Thread: The use of the S in words

it can be quite tricky at times to understand why the S is actually put in a word like this one:

WHILE
and
WHILST

so I am trying to understand which to use here:

I thought to myself whilst toasting the bread?

or


I said to myself while toasting the bread?

Whilst, amongst, amidst, all evolved from earlier forms around the 14th or 15th centuries. They have continued into modern usage mostly because they sometimes sound or read better than the simpler forms: while, among, amid. They are both correct, and completely interchangeable; it's purely a matter of personal choice.

Other words from that era which have continued into modern times are mostly restricted to "period" pieces for medieval flavour: wouldst, hast, keepeth, etc ...

Originally Posted by Cran

Whilst, amongst, amidst, all evolved from earlier forms around the 14th or 15th centuries. They have continued into modern usage mostly because they sometimes sound or read better than the simpler forms: while, among, amid. They are both correct, and completely interchangeable; it's purely a matter of personal choice.

Other words from that era which have continued into modern times are mostly restricted to "period" pieces for medieval flavour: wouldst, hast, keepeth, etc ...

thank you Cran you are a great teacher..so interesting about what you said about ''perior''pieces , I love period language so rich..
I reckon with should all learn it..I will now go and see if I can write a piece using period language..

The additional S adds a certain poetic gravitas, a feeling of old knowledge, so is context dependent. One wouldn't say "Whilst the phaser in his left hand emitted a stream of positronic pulses..." it just wouldn't sound right...

Originally Posted by Bloggsworth

The additional S adds a certain poetic gravitas, a feeling of old knowledge, so is context dependent. One wouldn't say "Whilst the phaser in his left hand emitted a stream of positronic pulses..." it just wouldn't sound right...

why wouldn't it sound right?
while sound like a while/ a bit?
wasn't the S introduce to differentiate from that.
EXAMPE:
1) can you wait for a while.
2) can you wait whilst I finish.
whilst requires that you finish the sentecce and the while doesn't??
whilst implies something is happening?

Originally Posted by Nacian

why wouldn't it sound right?
while sound like a while/ a bit?
wasn't the S introduce to differentiate from that.
EXAMPE:
1) can you wait for a while.
2) can you wait whilst I finish.
whilst requires that you finish the sentecce and the while doesn't??
whilst implies something is happening?

The two words are completely interchangeable in the conjunction or relative adverb form (while I finish, OR whilst I finish), as long as you note that the 'S' usually makes it sound more archaic.

However, the word while can also be used as a noun (as in your example #1) or a verb (to while away the time). That's a separate issue. These forms should never have the "st" ending, as I believe they are a more modern usage.

Further confused by the north of England use of while to mean until - "I'll wait while Tuesday..."

Originally Posted by j.w.olson

The two words are completely interchangeable in the conjunction or relative adverb form (while I finish, OR whilst I finish), as long as you note that the 'S' usually makes it sound more archaic.

However, the word while can also be used as a noun (as in your example #1) or a verb (to while away the time). That's a separate issue. These forms should never have the "st" ending, as I believe they are a more modern usage.

it is funny that archaic always reminds me of anarchy for some weird reason..again I am a linguist and I think I tend to concentrate on the way the words are spelt.
again I look up archaic and it gave me the word dated/out of date as a synonym...does that mean that whilst should not be used?
because that is what it means literally, right?

Further confused by the north of England use of while to mean until - "I'll wait while Tuesday..."

nothing surprises coming from up north, not even they way they talk, but then again they really should come down south a bit more I reckon, there is much to be learned.

Personally I prefer to use words like whilst in certain contexts and while in other contexts to give more variety to my vocabulary, whilst retaining a certain set of grammatical rules to stick by. Such as beforementioned "whilst" I prefer to use in issues of comparison, with the exception where I've been using similar sounds often in the same sentence.

This door is blue, while this door is green. (This, whilst, this would be too many similar sounds in the same sentence.)
I will wait here, while you order. (No comparison)
An object can be round, whilst another is square (A comparison)

Originally Posted by SixPence

Personally I prefer to use words like whilst in certain contexts and while in other contexts to give more variety to my vocabulary, whilst retaining a certain set of grammatical rules to stick by. Such as beforementioned "whilst" I prefer to use in issues of comparison, with the exception where I've been using similar sounds often in the same sentence.

This door is blue, while this door is green. (This, whilst, this would be too many similar sounds in the same sentence.)
I will wait here, while you order. (No comparison)
An object can be round, whilst another is square (A comparison)

in other words while is for HE?SHE?THEY
and
whilst is for objects?

You can use either for whichever you like, it's gramatically correct. Just be consise in your use depending on the context. Don't say "I waited while you got ready" and then "You should eat your dinner whilst I'm finishing mine", if you start using one in a specific context, then keep using it whenever you're saying something similar.

Originally Posted by Nacian

it is funny that archaic always reminds me of anarchy for some weird reason...

It should, because both come down related streams from the same Ancient Greek words: arkhe/arkhos meaning first in time or place (beginning) or principal*, therefore also chief or ruler. In English, the word, prefix and suffix is arch and is meant to be pronounced ark (which does not trace back to the Greeks but to the Romans - see below)

*not to be confused with principle, meaning rule ...

Just to make it interesting, the Romans adopted these Greek words and their meanings, even though they already had arcus meaning curve or bow, and from which we get ark and arc (both pronounced ark), and arch (pronounced artsh).

The similarity of arch (meaning principal or ruling) and arch (meaning curve) meant that many words and phrases including arch (meaning principal) are often pronounced incorrectly - arch-rival, or arch-enemy, for instance.

However, the reason why arch (meaning curve) is pronounced artsh in English is because of the Old French arche (meaning curve) which first appeared around 1300 AD, and by 1590 AD was being applied to anything with a bow-like curve. Of course, making that distinction in how an arch word should sound didn't stop a mix-up of German origin - menarche.

Who gave the English archaic and its current meaning? Again, it was the French, in 1776, who used archaique in reference to the old ruling elite. After the two revolutions (American and French), the word entered the English lexicon as archiacal but soon simplified to archaic.

nothing surprises coming from up north, not even they way they talk, but then again they really should come down south a bit more I reckon, there is much to be learned.

Nacian, you might try coming oop north one day; you never know, you may learn something. There's a myth about the North and its peoples. They are unwashed, ill-educated, don't speak proper, wear funny hats, some have six fingers, they live in terraced houses backing onto unlit ginnels, etc. There are many geographical differences within countries all over the world. On this site you don't hear New Yorkers speaking about their poor relations in the South, or Americans calling out Canadians. Please don't form your opinions on people(s) based on geographical distinctions and the myths that have grown around them.

So, enlighten us all, what is there to be learned in London that can't be learned elsewhere?







Apologies for taking this off-topic, but my ire was well and truly raised. Please continue.

Originally Posted by Bilston Blue

Nacian, you might try coming oop north one day; you never know, you may learn something. There's a myth about the North and its peoples. They are unwashed, ill-educated, don't speak proper, wear funny hats, some have six fingers, they live in terraced houses backing onto unlit ginnels, etc. There are many geographical differences within countries all over the world. On this site you don't hear New Yorkers speaking about their poor relations in the South, or Americans calling out Canadians. Please don't form your opinions on people(s) based on geographical distinctions and the myths that have grown around them.

So, enlighten us all, what is there to be learned in London that can't be learned elsewhere?







Apologies for taking this off-topic, but my ire was well and truly raised. Please continue.

Oh no!!! I do apologise I did not mean it in an offensive rude way at all..totally not meant to offend the up North English people at all.
and I really did not know you were from Up North too
I live up North for a bit Nottingham in fact. I liked it very much and the people are lovely.
I was only having a joke..and yes I am not like that and do not base my opinions andviews on goegraphical distinctions.
It is all John Bishop's faut he started.
I believe there is to be much learned pretty much everywhere even the tiniest think next to you can teach you something.

Ah the confusion of English. Gotta love it.