that be different from:

to help [someone] off with [something]

Best,
Helen

[Jerry Friedman]

Not speaking for any linguists, but

If you helped someone off with their coat, their coat is now off.

If you set Pat up with Alex, Alex is not now up. (Though something
might be up with Pat and Alex.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Helen Lacedaemonian]

The linguists are curiously silent.

>
> If you helped someone off with their coat, their coat is now off.
>
> If you set Pat up with Alex, Alex is not now up. (Though something
> might be up with Pat and Alex.)

lol. Obviously the OP's "problematic" construction is utterly unique, with
no parallel anywhere in the language. Fascinating! I don't know why I
couldn't see it before.

Best,
Helen

[Quinn C]

* Adam Funk:

> On 2021-05-12, Janet wrote:
>
>> When you've taken that in I'll round up some more examples.
>
> Sure, that will be helpful! Meanwhile, I'll go round up some numbers.

As long as it doesn't lead to all of us being rounded up and put away.

--
The least questioned assumptions are often the most questionable
-- Paul Broca
... who never questioned that men are more intelligent than women

[Ross Clark]

Nice. Thank you.
I think it's still quite popular today.

> Some parallel variants to consider:
>
> make off with [something]
> get off with [someone]
> run/walk/take off with [someone or something]

But in all these (if I understand them aright) it is the subject of the
verb that goes "off". The [someone or something] may also go "off", but
only by virtue of being taken by (or accompanying) that subject.

> Best,
> Helen

[Ross Clark]

With "run" and "sic", the object of the verb goes somewhere, specified
by the prepositional phrase with "off/on".

With "cook", the "up" is just a particle (adverb) whose meaning in such
combinations is a bit hard to define. It could be omitted without much
change of meaning. So what you have is a direct object [something]
preceded by an indirect object [(for) someone].

So I don't see any of these as a close parallel to the "help"
construction, in which neither subject nor object goes "off", but only
the object of "with".

[semir...@my-deja.com]

Janet wrote:
> semir...says...

Not really. "Off with" is not quite the same as "off"

[semir...@my-deja.com]

I think you have persuaded me. There is no real harm in a native speaker
analysing a phrasal verb exhaustively. Nothing much will be lost.

The problem arises when a learner does the same. It is much more helpful
in my view for a learner to treat these verbs as a vocabulary-expanding
exercise, accepting some as being inexplicable, rather than getting bogged down
and creating bottlenecks.

[Quinn C]

* Helen Lacedaemonian:

Or in short: I can set you up!

> How would that be different from:
>
> to help [someone] off with [something]

Or in short: I can help you off?

I don't think so. You can set up a lot of things, but you can't help off
any.

"Set up" is a vocabulary item (with "up" being a particle making a
phrasal verb), "help off" isn't.

--
The notion that there might be a "truth" of sex, as Foucault
ironically terms it, is produced precisely through the regulatory
practices that generate coherent identities through the matrix of
coherent gender norms. -- Judith Butler

[Peter Moylan]

On 13/05/21 06:10, Helen Lacedaemonian wrote:

> The construction may not be popular today, but it has a venerable
> history: "I will help you off with your irons" appears in The Pilgrim's
> Progress (1678).
>
> Some parallel variants to consider:
>
> make off with [something]
> get off with [someone]
> run/walk/take off with [someone or something]

Off with his head!

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Ross Clark]

On 13/05/2021 1:50 p.m., Stefan Ram wrote:

> Ross Clark <benl...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
>> So I don't see any of these as a close parallel to the "help"
>> construction, in which neither subject nor object goes "off", but only
>> the object of "with".
>

> The Hypallage is a figure of speech in which a modifier is
> syntactically linked to an item other than the one that it
> modifies semantically.
>
> |While he's waiting, Richard pops a nervous handful of
> |salted nuts into his mouth.
>
> (Richard is nervous, not the handful.)

This seems like a literary device. If the term is as general as you
indicate, I don't see it as being particularly useful.

> In "help you off", the "off" might semantically modify a "get"
> (as in "help you to get off your coat"), which is not part
> of the utterance, so the "off" now is syntactically linked to
> "help".
>
As I said before, I'd rather not bring hypothetical extra verbs into it.

[Ross Clark]

On 13/05/2021 1:30 p.m., Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 13/05/21 06:10, Helen Lacedaemonian wrote:
>
>> The construction may not be popular today, but it has a venerable
>> history: "I will help you off with your irons" appears in The Pilgrim's
>> Progress (1678).
>>
>> Some parallel variants to consider:
>>
>> make off with [something]
>> get off with [someone]
>> run/walk/take off with [someone or something]
>
> Off with his head!

I'm beginning to think this last is indeed relevant to understanding how
the "help" construction got that way.

What do we need to explain it?
(i) a "general reference" usage of _with_, which we still have e.g. in
To hell with Facebook!
Are you finished with the pliers?
(ii) _off_, which is originally an adverb, but can be used verbally
(with an "implied" verb, as OED puts it) from a very early date. Put
them together and we get:

c1275 (▸?a1200) Laȝamon Brut (Calig.) (1963) 2535 Awei he warp his
gode breond & of mid þere burne.
[Someone more lettered than I can probably tell us what _burne_ means
here.]
c1475 Mankind (1969) 88 (MED) Anon of wyth yowr clothes.
c1475 Mankind (1969) 437 (MED) Wyll ȝe of wyth hys hede!
1805 R. Anderson Ballads in Cumberland Dial. 5 I off wi' my clogs,
and as whisht as a mouse, Claver'd up to the window.

etc.

So, historically, [off with his coat] was actually a consituent, I
think, a verb phrase equivalent to [take off his coat].

But I, at least, can't parse it that way any more.

Thanks to all for suggestions and examples.

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-05-12, Lewis wrote:

> In message <6atsmhx...@news.ducksburg.com> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2021-05-12, Janet wrote:
>
>>> But that would be misleading because then they wouldn't recognise
>>> common usage like " He saw off his sister at the station then helped an
>>> old lady off the train and up the steps"
>
>> It works better with "drop off" = "doff".
>
> But that is not what doff means, so how would it be better?

I was just being facetious.


--
FORTRAN: You shoot yourself in each toe, iteratively, until you run
out of toes, then you read in the next foot and repeat. If you run out
of bullets, you continue anyway because you have no exception-handling
facility.

[Paul Wolff]

On Thu, 13 May 2021, at 16:21:15, Ross Clark posted:

Let me help you off to a good start. Is that any use in your analysis?
--
Paul

[CDB]

On 5/13/2021 1:14 AM, Ross Clark wrote:

> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Helen Lacedaemonian wrote:

>>> The construction may not be popular today, but it has a
>>> venerable history: "I will help you off with your irons" appears
>>> in The Pilgrim's Progress (1678).

>>> Some parallel variants to consider:

>>> make off with [something] get off with [someone] run/walk/take
>>> off with [someone or something]

>> Off with his head!

> I'm beginning to think this last is indeed relevant to understanding
> how the "help" construction got that way.

> What do we need to explain it? (i) a "general reference" usage of
> _with_, which we still have e.g. in To hell with Facebook! Are you
> finished with the pliers? (ii) _off_, which is originally an adverb,
> but can be used verbally (with an "implied" verb, as OED puts it)
> from a very early date. Put them together and we get:

> c1275 (▸?a1200) Laȝamon Brut (Calig.) (1963) 2535 Awei he warp
> his gode breond & of mid þere burne. [Someone more lettered than I
> can probably tell us what _burne_ means here.]

Off with their (?) coat of mail, or "byrnie".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/byrnie#Scots

[Janet]

In article <c873e4fa-872c-4f98...@googlegroups.com>,
jerry_f...@yahoo.com says...

> Not speaking for any linguists, but
>
> If you helped someone off with their coat, their coat is now off.
>
> If you set Pat up with Alex, Alex is not now up. (Though something
> might be up with Pat and Alex.)
>

Alex turned down Pat after he picked up Mary. Mary was up for it.
Pat was a bit off with both of them.

Janet

[Snidely]

on 5/11/2021, Ross Clark supposed :

For me, it's just "help take off their coat", slightly swizzled, and
the opposite direction is a swizzle of "help put on their coat."
Perhaps in collision with your other phrase "help with their coat". If
I was seriously entertained by the exercise, I might look to see when
it first appears [through the proxy of the printed word, e.g. corpus
congregentur], and perhaps if there was a particularly regional element
that eventually escaped the box.

/dps 'GT gives "corpus regimented" for "regimented body"'

--
I have always been glad we weren't killed that night. I do not know
any particular reason, but I have always been glad.
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain

[Paul Wolff]

On Mon, 7 Jun 2021, at 22:05:49, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> posted:

'Off with' uses 'with' in the largely obsolete 'from' or separation
sense - as in 'break with' and 'part with'. Once you understand that,
helping someone [to it] doesn't pose any problems that I can see.

Now be off with you, chaps, run along.
--
Paul