# woo the pants off of



## roucoups

sur une page de cnn aujourd'hui,

"Turns out work isn't all about profit margins and PowerPoint presentations. A major aspect of office life is your social encounters: who you're working with, who you're sharing happy hour with and for some, who you're trying to woo the pants off of -- literally."

il y a woo the pants off of

woo veut dire courtiser. mais que veut dire woo the pants off of ?

est ce le verbe woo off/woo of ?

je ne pige pas

merci


----------



## Cath.S.

Ça veut dire littéralement séduire quelqu'un au point de faire tomber son pantalon. (on dit aussi _charm the pants off_ ou même _charm the knickers off_)
Cette expression s'emploie souvent au figuré, mais pas dans ce contexte, où il s'agit de promotion canapé.

Je crois que pour une traduction, le verbe séduire devrait suffire à exprimer l'idée :

_qui vous essayez - littéralement - de séduire._


----------



## roucoups

ok je pige maintenant.
you're trying to woo the pants off

et le dernier of c'était pour le who du début.

merci.


----------



## Cath.S.

roucoups said:


> ok je pige maintenant.
> you're trying to woo the pants off
> 
> et le dernier of c'était pour le who du début.
> merci. De rien.


 
C'est cela mais je pense que c'est une faute en anglais, je ne pense pas que "_off of_ " soit correct :_ off_ tout seul est suffisant ; les anglophones commenteront sans doute ce détail.


----------



## wildan1

*off of *_*whom* you are trying to woo the pants _(very strange sounding, but that is the "correct" syntax for this phrase)

colloquially: _*who *you are trying to woo the pants *off* *of*_


----------



## roucoups

tu es sûr pour off of whom?
j'aurais plutôt dit :
of who you're trying to woo the pants off?


----------



## xtrasystole

Moi aussi, spontanément j'aurais dit : *of *_*whom* you are trying to woo the pants _*off 
*
Qu'en penses-tu, ami wildan1 ?


----------



## wheelel

> j'aurais plutôt dit :
> of who you're trying to woo the pants off?


The correct english here would be "of WHOM you're trying to woo the pants off" (this is because "who" changes it's ending according to its function in the sentence ie "Whose jacket is this? To Whom am I speaking? Who is there?") In the above sentence the object of the verb is the person whose pants are being wooed off, so therefore the "who" becomes "whom".

This sentence, however, sounds awkward and is not something I can see that a native english speaker would naturally say. Personally, I see nothing wrong with the original "who you're trying to woo the pants off of".


----------



## roucoups

c'est une erreur de ma part, je voulais dire "of whom you're trying to woo the pants off?" et non "of who" (surtout quand on met le of devant ça implique je dirais le whom.
c'est du langage soutenu de dire "of whom." ça peut même faire prétentieux. je crois que le mieux est donc de dire "who(m) you're trying to woo the pants off of?" car c'est plus commun.


----------



## wildan1

xtrasystole said:


> Moi aussi, spontanément j'aurais dit : *of *_*whom* you are trying to woo the pants _*off *
> 
> Qu'en penses-tu, ami wildan1 ?


 
There is an old grammar rule that says you should not use a preposition at the end of a sentence. It is called a "dangling preposition." Old English teachers everywhere had their red pens ready for any possible error of this sort!

The reality is that when we speak, we almost always do it. What has resulted is that when you don't do it this way, it frequently sounds very stiff and formal.

Winston Churchill once criticized a speechwriter who had respected those old teachers' rules in writing a speech for him by saying, "this is pedantic language up with which I will not put!"


----------



## Argyll

I've always liked that remark by Churchill, Wildan1. I also liked :

"Never use a preposition to end a sentence with."

"What did you want to bring that book, that I didn't want to be read to from out of, about Down Under, up for ?"


----------



## Cath.S.

Sorry to insist,  but I've learnt a long time ago that "off of" is _never_ correct (I'm not suggesting people don't use it, of course).
Here are some links, though:
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/probPrep.asp
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~rafe/grammar.html
http://www.llrx.com/columns/grammar14.htm

I suggest the correct sentence ought to be simply:
_whom you're trying to woo the pants off._
I'm not too worried about dangling prepositions since the Bard himself is known to have used them.


----------



## wildan1

egueule said:


> I suggest the correct sentence ought to be simply:
> _whom you're trying to woo the pants off._


 
No doubt, egueule, that you could prove its grammatical soundness. Problem is, no one naturally says it that way that I've ever heard... CNN is anything if not the _vox populi_--I think they got it right to begin with.


----------



## calembourde

I agree with egueule, "off of" sounds wrong (though I have heard it in speech before) and I would naturally just say "off". I have the impression that "off of" is more common in AE. 

By the way, there's nothing grammatically wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition, unless the preposition doesn't need to be in the sentence in the first place. It's easy enough to find websites about that so I won't link to any one in particular.


----------



## mikey27

For what it's worth, from a purely aural standpoint, the way CNN wrote the sentence sounds perfectly natural to my American ear. While understanding the finer grammatical complexities involved here, I will even confess it would sound unnatural if that last "of" weren't there.


----------



## brm

Et celle-là alors?
Whose pants are you trying to woo off?
Imaginable?


----------



## mikey27

If I heard that in a bar I would burst out laughing...so yeah, that's a great sentence!


----------



## itka

I'm not sure I understand all the beautiful things you wrote !

Something looking weird to me :


> _of __whom you are trying to woo the pants _*off *



Thats* off *is a dangling preposition too, isn't it ?

And, please, Argyll, would you give me a translation of this incredible sentence ?


> "What did you want to bring that book, that I didn't want to be read to from out of, about Down Under, up for ?"


----------



## calembourde

I'm trying to woo your pants off

'Of' would not make any sense anywhere in this sentence. So when, just for fun, we reformulate so that it doesn't end in a preposition:

I'm trying to woo the pants off you

there is no need for 'of' here either.

Anyway, that's probably not the point of the thread. I'd like to point out that '[verb] the pants off [noun/pronoun]' can be used for almost any verb, to say that you're doing something very well or impressively. People don't usually even think about pants coming off when they say it, it's just an expression. Search for "the pants off" (in quotes) on google to see the variety of situations this can be used in. There is usually no sexual connotation, unless it's specifically used in that context as a play on words, as it is here. At first glance I would think of "woo the pants off" as simply meaning "woo very impressively/successfully". Only later (or after reading the word "literally") would I think of the possibility of literally getting somebody to take off their pants by wooing them.


----------



## wildan1

itka said:


> Something looking weird to me :
> 
> 
> Thats* off *is a dangling preposition too, isn't it ?


 
No, _off_ is the second part of a two word verb, _"to woo off"--_BUT 
_to woo off_ is not a usual two-word verb 

_to woo the pants off of someone_ is not a common expression (CNN invented it; howeve it makes immediate sense to a native AE speaker even if it was never heard before)

So the example we are all trying to parse is unusual, no matter how you order the words. 

Maybe a parallel sentence structure using a normal two-word verbal phrase would help:

_to be turned down by somone_ (someone said no to your proposition)

_By whom do you think you will be turned down?_ -- this is standard; you would write this, or even say it if you were being careful or formal

_Who do you think you will be turned down by? _This is what most people would say in normal conversation in AE. It is not incorrect; it is just conversational


----------



## mikey27

EDIT even before clicking "submit": I obviously took way too long to write this, apologies , and while I was doing so there were a couple other publishers with whom (ha ha!) I agree.
_____________

OK, I know there's a new grammar forum, but we're already full speed ahead with this particular thread. If a moderator wants to move this, I understand completely, though for the moment it pertains directly to this discussion.

This dangling preposition business should be addressed. The language is created by a people, but the grammar is also created by people attempting to create a nice, neat package to present to the world, and to justify whatever anomalies one may find with logical justifications. The French have logical justifications for using the indicative after _penser que_ ("but when I think, it's always right!") just as the Italians and Hispanophones have logical justifications for using the subjunctive in the same instance.

Likewise, it is logically possible to wipe hanging prepositions off the linguistic map if needed, however, it doesn't always work in reality.

While visiting Harvard, Churchill asks a student:
_-Excuse me, where is the library at?_
_-Here at Hahvahd, we never end a sentence with a preposition._
_-O.K. Excuse me, where is the library at, asshole?_

Churchill, again, after someone corrected him for using a hanging preposition:
_This is arrant pedantry, up with which I shall not put._

Who knows if Churchill said that. It's still funny, the second example still sounds particularly ridiculous, and it's for these reasons I'm convinced by the school of thought that seeks precision and clarity in the lovely English language rather than never putting a preposition at the end of a sentence.

When writing a paper, indeed, I suggest using a style in which prepositions are eloquently formed. This sort of language still has its place, and should retain it!

On the other hand, when speaking, I strongly suggest avoiding saying something like "that is the man off whom I desire to woo the pants". The textbook precision will be superceded by the sheer silliness of the resultant sound!


----------



## mikey27

Wait! OK, I'm ashamed to admit I thought a lot about the mysterious "of" while I took a walking break elsewhere on the island. It _should_ be there, and rather than explain too much, here's a bit of what my grammar teacher this past summer called "gymnastique linguistique". Also, let's reduce it to the simplest form, which would be the original expression, "to knock someone's socks off," and then morph it into the version at hand, "...who you're trying to woo the pants off of." Note that the intermediary sentences are not necessarily correct, but for the purposes of this exercise it's important to see them.

I'd also like to mention I'm not usually so dorky, but I've found myself with some free time during this brief period of no job/no studies before the school year 

_to knock someone's socks off_
_to knock the socks off someone_
_someone whose socks you knock off_
_someone, the socks of whom you knock off_
_someone whom you knock the socks off of_
_someone whom you are trying to knock the socks off of_
_someone whom you're trying to woo the pants off of_
_[someone] who[m] you're trying to woo the pants off of_
And finally:
...who you're trying to woo the pants off of.

The proper "whom" is often reduced to "who" in spoken English, and so in the CNN version, "who" does in fact equal "whom", and that allows - or rather, explains - the use of "of" at the end of the sentence.

The "off of" described in the websites provided by egueule (Merci ! J'ai appris plein de trucs sur la grammaire anglaise !) is the same visually, but represents a different function than the "off of" we see above. Whether or not it's actually correct is a different story, but the "of" is essential to the above sentence, even if it is left hanging. Since it's the last of a group of three, the writer kept the same formula for fluidity's sake rather than switching to the more grammatically agreeable "whose pants you want to woo off".

I can't wait for school, and I bet you can't wait for me either. I won't have the time to be so annoying and tedious  and I'll be contented with my measly .09 posts per day!


----------



## Cath.S.

Cet intéressant débat aurait été / serait plus à sa place en English Only.

I apologize for causing people to wander away from the straight and narrow.


----------



## Nicomon

brm said:


> Et celle-là alors?
> Whose pants are you trying to woo off?
> Imaginable?


 
By itself, this one's my favorite, though I would reverse _are_ and _you_.  _Whose pants you are trying to woo off._ 
Except that imho, in context... CNN's sentence works better.



mikey27 said:


> Since it's the last of a group of three, the writer kept the same formula for fluidity's sake rather than switching to the more grammatically agreeable "whose pants you want to woo off".


 
I was going to suggest the very same thing (last of a group of 3 WHO)... before I read this post.   I agree that it wouldn't work without the dangling _of_.


----------



## Cath.S.

Nicomon said:
			
		

> (last of a group of 3 WHO


 
Last of a group of three White House Officials? Women Helping Others?


----------



## Nicomon

egueule said:


> Last of a group of three White House Officials? Women Helping Others?


 
Je n'aurais pas dû l'écrire en capitales.   La phrase initiale est:

_*who *you're working with, *who* you're sharing happy hour with and for some, *who* you're trying to woo the pants off of -- literally."_

Donc CNN a choisi 3 *who,* plutôt que 2 *who *et 1 *whom* ou *whose*. Ça me semblait logique. Et àma, si on conserve who, il faut laisser *of* à la fin. 

Mais bon, on n'aura sans doute pas à l'écrire souvent.


----------



## mikey27

Haha...I have an online crush on egueule's online personality.

I think Nicomon meant the last of the three uses of the word "who". In that quote we analyzed there are three short phrases each beginning with that word  C'était si important que Nicomon l'a mis tout en majuscule !

EDIT: sloooow.


----------



## Cath.S.

J'aurais dû comprendre, Nicole... Je ne suis toujours pas trop convaincue, mais qu'importe.  

Mais mes amis, je vous supplie, je vous conjure d'aller continuer ou entamer cette conversation dans le forum anglais, je me sens vraiment coupable maintenant, et la culpabilité, c'est mauvais pour la digestion !


----------



## itka

Ben, moi je suis bien contente que vous ayez discuté de tout ça ici ...  Le forum anglais est bien trop difficile pour moi et je n'y vais pas d'habitude... (mais je vais peut-être changer).

Thanks a lot for all these so interessant explanations !


----------



## George French

Are you sure about CNN? It's rather an old expression. Or am I getting to old to remember these things correctly.


----------

