It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
Engishman, it bothers me.

Any comments anyone?

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

In article <464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
John of Aix  wrote:
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
> say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
> is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
> the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
> 
> Any comments anyone? 

I'm sure there are other verbs that only take one particular preposition
as part of their standard form, without being considered tautological.

But there is a big difference between someone protesting their innocence
and someone protesting against their innocence.

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:15:37 +0200, "John of Aix"
 wrote:

>It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to 
>say 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest 
>is alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in 
>the USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
>Engishman, it bothers me.
>
>Any comments anyone? 
>
The meaning keeps changing!
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=protest

    protest
    1340 (implied in protestation) "solemn declaration," from L.
    protestari "declare publicly, testify, protest," from pro-
    "forth, before" + testari "testify," from testis "witness" (see
    testament). Original sense preserved in to protest one's
    innocence. Meaning "statement of disapproval" first recorded
    1751; that of "expressing of dissent from, or rejection of,
    prevailing mores" is from 1953, in ref. to U.S. black civil
    rights movement. The verb is attested from 1440, "to declare or
    state formally or solemnly," from O.Fr. protester. First record
    of protest march is from 1959. Protester "demonstrator, public
    opponent of the established order" is from 1960.
    

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.

"John of Aix"  wrote in message 
news:464b7417$0$5100$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr...
> It struck me ub readin a UK article this evening that, these days, to say 
> 'protest against' is somewhat tautological (or similar) for a prtest is 
> alawys 'against' somethin, in which case the version often used in the 
> USA, simply 'protest' (as a verb) is more logical even though as an 
> Engishman, it bothers me.
>
> Any comments anyone?

Yes.  I protest in favour of an opposing view.