Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : SI Grammar and Spelling Lab -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jack Clarke who wrote (500)	1/4/1998 3:10:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4711

On Fowler's examples. I have an old (Third, 1931) edition of The King's English. One of the things I have always enjoyed about it is that it gives only examples of (what the Fowlers consider) INCORRECT usage, rather than of correct usage, thus providing the editors with multiple opportunities to indulge in witty invectives against Mortal Grammatical Sins. Are newer editions different in this respect? If not, then the examples you provide are meant to illustrate how NOT to use the words in question. (As I recall, Dickens was a favorite whipping-boy for the Fowlers.) jbe

To: Jack Clarke who wrote (500)	1/4/1998 3:54:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4711

Hi Jack, re: further on farther As you mentioned, &#147we tend to use "farther" for distances and "further" more abstractly, but there is tremendous overlap&#133&#148. The web guides I've read recently acknowledge this overlap. The kernal of their message is to say, &#147Okay, we give up. We're throwing our arms up in disgust because nobody knows the correct usage anymore. So here's the plan: We throw the previous confusing references aside and start over; farther will be used for distance. If it isn't distance, it's further.&#148 -MrB