"As far as . . ."

[Laurence Horn]

At 3:21 PM -0400 4/6/07, Charles Doyle wrote:
>Have we (i.e. on this list) discussed the use of unresolved "as far
>as"--such as exemplified by Larry's sentence quoted below? That is,
>introductory "as far as" without "is concerned" or "goes" or the
>like occurring later in the phrasing? Is the construction somewhat
>new (like a couple decades)? Does that use of "as far as" derive,
>historically, from a confusion with "as for"?

Confusion?  I prefer to think of it as an synergistic intraspecific
hybrid.  Others may console themselves that hybrids are often sterile.

LH

>  I hear and read the construction all the time, and I no longer find
>it objectionable--but I DO still notice it!
>
>--Charlie
>_____________________________________________________________
>
>>>As far as the unstressed "ex", that also comes up in the variation
>>>between "EXquisite" and "exQUISite"; even AHD4, which only gives
>>>the antepenult variant for "expletive", gives both for
>>>"exquisite", although it "favors" the antepenult version (which
>>>I'd wager is considerably the rarer of the two in actual usage).
>>>
>>>LH
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org