Unnecessary "of"

ArtsyAmy

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
494
Reaction score
57
I'm deleting unnecessary uses of "that" from my manuscript, and find myself wondering if I also have unnecessary uses of "of." Omitting "of" sometimes improves the sound, while not taking away from the clarity of meaning, but I'm not sure if doing so is grammatical.

Example:
She made sure all of the children were asleep before she blew out the candle.

She made sure all the children were asleep before she blew out the candle.

It seems to me that "of" serves as a preposition. Is that correct? If so, is it okay to omit a preposition from a prepositional phrase? Sounds a bit nutty...

Any thoughts? Thank you.
 

tmesis

bibbidi bobbidi boo
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
Messages
180
Reaction score
24
Location
UK
Interesting question! I had a flick through Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage and they devote more than a page to this. Apparently there's been some controversy. I'll quote their conclusion:

M-W said:
[...] 'all of' is usual before personal pronouns, both 'all' and 'all of' are used before nouns--the 'all' users seem to be a bit stronger on the literary side. The choice is a matter of style [...] It is unlikely that most of your readers will even notice which construction you have chosen.
 

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
I'm deleting unnecessary uses of "that" from my manuscript, and find myself wondering if I also have unnecessary uses of "of." Omitting "of" sometimes improves the sound, while not taking away from the clarity of meaning, but I'm not sure if doing so is grammatical.

Example:
She made sure all of the children were asleep before she blew out the candle.

She made sure all the children were asleep before she blew out the candle.

It seems to me that "of" serves as a preposition. Is that correct? If so, is it okay to omit a preposition from a prepositional phrase? Sounds a bit nutty...

Any thoughts? Thank you.

I agree with your thoughts about eliminating unnecessary "that," "of," "the," "had," etcetera. I think it's especially important in dialog, first person narrative, and even third-person, limited, (in the head) narration.

But, oh, do some beta readers and critique partners scream. Tmesis is so right about the controversy. I just grit my teeth, thank those who want to put all the formal words back (even if it makes all my characters sound like the same person), and try to make conversations and colloquial-speak the way I see people saying them.
 

ArtsyAmy

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
494
Reaction score
57
I have my answer. Thank you both--very helpful and very appreciated.
 

pegasus

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
132
Reaction score
15
Location
South
I'm deleting unnecessary uses of "that" from my manuscript, and find myself wondering if I also have unnecessary uses of "of." Omitting "of" sometimes improves the sound, while not taking away from the clarity of meaning, but I'm not sure if doing so is grammatical.

Example:
She made sure all of the children were asleep before she blew out the candle.

She made sure all the children were asleep before she blew out the candle.

It seems to me that "of" serves as a preposition. Is that correct? If so, is it okay to omit a preposition from a prepositional phrase? Sounds a bit nutty...

Any thoughts? Thank you.

Read a lot; listen a lot; then trust your ear.

Rulebooks are mostly just our effort to codify and organize language as we actually use it on the ground. If your work is set in your own culture and time, I think you should trust your ear moreso than the rulebooks.

(Deleting the preposition is just fine.)
 

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
9,767
Reaction score
3,936
Location
you martyr and shine.
I am glad to see this question, as I was wondering about of myself today while working through my second draft. I tend to pair it with off, as in fell off of the. I've been trying to remove these ofs when the sentence makes perfect sense without them. Nice to see it confirmed that this is okay to do.

OTOH I still wonder if it's annoying to some, in the way I find myself aggravated with the dropping of to be. This needs fixed. That needs wiped down. It still makes sense but it makes me stabby.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Example:
She made sure all of the children were asleep before she blew out the candle.

She made sure all the children were asleep before she blew out the candle.

In your example, the "of" is unnecessary. Read it aloud. It's a simple test: If you can understand the sentence, so can your readers.

caw
 

bonitakale

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
1,485
Reaction score
165
Location
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Website
www.bkedits.com
OTOH I still wonder if it's annoying to some, in the way I find myself aggravated with the dropping of to be. This needs fixed. That needs wiped down. It still makes sense but it makes me stabby.

Oh, ouch. To me, that's just wrong. I'd only use it in dialogue, from a poorly educated character. I've seen it referred to as "country," and "West Virginia" usage (I live in northern Ohio).

Having enough trouble getting used to "couple of " without "a" before it.
 

Fallen

Stood at the coalface
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
5,500
Reaction score
1,957
Website
www.jacklpyke.com
OTOH I still wonder if it's annoying to some, in the way I find myself aggravated with the dropping of to be. This needs fixed. That needs wiped down. It still makes sense but it makes me stabby.

Double ouch. People drop 'to be'?
 

veronie

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
465
Reaction score
58
Location
Ocala, Florida
Website
www.preferredword.com
Some uses of "that" are necessary. Be sure not to delete those.

Anytime some words can be mistakenly taken as a direct object after "said" or "announced" or something similar, "that" may be necessary for clarity.

Ex. He announced his idea would be implemented tomorrow. (For a brief moment, a reader would think "his idea" is the direct object of "announced." Using "that" helps with the smoothness.)

Also, when a time element is used, "that" is helpful for clarity.

Ex. She said today she would have a barbecue. (Did she say that today she would have a barbecue, or did she say today that she would have a barbecue? There's a difference.)
 

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
9,767
Reaction score
3,936
Location
you martyr and shine.
Double ouch. People drop 'to be'?
Yes. I've seen it here, even in thread titles. I wish I could find one. Something like "Does this need edited?" *claws out eyeballs*

I've seen writers I otherwise respect do it, so I wonder if it a colloquialism or something. And technically it does pass the "does it make sense without it?" test, but gaaaah! I can't deal with it.

It needs stopped.:tongue
 

Rufus Coppertop

Banned
Flounced
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
3,935
Reaction score
948
Location
.
OTOH I still wonder if it's annoying to some, in the way I find myself aggravated with the dropping of to be. This needs fixed. That needs wiped down. It still makes sense but it makes me stabby.

Some would say that to-be-droppers need exterminated.
 

Susan Coffin

Tell it like it Is
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
8,049
Reaction score
770
Location
Clearlake Park, CA
Website
www.strokingthepen.com
Example:
She made sure all of the children were asleep before she blew out the candle.

She made sure all the children were asleep before she blew out the candle.

It seems to me that "of" serves as a preposition. Is that correct? If so, is it okay to omit a preposition from a prepositional phrase? Sounds a bit nutty...

Any thoughts? Thank you.

I think "all of" and "all" in the sentences are redundant. I think they sound better without "all of" and "all".
 

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
20,322
Reaction score
3,513
Location
Transcending Canines
Yes. I've seen it here, even in thread titles. I wish I could find one. Something like "Does this need edited?" *claws out eyeballs*

I've seen writers I otherwise respect do it, so I wonder if it a colloquialism or something. And technically it does pass the "does it make sense without it?" test, but gaaaah! I can't deal with it.

It needs stopped.:tongue
You can make sense out of such things, but I don't think that means they're grammatical, though it could be some new idiom (or whatever the word for it is) starting to creep into the language.

These smell ungramatical to me. I want to change them to these:
"Does this need editing?"
"Does this need italicizing?"
THOSE are grammatical, and all is well.
 

F.E.

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
637
Reaction score
106
This needs fixed. That needs wiped down.
Something like "Does this need edited?" *claws out eyeballs*

I've seen writers I otherwise respect do it, so I wonder if it a colloquialism or something.
.
There's a little bit of info in my handy usage dictionary, Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage, on page 518 for the entry need:
2. A curious construction in which need is followed directly by a past participle--"my car needs washed"--is called "widely disliked" by Longman 1984. The editors of The Dictionary of American Regional English know this as an American idiom found chiefly in the Midland area. The usual phrasing would be "needs to be washed," "needs washing," or "needs a wash."
Thought that was a bit interesting ...

Also, perhaps this construction could be considered to be a type of passive voice. :)
 

F.E.

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
637
Reaction score
106
"Does this need editing?"
"Does this need italicizing?"
.
Oh, ... Could it be reasonable to consider those above two examples to be a type of passive voice?

Just wondering ... :D

(Whoops, am I in the wrong thread?)
 
Last edited:

Fallen

Stood at the coalface
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
5,500
Reaction score
1,957
Website
www.jacklpyke.com
Here is one: Does this need italicized?

Please note this is not to pick on the OP of that thread. It's not the only dropped to be I've seen here, just the one I found first.

Oh, now I see... you're right, it's not a knock at the op. If I'd come across it it in fiction, I'd find it hard on the ear.
 

Fallen

Stood at the coalface
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
5,500
Reaction score
1,957
Website
www.jacklpyke.com
.
Oh, ... Could it be reasonable to consider those above two examples to be a type of passive voice?

Just wondering ... :D

(Whoops, am I in the wrong thread?)

Sadist :D ;) In the age-old tradition of sitting on the fence and knowing I'm going to get 'off-topicked': yes and no.
 
Last edited:

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
.
Oh, ... Could it be reasonable to consider those above two examples to be a type of passive voice?

Just wondering ... :D

(Whoops, am I in the wrong thread?)

I wouldn't call that passive voice at all, but there are people who call that a "concealed passive". Before you can answer whether a "concealed passive" is actually passive voice, you need to go through the very convoluted arguments of whether English has passive voice in the first place (and preferrably understand them, which can get tricky at some point). And then you need a plausible definition.
 

tmesis

bibbidi bobbidi boo
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 25, 2011
Messages
180
Reaction score
24
Location
UK
F.E., Fallen, Dawnstorm... I think I love you guys.

That is all.

Don't end this discussion here and disappoint me. :tongue
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
What convoluted arguments? A passive voice is had by English.

The headline might be: "Voice is an inflectional system; English passives are syntactic constructions." This sounds like a mere matter of semantics, but once you dig deeper it becomes complex. For example: current linguistics says that (a) there is a passive voice in English, and (b) there is no future tense in English. Compare the arguments for both and see where this gets you. I'm not going into this, here, as it's off-topic in an "of"-topic. (And it's also probably better suited for the theory forum than for the grammar forum. Not even people interested in Grammar need to to know this. This is really only of interest for people with an interest in linguistics.)
 

Fallen

Stood at the coalface
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
5,500
Reaction score
1,957
Website
www.jacklpyke.com
The headline might be: "Voice is an inflectional system; English passives are syntactic constructions." This sounds like a mere matter of semantics, but once you dig deeper it becomes complex. For example: current linguistics says that (a) there is a passive voice in English, and (b) there is no future tense in English. Compare the arguments for both and see where this gets you. I'm not going into this, here, as it's off-topic in an "of"-topic. (And it's also probably better suited for the theory forum than for the grammar forum. Not even people interested in Grammar need to to know this. This is really only of interest for people with an interest in linguistics.)

I've come across the argument before but always from people who merely state there's no passive voice with little evidence to back it up. Be interesting to see you argue this one out, DawnS. Fancy opening a thread in Lang theory? On the 'no future tense: you can't inflect an individual verb for future tense, you have to use a modal' v 'but they say passive is marked', I can see where you're going with this, but...
 
Last edited:

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
I've come across the argument before but always from people who merely state there's no passive voice with little evidence to back it up. Be interesting to see you argue this one out, DawnS. Fancy opening a thread in Lang theory?

I actually already have a passive voice thread there. I think I covered that in passing, though that wasn't the focus.