Posts by Dr. Boli
“OFF” FOR “ON.”
An example: “Weevil’s study builds off the work of the scholar Sir Martinet Weedwhacker.” (Names have been changed to protect the innocent, but otherwise this is a direct quotation.)
Here is an example from the New York Times as quoted by Merriam Webster:
Diets at the time, for rich and poor alike, were based off the humoral science of the ancient Greeks…
Now, a base is a foundation, a thing to be built on. Clearly if you build off the foundation, it means that you are building somewhere else. If Weevil is building off Weedwhacker’s work, that would mean that his work has nothing to do with Weedwhacker’s. If something is based off the humoral science of the ancient Greeks, it has nothing to do with that humoral science. It is based on something else.
But obviously that is not what these writers mean. They say “based off” when they mean “based on.” They say “built off” when they mean “built on.”
Dr. Boli would not hire any of these people as architects.
It seems to Dr. Boli that many of these peculiar errors in English—and he has no qualms about calling “off” for “on” an error—spread through the pedantic instinct. In the beginning, they are picked up precisely because they are rare. Everybody says “based on”; we hear an authority figure say “based off,” and we assume that, because it is not what everybody says, it must be a more correct alternative to what everybody says. These innovations thus take root most firmly among the middlebrow population who have some college education and a desire to be correct in English, but do not feel very confident of their own understanding of what “correct” would mean. The little snowball rolls down the hill and becomes an avalanche, and pretty soon your average middlebrow will hear somebody say “based on” and smugly correct him: “You mean based off, don’t you?”
This particular example is also part of what may be a more disturbing trend in American English, which is the tendency to use a word or phrase to mean its opposite. More and more Dr. Boli runs across people who consistently write “would” or “could” when they mean “wouldn’t” or “couldn’t,” and if that ever becomes standard usage, verbal communication will be at an end, and we will be reduced to the level of grunting and whining animals.
There may be no way to stop “based off,” “built off,” and the like from becoming standard English. But that will mean that the architectural metaphor is completely lost, and thus those phrases will be fairly good indicators that the speaker is merely babbling and not saying anything worth listening to.
TO KING CHARLES III.

ASK YOUR DOG.
Scientifically speaking, this is balderdash. Our current styles of acting are stale and ritualized, almost liturgically artificial. The only reason we insist that acting in our current movies and television entertainment is “natural” is because we have agreed to consider certain clichés as standing in for nature.
We say scientifically speaking because Dr. Boli has proved his assertion by a scientific experiment that does not depend on the reaction of a human audience. He asked the dog. If you have a good watchdog at home, you can try the same experiment yourself.
First, you can play a movie or television show on your computer so that the dog can hear it. Result: Dog does nothing. Dog knows that dog is not hearing real people talking: it is ritualized performance recorded somewhere else, at some other time, and is of no concern to dog.
Now make a video call to some friend from the same computer, so that the sound comes out of the loudspeaker at the same volume. Result: Dog leaps into a barking frenzy to warn you of a perimeter breach. Dog can hear that this is a real person talking. It is not ritualized performance at all.
Nothing has changed in the quality or source of the sound. The only thing that has changed is the rhythm and expression of the person talking. Dog ignores the fictional character because dog has learned that fictional characters are not real people and do not invade the house.
The same, incidentally, is true of news and information programs. Reporters have their own ritualized expression, which is completely uninteresting to dogs. Dogs understand the difference between television personalities and real people—a lesson we humans would do well to learn.
So the next time you hear someone praise the utterly natural performance of a certain actor, ignore the critic. Ask your dog instead. Your dog is a better judge.
DID YOU KNOW…
…that five successive Byzantine emperors were misplaced somewhere in the Blachernae and are presumed to have been built over?
…that there are still three garage bands in Indianapolis that do not have their own Wikipedia articles?
…that scientists are unable to explain how cats sleep for 117% of their lives?
…that so-called “popular” music only appears to be popular because so many people listen to it?
…that Charles Dickens, for all his success as a novelist, never sold a single screenplay?
FROM THE ILLUSTRATED EDITION.
Advertisement.
ANSWERS TO THE ARCHITECTURAL GUESSING GAME.
ARCHITECTURAL GUESSING GAME.

We put the rest of the article behind a “read more” tag, because there are quite a few pictures to load, and we don’t want to bog down the front page for a week and a half.
IN MUSIC NEWS.
The Earl’s Own Early Music Ensemble invites the public to a Sing Along with Palestrina concert at O’Brady’s Bar and Grill on Saturday at 8 p.m. Three-drink minimum.
Popular middlebrow band The Luxurious Socks have denied the rumors of a breakup, saying that the band simply needed some “apart time” and will be going to separate continuing-education classes to learn more about, like, psychology and stuff.
Rap-jazz fusion artist Felonious Thelonious will be guest-hosting Face the Nation this Sunday.
British rock legend Sir Jeremy Freakout has released his first single in five decades. Titled “Nothing Freaks Me Out Anymore,” the song consists of a rhythm track, a number of repeated cues from late-night public-affairs programming, and Sir Jeremy’s own distinctive snoring.
KNOW YOUR ROAD SIGNS.


