"be getting onto"

[Victor Steinbok]

Just wanted to clarify:

I did not mean to include "be on" or "get on" with the rest. Those are
completely banal. What struck me is the particular use with "upon" that
I perceive as uncommon. Plus the particular verbal form. So it's not the
general expression, as you noted, but the specific variation--that seems
dialectal to me. But what do *I* know!

     VS-)

On 4/26/2012 10:24 PM, Wilson Gray wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Victor Steinbok<aardvark66 at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Banal--yes, but not in these parts. Of course, you've been in more
>> parts, even now we practically share the neighborhood.
> A. "Do you know why the [whip-wielding, mounted] overseer of a
> chain-gang is called 'Mr. Wrightoff'?"
> B. "Naw. Why?"
> A. " 'Cause, if he catch you loafin', he-a git *right off* his hoss
> an' git *on* yo' ass!"
>
> --
> -Wilson

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