It’s the last day of the regular season in the NFL.  I guess it’s the last chance for this season for some of the ex-players/commentators to trash the language (or just make up their own).

In a post a while back, I discussed the disturbing trend toward saying “based off” or “based off of” instead of “based on.”

Now I find that “on” has apparently come into disfavor when used in some similar situations.

Today I heard a guy on radio actually say that a certain football team’s hopes of making the playoffs were “centered off of” its success in the running game.

Wow.

Not to be outdone, some studio analyst (I think he’s a TV talk show host too) said that a team was “hyped up off of” its recent success on special teams.

Where is this stuff coming from?

OK.  Today I’m half asleep, listening to Morning Edition as usual.

It’s a story about China banning the importing of certain shellfish from Alaska and the state of Washington.  China claims it recently found two bad clams.

The action puts a strain on the shellfish industry up there.  And, there is belief in some quarters that China’s concern is not legitimate.

NPR went to an expert.  Here’s what she said (get ready).

“It is possible that it could be retaliation for something that has happened in the past.”

(I think highlighting the entire sentence is appropriate.)

The woman quoted is, according to the story on the NPR website, a post-doctoral research fellow at the Princeton-Harvard China and the World Program.  (Yes, that Princeton, and that Harvard.)

Let’s take closer look at her analysis:

“It is possible that it could be . . . “

OK, you don’t want to be too didactic.

“ . . . for something that has happened in the past.”

I’m thinkin’ that “has happened” probably already covers “the past.”

And, I can’t help but wonder what particular function “has” serves in this sentence.

This is a classic sentence.  It’s clear that the post-doctoral program in question doesn’t base its acceptance on clear expression.