Is the saying "It's not that big of a deal" incorrect? I would really like an answer to this as my children think it is correct.
Asked
Active
Viewed 4.0k times
4
4 Answers
2
Perhaps this Ngram will answer your question.
I am aware of the weaknesses of Ngram, but it works for rough-and-ready questions like this, and shows that "big a deal" is used more than "big of a deal", at least in writing.
Even though "big a deal" is the more used, I am not sure I would say your kids are wrong in any absolute way. The 'of' is pretty much redundant, and on a personal level I see unnecessary words as a barrier to clarity, but it is used widely in some areas.
Roaring Fish
- 15,115
-
In some situations where 'outside of' is commonly used, I'd stick with 'outside'. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 30 '23 at 10:23
1
I'm probably a bit old-fashioned, but I say no, this is incorrect. The presence of the word "of" is neither necessary nor correct.
Conciseness and correctness both favour the simpler "not that big a deal."
James McLeod
- 9,207
-1
English is mostly defined by usage rather than by reference to a fixed set of all-encompassing rules.
This means your kids are correct.
You might be able to make an argument about staleness of cliché.
I'd just say "wrong buster, it's a heck of a big deal in this household - thems our rules, suck it up."
RedGrittyBrick
- 10,147
- 32
- 46
-
English is defined by usage? Really. So, I ain't going to grammar class today is perfectly OK with you? – Michael Scott Aug 22 '18 at 13:14
-
Sorry, RedGrittyBrick; with the best will in the world "a heck of a big deal" is not comparable to "not that big of a deal."
Rather, your "heck of a big deal" would correspond to "not a big deal". If you believe "not a big deal" means the same as "not that big of a deal", can you explain how?
– Robbie Goodwin May 04 '20 at 18:23
-4
It is NOT correct, and here is why:
- Americans might claim "oh well that's just American English" and my reply to them is no, it is simply not.
American TV in the late 1990s used to contain the phrase "it's not that big a deal", verbatim. That, alone, is sufficient to prove that this "of" is an innovated, recent phenomenon.
Listen to the way Dr Jordan Peterson, a Canadian, speaks. He says "it's not that big a deal" in a clip on YouTube wherein he speaks about depression. This proves that the redundant "of" is not universal in North American English.
Consider the phrasing backwards, using the following hypothetical steps:
a. "Is it a deal?" It is a deal. (I know this first one might seem contrived, but I am trying to illustrate a point here).
b. "Is it a big deal?" It is a big deal.
c. "Is it a BIG big deal?" Well no, it's not a deal THAT big.
Now reverse the last sentence:
It's not a deal that big = it's not that big a deal.
The preposition "of" in the aforementioned phrase is utterly redundant. Anyone who utters it or writes it will end up seeming like a moron.
The most infuriating thing about this is that people will simply shrug and say "well that's American English", while knowing that they have no rational basis on which to defend the use of the redundant preposition.
One problem is that few, if any, English speakers have even a rudimentary understanding of the parts of speech. This is a noun, that is an adjective, this is a verb, that is an adverb, this is an article, that is a preposition, etc.
The irony is that you might find non-native speakers of English who have a higher standard of language than lazy native speakers!
KillingTime
- 6,206
Dawud Coen
- 15
-
1"Yy reply to them is no, it is simply not." That is hardly a "why". Similarly, singled out occurrences do not "prove" redundancy. There is also no mention of it being (exclusively) American English. As for the rest, most of that was pointed out in the existing answers. This reads a lot like a rant, rather than an answer. – Joachim Mar 30 '23 at 06:35
-
You're UK-schooled, Dawud? The prescriptivist / descriptivist divide (/s) always makes people feel uncomfortable. It's easy to forget that we all use some later (than the AV?) developments in English (eg apostrophe usages, see Wikipedia.) I don't use 'outside of' where I consider 'outside' to be fine, but do use 'out of' ('She looked out of the window') where it could be claimed the probably-more-common-in-the-US 'She looked out the window' is preferable, tighter. Some dictionaries claim 'out of' and 'out' are synonymous, interchangeable at times. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 30 '23 at 10:33
-
Correct, Edwin, I am. I am no linguist. Nevertheless, I take a functional approach. What is the function of that "of"? Nil. I don't care about prescriptivism vs descriptivism - there is no escaping the manifest error of that American form. – Dawud Coen Mar 31 '23 at 08:51
-
But correspondingly what is the function of 'of' in 'out of' when 'out' is defined as being equivalent to 'out of' in many dictionaries? Why is 'fought against' used as well as 'fought'? How can 'by and large' be acceptable? Extragrammatical idioms are a fact of life. – Edwin Ashworth Feb 03 '24 at 13:02
"… not that big a deal” might just sometimes work.
"… not a big deal” is correct.
I suggest that so far, this seems like a little niggle but in 100 years from now, such details will surely make a clear distinction between British and US American English; quite possibly between American dialects, too.
Watch M.A.S.H. and consider the huge differences in US dialects clearly apparent 50 years ago, then extrapolate those differences to 50 years ahead…
– Robbie Goodwin May 03 '20 at 19:44