English language question...

[VJ]

I have a simple question regarding the English language...

Is "thusly" a word ?

I'm thinking of using it in a scientific chapter, in a sentence similar to "In the thusly defined structure...".

If is is not a word, are there any alternatives ?



Jörg

[KvHagedorn]

Your usage is correct. Thusly is indeed a word.

[Brian Ellis]

Thusly is not a word. Thus is already an adverb and adding -ly will not make a second adverb. As a general rule, the suffix -ly is used to change an adjective into an adverb. In fact, Oxford considers thusly as an aberration, Partridge does not even says it exists and Trask says the word does not exist and should never be used in either US or UK English..

The correct locution is "In the thus defined structure.", which is both correct and explicit.

[WyWyWyWy]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=thusly

It is a indeed word... though not a formal one.
So do not use this ok!

[Dr Mordrid]

I agree that it is a word, but a non-standard one that isn't acceptable in formal conversation.

Dr. Mordrid

[KvHagedorn]

My source is Webster's Third International (Merriam-Webster) which defines "thusly" quite simply as an adverb, not an abberation.

I almost became pedantic and said what Brian has said, but either "thus" or "thusly" could be used thus.

I agree that the word is a relatively recent nonstandard variant, but it takes a more commonly adverbial form and therefore describes its verbs in a more active voice. It can be used as an alternate form when this effect is desired.

[Jammrock]

Mr. Webster says it's a word:

Main Entry: thus·ly
Pronunciation: -lE
Function: adverb
Date: 1865
: in this manner : THUS

Though the term is rather archaic any more. It would be more proper to say it thusly:

In the previously defined structure...

Jammrock

[cjolley]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
My source is Webster's Third International (Merriam-Webster) which defines "thusly" quite simply as an adverb, not an abberation.

I almost became pedantic and said what Brian has said, but either "thus" or "thusly" could be used thus.

I agree that the word is a relatively recent nonstandard variant, but it takes a more commonly adverbial form and therefore describes its verbs in a more active voice. It can be used as an alternate form when this effect is desired.

Yes, but that's the rat infested Third edition.
What does the, far superior, Second edition say?

chuck

PS It is no coincidence that the present that I have given my wife that she cherishes the most is a Second Edition (on India Paper and in perfect condition!) that I bought her for Christmas about 12 years ago.
In fact, I had to go to Denver to find one

[Gurm]

Webster has, sadly, gone downhill.

They're including "blog" as a verb this year, and have included "ain't" for quite some time.

Oxford is, IMHO, the standard.

- Gurm

[cjolley]

Originally posted by Gurm
Oxford is, IMHO, the standard.

- Gurm

They are for "American" and "English" english respectively, aren't they?
Besides, we don't have enough free shelf space for an OED.
chuck

[Gurm]

*shrug*

As far as I'm concerned "American" is as much a real language as "Ebonics".

We speak English. End of story.

- Gurm

[cjolley]

Originally posted by Gurm
*shrug*

As far as I'm concerned "American" is as much a real language as "Ebonics".

We speak English. End of story.

- Gurm

That was right well spoken.
chuck

PS this is a pretty obscure American -vs- English joke.

[WyWyWyWy]

Originally posted by Gurm
*shrug*

As far as I'm concerned "American" is as much a real language as "Ebonics".

We speak English. End of story.

But you gotta admit there is a difference between British-English and American-English though.

"Ain't" is a real word in Britain, at least for "am not".
As for "haven't", "hasn't" and "aren't"... nobody knows.

[Jammrock]

Originally posted by WyWyWyWy
But you gotta admit there is a difference between British-English and American-English though.

"Ain't" is a real word in Britain, at least for "am not".
As for "haven't", "hasn't" and "aren't"... nobody knows.

er ... conjuctions come to mind.

Has not = hasn't
Are not = aren't
etc...

Jammrock

[Gurm]

Ahem...

Haven't, hasn't, aren't... are all REAL WORDS.

Ain't... is NOT A REAL WORD.

If you need to say "I am not", and MUST use a contraction, you would say "I'm not", NOT "I ain't".

Not in Britain, not in America, not ANYWHERE THAT SPEAKS ENGLISH. It's just not a real word. Webster be damned. Neither is "Blog" or "dank" if it means anything other than "dingy and wet".

- Gurm