taken shocked

[Cohen, Gerald Leonard]

Laurence is correct that "taken by surprise" possibly played a role in the blending.  But probably not "taken for a loop," which strikes me as much less common and is probably a blend itself ("thrown for a loop" + "taken aback" or
"taken by surprise.")

Arnold, the ball's in your court now.

Gerald Cohen


________________________________________
On Thursday, November 08, 2012 12:16 PM Laurence Horn wrote:


On Nov 8, 2012, at 12:10 PM, Cohen, Gerald Leonard wrote:

> Yes. This looks like an amalgamation, aka "blend."
>
> Gerald Cohen

But how can we tell the blendee/amalgamee is "taken aback" rather than "taken by surprise"? Or even "taken for a loop"?  All are relatively common and overlap in meaning.  (Sorry for encroaching on Arnold's vineyard, as it were.)

LH
>
> ________________________________________
> Original message: Paul Frank, Thursday, November 08, 2012 8:17 AM:
>
> From today's LA Times:
>
> "Nor should they be taken shocked by Latinos rejection of their plan."
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-gop-election-immigration-20121107,0,3354974.story
>
> I'm guessing that "taken shocked" is an amalgamation of "taken aback"
> and "shocked" and I'm surprised to find quite a few examples of "taken
> shocked" on the internet.
>
> Or is "taken shocked" just a typo and sloppy editing? After all, you'd
> expect an apostrophe after Latinos in the sentence quoted above.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Frank
> Translator
> German, French, Chinese => English
> Neuchâtel, Switzerland
> paulfrank at post.harvard.edu
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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

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