'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.

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?

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

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...

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.

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

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

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

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?

Thanks FTSE I knew you could be relied on ;)

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

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.

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

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

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