Let go of, take hold of

It looks as if let go of may have been formed on the specious analogy to take hold of. Take hold of is perfectly logical, with hold being a verbal noun and direct object of take. But go is not a verbal noun. Even it we agreed that it might be used that way this once, it still doesn't make any sense as the object of let.

I understand that let go of is considered acceptable today, so there's no need to quote the New York
Times.

If you don't want to answer this, just don't answer. Pkease don't move the thread. This is like punting when the adverse team is deep in your territory.