Farther vs. Further?

Dana-Lynn said:

Flory’s small apartment was a lot farther from the diner. Correct


I tried to scoot farther away from him, but there was nowhere left to go. Correct


I got brave and decided to push the conversation one step further. Correct

Click to expand...

[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Farther denotes physical advancement in distance.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]Further denotes advancement in degrees, as in time or, in your case, intensity.[/SIZE][/FONT]

From the Oxford Dictionary of English:

Is there any difference between further and farther in she moved further down the train and she moved farther down the train? Both words share the same roots: in the sentences given above, where the sense is 'at, to, or by a greater distance', there is no difference in meaning, and both are equally correct. Further is a much commoner word, though, and is in addition used in various abstract and metaphorical contexts, for example referring to time, in which it would be unusual to substitute farther, e. g. without further delay; have you anything further to say?; we intend to stay a further two weeks. The same distinction is made between farthest and furthest: the farthest point from the sun versus this first team has gone furthest in its analysis.

Click to expand...

Further is a much commoner word

Click to expand...

Shouldn't that be Further is a much more common word?

Ludka said:

Shouldn't that be Further is a much more common word?

Click to expand...

All my dictionaries say commoner is correct; some say more common is correct as well. One dictionary says more common is used more frequently than commoner.

Re: further/farther -- for the sake of clarity, which seems to be getting a shorter and shorter end of the stick these days, I prefer to agree entirely with Ludka.

Rant section>The more we surrender to vague slipshod usage, the less we have to use. The excuse that language evolves goes lame now that "evolution" can occur in ten years or so because of sloppiness on the Internet. Coining new words is one thing, debilitating well-established words is another. Besides that--does this change always have to be in favor of verbal entropy? Can't we reclaim a few now and then?

Matera the Mad said:

The more we surrender to vague slipshod usage, the less we have to use.

Click to expand...

What's slipshod about what has been written so far? Both farther and further are the comparative of far. Any distinctions you can make between them will be based on usage. So why should we ignore modern usage?

Mad Queen said:

What's slipshod about what has been written so far? Both farther and further are the comparative of far. Any distinctions you can make between them will be based on usage. So why should we ignore modern usage?

Click to expand...

We aren't. Ludka has it exactly correct. No controversy, no nuance or subtlety about it. To say "He walked further down the road" is plain incorrect, as is to say "He pursued the analysis farther."

"Farther" is the comparative of "far" in terms of spatial distance. "Further" is the comparative of "far" in terms of non-spatial degree. And "farthest" and "furthest" are the superlatives.

caw

Is that true in US & UK, etc usage?

I'm from the South. You can't trust folks on 'further' around here I think I've avoided it completely on account of that. Aaack!

Edit: the "commoner" one sounds like a Brit/US thing. My British Lecturers used a lot more "er" comparatives than I hear in the US.

Commoner just sounds wrong to me. It would be akin to plainer or normaler. Wouldn't more plain or more normal be more correct?

Not correcter.

Begin class lecture/soapbox--> See, common is a state of being, as is plain or normal. It denotes a state of static--or level--being. One, technically, can't be more common or more normal than another. Common, normal, plain, these are all absolutes. Yet, we often do make one more absolute than another. In which case, we add the comparitive "more" to the word. However, absolutes simply do not lend themselves to have the comparitive "-er," or the superlative "-est." Would you say, "This is the commonest usage?" I should hope not. I would imagine you would say the most common.

One is either normal or not. One is either correct or not. One is either wrong or not. You do not say correcter or wronger, do you? I hope not. I assume you say more correct or more wrong--if at all. End lecture/soapbox

Just as a side note, I don't doubt the validity of your dictionaries, Mad Queen, I'm just stating my opinion which disagrees with those dictionaries. Ludka clarified, for the sake of peace.

Edit:

I just looked through a couple of my dictionaries, and the only reference to "commoner" I've seen is in regards to the noun synonymous with plebeian.

I always favour the use of the comparative -er whenever the word exists as such. Therefore, plainer is correct; normaler is not. And commoner is also correct, although it appears less frequently in colloquial language. In more informal discourse, more common sounds ok to me.

Yes, something can certainly be "plainer." Can you speak in plainer language, please? That sounds perfectly fine to me.

I stand corrected.

I still disagree, but I'm not as right as I had thought previously.

Ludka said:

I stand corrected.

I still disagree, but I'm not as right as I had thought previously.

Click to expand...

Okay. Go here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Type plainer or plainest and you go to the definition of the word plain. Go back. Type commoner or commonest and you go the definition of the word common. Go back. Type normaler or normalest and you get nothing.

If the word exists in its comparative or superlative mode, you should use that word, not more --. For example, easier, I think we can all agree, is a word. You should say, "Biking is easier than swimming," NOT (ever!!) "Biking is more easy than swimming." Same goes for uglier, easier, freer, stranger, wealthier, and so on.

And never, ever say "more unique". That's impossible.

I'm a grumpy old man who is stuck in his ways. I deride your proof!

More common!

Bah!

[sub]I hate losing[/sub]

blacbird said:

"Farther" is the comparative of "far" in terms of spatial distance. "Further" is the comparative of "far" in terms of non-spatial degree. And "farthest" and "furthest" are the superlatives.

Click to expand...

Please excuse me for considering the Oxford Dictionary a more authoritative source than your post. So I'll keep on believing that further and farther can both be used with the meaning 'at, to, or by a greater distance'. My Cambridge grammar agrees:

There is no difference in meaning between farther and further when both refer to distances. However, only further is used when the meaning is ‘extra’ or ‘additional’.

Click to expand...

There is no difference in meaning between farther and further when both refer to distances. However, only further is used when the meaning is ‘extra’ or ‘additional’.

Click to expand...

Okay, so I was half-right. Which means I was having a pretty good day.

caw

backslashbaby said:

Is that true in US & UK, etc usage?

I'm from the South. You can't trust folks on 'further' around here I think I've avoided it completely on account of that. Aaack!

Edit: the "commoner" one sounds like a Brit/US thing. My British Lecturers used a lot more "er" comparatives than I hear in the US.

Click to expand...

Canadian opinion, having lived in UK:

When using adjectives, if there is a word with -er, good, better, best/ use it.
However, I never heard commoner except as referring to plebians!
Some adjectives just need the more, most/ option.

The one that gets me is the dropped -ly on adverbs! OI! Makes my skin crawl to hear that: he did a real good job. *shudder* *twitch*
~grammar junkie