'Til or Till?

Not in my opinion but the degradation is inevitable.

The following is a quote from 'The King's English' by Kingsley Amis, a guide to modern usage published in 1997. It's the entry headed 'Till and until'.

Fowler says roundly and twice over that till is the usual form and chides until as “giving a certain leisurely or deliberate or pompous air” to the context, though he concedes that “when the clause or phrase precedes the main sentence, until is perhaps actually the commoner.”
All this remains true, and the only point of this entry is to reassure anyone who needs it that till is a genuine English preposition and conjunction with its roots in Old English and Old Norse and is not a daringly informal shortening of stuffy old upper-class until and spelt ‘til.

Helvigo Jenkins

In high school I got so confused with English Language, because our teacher was very precise. I had a hard time with all the writing rules. Till is the way I use the word. My only reason is I have seen all things, all usages in writing, by the professionals. The words they use are---writer's license.

In high school I got so confused with English Language, because our teacher was very precise. I had a hard time with all the writing rules. "Till" is the way I use the word. My only reason is I have seen all things, all usages in writing, by the professionals. The words they use are---writer's license.

Oh well... stuffy ol' me (or old, whatever) will continue to use the abbreviation 'til a better preposition comes along.

It won't be long, I don't suppose, before 'of' is listed as a verb in the dictionary. It should of been already, really...

Stan, your PS then read very much like the opening rant of 'Eats, shoots and leaves'. Very amusing.

By the way, this may be ignorant but what is the proper way of pronouncing contribute and distribute?

Emphasis on the second syllables in each case, Shep... though maybe not anymore :s Do I sound world-weary? Sorry.

Ah yes, thanks for that. In that case I pronounce conTRIbute correctly but DIStribute terribly. Odd, that.

Happy New Year to you too, Sarah.

Being a bit of a stickler, I'd say the abbreviated version of 'until' should always be 'til'. A 'till' is a cash register!

I think it's the perpetual use of the erroneous form of any word that leads to its becoming either the norm or an accepted alternative. If I were an editor, though, I'd be wielding my blue pencil!

Witness the common pronunciation errors that now seem to be accepted because Radio 4 presenters, politicians and academics use them: CONtribute and DIStribute. The air turns blue indoors whenever I hear them. Likewise, 'incentivise'. I've only just got used to the verb 'liase', too. Grumble grumble...

PS It's also odd to me why it is that everyone seems to think that the plural of any noun ending in a vowel must therefore have an apostrophe. How many times have you seen signs saying 'Doors, windows, patio's', for instance? I keep saying 'patio's WHAT? WHAT belongs to the patio?' I wouldn't mind, but I didn't even get an English GCSE! More grumble grumble...

I wouldn't worry, mate. So does James Naughtie. Mispronounce his surname to his face, though, and you'd probably get short shrift.

Happy new year one and all.
Personally I'd go with 'til, but don't get me started.
I work with a lot of (English) people who can't speak English correctly never mind write it - days of hearing endless double negatives...
One that really gets me is the (miss)use of, Of.
Can one be bored of something? One can be bored with or by something, but of?
Also adding of unnecessarily: I got off of the bus - no, you got off the bus...
I told you not to get me started...

"Do you have a Nectar Card at all?"

"Er... I think I might have a small piece of one, yes."

Both are correct after at least 180 years of common usage.

Till was used in early newspapers as buying print blocks for tildes and single apostrophes were viewed as an unnecessary expense, or were not produced by type foundries.

I've found examples in papers as far back as 1830.

There you go... both are correct. So take your pick and you can't go wrong. Apostrophise, or add an extra letter.

But I'll still always think of a till as somewhere I go to draw out my savings or pay for my liver salts.

Thanks everyone for your views and clarification.

I guess the normal rule applies then... you can use either as long as you use it consistently! Although, I think I will side with Stan and will continue to use stuffy 'Until' and 'Til.

Terry, I agree with you. Although I believe a lot of the time it is the case that 'people don't know what they don't know'. Many people speak and write English incorrectly (and I count myself amongst those sometimes) simply because they were not taught the correct way in the first place. But don’t get me started on the education system!!!

Hope you are all sticking to your New Year resolutions (though, by the looks of one of the other posts, people are slipping already)!!!

Till the soil till flowers bloom silly
Smell them until the weather gets chilly
Press 'em 'tween pages
Should they lose their sweet moisture
Snuggle up tight
With a book by the fire

Innumeracy, an inability to deal comfortably with the fundamental notions of number and chance, plagues far too many otherwise knowledgable citizens. The same people who cringe when when words such as 'imply' and 'infer' are confused react without a trace of embarrassment to even the most egregious of numerical solecisms. I remember once listening to someone at a party drone on about the difference between 'continually' and 'continuously'. Later that evening we were watching the news, and the TV weathercaster announced that there was a 50 percent chance of rain for Saturday and a 50 percent chance of rain for Sunday, and concluded that there was therefore a 100 percent chance of rain that weekend. The remark went right by the self-styled grammarian, and even after I had explained the mistake to him, he wasn't nearly as indignant as he would have been had the weathercaster left a dangling participle.

- John Allen Paulos -

I am equally offended by both, so I spend my life as furious as a Mac.

Further to FTSE's quote, there's a lovely little interchange in one of my all-time favourite films - Ball of Fire, starring the wonderful Barbara Stanwyck.

An English professor (Gary Cooper) is asked which is right - two and two is five, or two and two are five. He pontificates for a while on predicates, etc and concludes that the latter is correct. The old physics professor has to put him right - "OK for a grammarian perhaps, but two and two ARE FOUR!"

Helvigo Jenkins

Sounds like my grandad's favourite riddle:

Which is correct - the yolk of an egg is white or the yolk of an egg are white?

His other favourite was:

Which is heavier - a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?

And in those politically incorrect days:

How Hi is a Chinaman?

'None of them are coming'

'None of them is coming'

The second one is correct, as 'none' is a conflated form of 'not one'.

Always confused me, that one...

*

And then there's the favourite grammarian's command: 'Never use a preposition to end a sentence with' - even though 'with which to end a sentence' sounds hopelessly pedantic!

*

A chap goes up to Heaven and rattles on the pearly gates.

'Who's there?' calls out Gabriel.

'It is I,' the chap replies.

'Sod off! We've already got enough English teachers.'

*

And perhaps we could all learn lessons from the man who was once, nominally at least, the most powerful person on earth...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBm5ZSWbD14

Well, Stan, I'm afraid I'll take issue with you on the 'none' thing.

Bill Bryson says, "Although 'none' can always take a singular verb there is no rule recognised by any authority that it cannot equally well take a plural one."

Fowler agrees and points out that the OED explicitly states that the plural construction is commoner.

Helvigo Jenkins

Oh well...

I suppose what the OED says just goes to show that once something becomes common, it becomes right - or, at least, accepted.

CONtribute and DIStribute it'll be then... :)

I just worry about text-speak is all - though I'm sure Shaw would have approved of 'you' becoming 'u'. lol, as they say...

commoner or more common?

I'm a commoner, meself... and I'm more common than most when I gets going!

Arse! The more I think about it, the confuseder I get.

If poor folk have things in common, do rich folk have things in posh?

I remember Winston Churchill (not personally or contemporaneously!) being attributed with saying;

"This is a situation up with which we shall not put".

I believe the grammar to be correct but it doesn't sound like it should be?

Look... come on. Here's the answer right here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaxqUDd4fiw

That's all we really need to know... or not know...

Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.

Everyone agrees that WC said it; no two agree on exactly what he said or who he said it to. (I mean: to whom he said it, of course.)

The alt.english.usage FAQ states that the story originated with an anecdote in Sir Ernest Gowers’ Plain Words (1948). Supposedly an editor had clumsily rearranged one of Churchill’s sentences to avoid ending it in a preposition, and the Prime Minister, very proud of his style, scribbled this note in reply: “This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.” The American Heritage Book of English Usage agrees.

The FAQ goes on to say that the Oxford Companion to the English Language (no edition cited) states that the original was “This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.” To me this sounds more likely, and eagerness to avoid the offensive word “bloody” would help to explain the proliferation of variations.

http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/churchill.html

Thanks FTSE I knew you could be relied on ;)

'We shall fight them on the beaches...'

or was it

'We will fight them on the beaches...'

and would it have mattered which?

Meanwhile, was it Captain Kirk who uttered the most famous example of the split infinitive with 'to boldly go...'?

Come on Clive where are you when we need you?

Hm - will or shall? The difference between the two is a lost cause these days but there is an old 'convention' about it.

In essence, it's that 'shall' is used in straightforward statements of the first person (ie I or we) and 'will' with second and third person.

But then it gets nicely subtle. In making an emphatic statement, 'will' is used with the first person and 'shall' with the second and third.

The best example I can think of is what the Fairy Godmother says to Cinderella, "You 'shall' go to the ball." This is therefore emphatic which means an exclamation mark at the end is not required.

Think of a parent speaking to a child,
"You will go to bed after tea."
Then when the child starts arguing, "You shall go to bed."
The other way around, think of a lad talking to his girlfriend.
"We shall go to the pictures," but when she demurs, "We will go to the pictures."

Given all that, people nowadays use 'shall' as emphatic in all cases, or perhaps because it sounds more formal or something.

Probably it doesn't really matter though I try in my writing to use shall with the first person (or at least I do when I remember to).

Helvigo Jenkins

Okay... here's another one that brings out the homicidal maniac pedant in me. Again, it's the usual perps... Radio 4 presenters, academics, politicians...

'Less people voted at the last election.'

Well, maybe it's because there's fewer interest in politics!

Helvigo, you bring clarity and knowledge to this, allied to what I would gamble on being a deep and longstanding knowledge on these grammatical conundrums.

The two examples that you cite in explanation would be perfect for relevant explanation to some of the youngsters that I know....

Stan, I too share your largely suppressed exasperation at the faux pas made by many who really should know better.

People think of 'shall' as being the posh 'will', just as they think of 'William and I' as being the posh 'William and me'. (Doesn't the Queen say 'my husband and I'? Well then.)

I believe the Americans make no distinction between 1st, 2nd and 3rd person cases of will/shall or would/should. The 1st person Am. is the opposite of 1st person British.

It's not quite a matter of emphasis, more to do with intention vs. prediction. A drowning person might shout "I shall drown! Nobody will save me!" thereby bemoaning what he believes will be his inevitable fate. If he shouts instead: "I will drown! Nobody shall save me!" he is a suicide who will resist any rescue attempt.

'You will go to the ball' is a prediction or expectation, as is 'you will meet a tall, dark stranger'. 'You shall go to the ball' means that the speaker will do all possible to ensure that the ball-going does indeed take place.

Just thoght of a possible test:

If your sentence still means the same when you prepend 'I expect' then it's I shall; you/he/she/it will

I expect you will go to the ball.
I expect I shall fail my English exam.

If you can append 'if I have anything to do with it' or 'if I can' then it's I will; you/he/she/it shall (can't think of the perfect, universal phrase for this)

You shall go to the ball if I have anything to do with it.
I will fail my English exam if I can.

Ah yes, FTSE, I think your explanation might be a better rendering than mine. I was using the notion of emphasis as a shorthand to explain the differences when 'determination' or perhaps even 'instruction' would have been closer.

On the whole, I think the notion of 'determination' might be the best way to view it as that word can be said to include the concepts of emphasis and firm intention.

Anyway, I suspect that few people actually care though it's good to share these thoughts with other like-minded pedants. At least we learn that we're not alone.

Helvigo Jenkins

The will/shall distinction is on the way out, I think. Possibly because I'll, you'll, etc. substitute for both cases so you rarely hear any good examples any more. "You'll go to the ball!"

One thing that has always puzzled me about languages is why they seem to start off complicated and then get simplified later, the opposite of what you might expect. For example, Latin had six case endings for nouns. In English a noun is a noun is a noun. We do have the last vestiges of cases in pronouns: I/me, he/him, she/her etc. Utterly without any practical use. Who/whom is fading, but I think I/me has a lot of life left in it! Probably because the Essex classes haven't yet chosen it as something to confuse and stumble over.

Why must they steal our words and piss on them? I feel embarrassed every time I use the word 'random' these days.

Now I'm just confused... and my head hurts!

Running the risk of showing my ignorance, I have to admit that I was one of those poor students who were never taught ‘proper’ writing skills. Whilst I believe I have a relatively good master of the English language, I don’t remember ever having lessens in more than the most basic ‘conventions’. It's no wonder that writing is a dying skill.

Thank you to all of you who have now given me plenty to think about… once my confusion headache has passed, that is!

Hi MissTee,

I wasn't, either. That is, I was taught to read and write at school, but I never had any grammar lessons and didn't take any exams. I wasn't there for much of the time, I hated it so much. I was well into my 20s before I really knew the difference between a noun and a verb and an adverb, etc. I still only really know the basics. Much of my understanding has been picked up from reading and from things like 'English Grammar Made Simple'.

The rules are one thing. Having a feel for language is another, I think. On a like note, there are plenty of fine musicians who can't read a note of music!

Ok... here's one that always narks me. I should know the answer, and I know there are books on my shelves that will give me the answer, but I thought I'd post it on here to get different perspectives:

'Among' and 'Amongst'.

I've borrowed a line from a Jim Jarmusch film and am using it in my novel.

'There are those among us who are not among us.'

That sounds good to me. I like it that way. But something's telling me that it should, correctly, be

'There are those amongst us who are not amongst us.'

Still prefer the first version. It didn't bother Jim much, so maybe that's all I need to keep in mind!

I'd go for 'there are those among us who are not amongst us' :)

http://www.ukauthors.com

There is no real distinction between the two, they each mean the same. Perhaps amongst has a more formal and fastidious air to it and might be preferred in those instances where that seems called for.

Fowler wonders then why the two continue to co-exist and concludes it's probably purely for ease of pronunciation. We would not use 'amongst strangers' in conversation for example because it is difficult to say.

More relevantly to the original question, he also suggests that 'amongst us' would be preferred for similar reasons.

If you think about it, in spoken conversation, the 'g' would tend to disappear leaving the hearer trying to decipher "amun'us" when "amunst'us" is easier to interpret.

But, as a cockney, and thus one comfortable with a kind of glottal stop, I'm not really sure that I'd worry about it unduly.

As a more general point, with 'though and although' there is a convention that the longer version is preferred when introducing a conditional clause at the beginning of a complicated sentence. Perhaps 'amongst', 'whilst' and 'admidst' might be treated in the same way?

Helvigo Jenkins

Thanks, folks - and a very thorough analysis, Helvigo Jenkins... thank you.

I don't think I'd have a problem with sounding the 'g' - albeit softly - in 'among us'. Certain dialects, too, would sound it in a much harder way.

There used to be a vegetarian restaurant in Canterbury called 'Fungus Mungus', which was always 'Fun-gus Mun-gus'... and I'd pronounce 'among us' in the same way.

Yes, Stan, I think you're right that dialect plays a profound role in determining what sounds natural to us. The sounding of 'g' is a case in point, I agree.

I don't think it matters much which you use because either is 'correct'. The choice can safely be left to personal preference. I would say however that mixing them as Andrea suggested seems artificial because it implies that there is some kind of difference in meaning between them.

Helvigo Jenkins