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: Brian P. who wrote (2177)	3/17/1999 3:31:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4711

I'm looking at my American Heritage now, third ed. 1992, and it seems to indicate the distinction, though it is, certainly, a "nice" one. Under 'further,' you read A comparative of far [i read that as meaning a greater degree of far--E] More distant in degree, time or space [degree and time seem to acknowledge the distinction, space seems to obscure it, to me] Additional At or to a more distant or advanced point [same as a comparative of far, i think, the examples given being, went only three miles further; reading three pages further tonight. ] I should have looked up 'farther' first, I guess. This is what the Usage Note there says (American Heritage, still): Farther and further have been used interchangeably by many writers since the Middle English period. According to a rule of relatively recent origin, however, farther should be reserved for physical distance and further for advancement along a nonphysical dimension. Thus 74 per cent ...(and 64 percent)... of the Usage Panel...etc... etc...[makes the distinction-- E] In many cases, however, the distinction is not easy to draw. If we may speak metaphorically of a statement that is far from the truth, for example, the analogous use of farther should be allowed in a sentence such as Nothing couldbe farther from the truth, though Nothing could be further from the truth is also justifiable. That last point about the metaphorical use, or use by analogy, is the one I was trying to make in my earlier post. In summary, I think you're right, it's a 'nice' distinction, and if one doesn't care about those, or care about being perceived as not knowing the distinction, one could get away with not making it. Still, one might prefer a secretary who has the ability to make or consciously forgo making nice distinctions. "Rule of relatively recent origin" means, for dictionaries, quite a long time, of course. The 1933 OED makes the distinction about as the American Heritage does, though at greater length, I see.