Rise in Use of Word "Whilst": Why?

[brewnog]

I like to hear the English use such terminology.

I like different cultural quirks. "Arse" and "That's a bit dear" and "further maths" are ... I don't know ... sweet, to my way of thinking, and I'd hate to see this sort of linguistic diversity homogenized.

The funny thing is that words like that don't even cross my mind as being particularly UKish (perhaps with the exception of arse). I just like it when American tourists say things like 'it's in my wife's fanny bag', and the look on their face when we ask 'can I please bum a fag?'

In fact, it was only the other day when I realized that USians pronounce, say, '160' as "one hundred sixty", where we say "one hundred and sixty".

 

[honestrosewater]

In fact, it was only the other day when I realized that USians pronounce, say, '160' as "one hundred sixty", where we say "one hundred and sixty".

I say "one hundred and sixty". Do UKans say still call 23 "three and twenty"?

 

[brewnog]

I say "one hundred and sixty". Do UKans say still call 23 "three and twenty"?

The hardcore might. Wolram probably does, but that's cos he thinks, urm, how do you say it, 'chicks dig that sh*t'?

 

[honestrosewater]

The hardcore might. Wolram probably does, but that's cos he thinks, urm, how do you say it, 'chicks dig that sh*t'?

Does he also dance around singing "When I was one-and-twenty"? That would certainly turn me on.

 

[Anttech]

'can I please bum a fag?'

Aye, got some benny edges 'ere if you like :-)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't think I have ever used "whilst" before. The times I have heard it, here in the states, it seems like the people doing so were being sarcastic and/or condecending.

I do use different spellings of words on occasion. I add the "u" in words like colour and honour. It comes from the books I read as a kid, I loved Sherlock Holmes. The words just don't look right to me spelled otherwise.

 

[Moonbear]

In fact, it was only the other day when I realized that USians pronounce, say, '160' as "one hundred sixty", where we say "one hundred and sixty".

Sometimes we just say it "one-sixty." I used to say it "one hundred and sixty" until I had a math teacher drill it out of me in elementary school.

 

[brewnog]

I used to say it "one hundred and sixty" until I had a math teacher drill it out of me in elementary school.

Bloody teachers. Go round and drill it into her not to mess with MY language. Hmph!

 

[Physics is Phun]

I would only use whilst to if I wanted to really accent the word while. Even then I would not be able to say it without some humour involved, just because it's such a silly word.
I also spell it, centre and humour. and I was taught to say "one hundred sixty" but I only do about half the time.
As far as I'm concerned, the English spelling of things is the only way. They don't call it ENGLISH for nothing !

 

[pattylou]

Bloody teachers. Go round and drill it into her not to mess with MY language. Hmph!

Why "bloody?" I never understood that. Can you explain how that expression came to be?

And to Americans: How many of you automatically visualize Corporal Peter Newkirk of Hogan's Heroes when you hear the word "bloody" used in conversation? Played by Richard Dawson (and I had to google for those specifics; all that my brain has stored was the image of the character contacting the outside world on the teaset and saying "bloody machine, won't connect whilst Klink's on the phone...")

http://www.hogansheroesfanclub.com/images/photoNewkirkSmall.gif
Believe it or not, I never realized he was the same guy that did "Family Feud."

 

[brewnog]

Why "bloody?" I never understood that. Can you explain how that expression came to be?

As it happens, yes, I can.

As I've heard, the original curse was "By Our Lady in hell", and back in those days was, as you can imagine, a pretty hefty cuss. I suppose after numerous muttered curses (hitting thumb with hammer, that kind of thing), it turned into 'bloody hell'.

Another explanation relates to 'bloods', or certain aristocrats, frequently having drunken fights, but I'm not quite sure how that came about. I like my version.

 

[pattylou]

As it happens, yes, I can.

As I've heard, the original curse was "By Our Lady in hell", and back in those days was, as you can imagine, a pretty hefty cuss. I suppose after numerous muttered curses (hitting thumb with hammer, that kind of thing), it turned into 'bloody hell'.

Another explanation relates to 'bloods', or certain aristocrats, frequently having drunken fights, but I'm not quite sure how that came about. I like my version.

LOL. I like your version too. Thank you! I'll remember that! But... who is "Our Lady in Hell??"

 

[brewnog]

LOL. I like your version too. Thank you! I'll remember that! But... who is "Our Lady in Hell??"

Mary, mother of Jesus.

 

[pattylou]

... and why is she in Hell?

 

[brewnog]

... and why is she in Hell?

That's the cuss, it's blasphemy.

 

[pattylou]

Oh. She's our "Lady in Heaven," and you edited it? i take it you're a good atheist?

da...de dum. Waiting for thirty seconds to pass... da... de dum. S'pose I could edit instead... da... de dum.

Edit: Aha. thank you.

 

[brewnog]

As I understand it, the original curse was "by Our Lady in hell". It was blasphemy, a swear word, basically damning the Madonna to hell. Over time, it turned into "bloody hell", hence today's expression.

 

[honestrosewater]

Something similar helps date texts of Shakespeare's plays. I can't find the links right now, but for instance 'sblood, 'swounds, or even zounds are abbreviations of the curses or oaths Christs' blood or God's blood and Christ's wounds. The abbreviations were used because laws were passed outlawing the longer versions (or something). So if you find the full curse God's blood in a text, it was very likely published before the laws went into effect.

Okay, here's one:

Stokes (Chronological Order of Shakespeare's Plays) shows that it was written before 1606 by the fact that in the quarto of 1622 (i.1.4) we find the oath "S'blood" (God's blood), while this is omitted in the folio. This indicates that the quarto was printed from a copy made before the act of Parliament issued in 1606 against the abuse of the name of God in plays, etc. So "Zounds" and "by the mass" (in ii.3) are found in the quarto but not in the folio. (293)
- http://www.shakespeare-online.com/playanalysis/othello.html

Yeah, so I had it a bit wrong. I may see if I can find another supporting my version.

 

[arildno]

All right, then.
So, to Americans "whilst" is in any context a rather artificial construction that if it is to be used at all, only should be used sparingly, perhaps in order to give particular emphasis to what you're saying.

For Brits, it is rather different, and that it isn't particularly snobbish to say something like "Please keep the seat belts on whilst the train is in motion".

But I wonder about the usage of "whilst" in its comparative connotation as well, like:
"I'm tall, whilst my girl-friend is short".
To me, this sounds a bit archaic..
Is it?

 

[abhishek]

I had a physics teacher in high school who was from England. He never used 'while', preferring 'whilst' in all cases. I involuntarily cringe when I hear it, not that it sounds pompous or artificial.

It's a lot like encountering ampersands when reading text. It's perfectly valid & it can even look good typographically & so on, but it just doesn't flow well, eh?

Whilst I dislike it, though, it has probably slipped into my compositions on occasion.

 

[arildno]

I still cringe from hearing anything uttered in French due that perfectly horrible teacher I had back in school..

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Maybe some Americans are just more insecure and judgemental to the point that if someone uses a perfectly valid word they don't use they get all "Ooooh, get her!" Quite frankly, I'm amazed it seems to have caused a stir with so many people. Myself, the only time I frequently judge someone's use of language as pretentious is when bombarded with the myriad American buzzwords where I work. IF I WANT TO FIND LEVERAGE IN THE DIGITAL COMMUNITY I'LL BUY A BLOODY MAP!

I think the other thing is that the English have a wealth of literature going back over a period in which the language was still still settling down after too many invasions, so we are being constantly reminded of words that may have otherwise died out. Shakespeare is as popular as ever, for instance.

'Whilst' is never the ONLY correct word to use (unless a man puts a loaded gun to your head as says "Say 'whilst' or I'll blow your brains out"), but there are looooooads of words in the English language that are interchangeable with others.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

"I'm tall, whilst my girl-friend is short".
To me, this sounds a bit archaic..
Is it?

You're right. Allow me to correct myself:

"I'm tall, whilst my beeyatch is short."

Better?

 

[loseyourname]

But I wonder about the usage of "whilst" in its comparative connotation as well, like:
"I'm tall, whilst my girl-friend is short".
To me, this sounds a bit archaic..
Is it?

There is no comparative connotation, at least not in addition to 'while.' Both words have exactly the same meaning. I explained the etymology back on the first page, and technically, 'whilst' is a modification of the adverb form of 'while.' To do something "whilst" is basically equivalent to saying that you're doing it nonchalantly, carefreely, idly. Somewhere along the way, this correct usage was abandoned and the word became equivalent to any form of 'while.'

If you want to be really exacting, both words are archaic, and 'while' might be considered even more archaic, as it's maintained the same meaning since Old English.

To the Hombre - Of course 'while' can be used to contrast. What I meant in saying that 'although' or 'yet' would be the more correct words is that they can only be used to contrast. Using those words instead of 'while' takes the ambiguity out of the sentence, and gets rid of the need for qualifiers. Take the earlier sentence you posted:

"My twin brother eats donuts for breakfast while I, on the other hand, eat them for lunch."

It is necessary to add in 'on the other hand' because otherwise the sentence is ambiguous. You might be contrasting your eating habits with your brother's, or you might be saying that you eat lunch at the same time he eats breakfast. There is nothing in the word 'while' itself that can tell us the difference. You can simply say:

"My twin brother eats donuts for breakfast, whereas I eat them for lunch."

In this case, 'whereas' is a better word to use than 'while.' Though both are correct, 'whereas' is more precise.

 

[arildno]

There is no comparative connotation, at least not in addition to 'while.'

All right; seems I mixed up the linguistic terms here..

To do something "whilst" is basically equivalent to saying that you're doing it nonchalantly, carefreely, idly. Somewhere along the way, this correct usage was abandoned and the word became equivalent to any form of 'while.'

Cool; I didn't know that.
(I really should start reading a thread from page 1 and onwards.. )

If you want to be really exacting, both words are archaic, and 'while' might be considered even more archaic, as it's maintained the same meaning since Old English.

I meant the technical term "archaic", i.e, sounding old-fashioned, gone out of usage.

Okay, thanks a lot, loseyourname (and everybody else); it seems I might just as well stick with "while".
That seems safest; as a non-native English speaker, I would blunder constantly if I tried to use 'whilst'.

 

[loseyourname]

Okay, thanks a lot, loseyourname (and everybody else); it seems I might just as well stick with "while".
That seems safest; as a non-native English speaker, I would blunder constantly if I tried to use 'whilst'.

Really, my primary objection is that I find the word 'whilst' to be an ugly sounding word, simultaneously baroque and harsh on the pallet. I find 'while' to be far more elegant; in fact, it flows off the end of the tongue. English is not the greatest sounding language to begin with; there's no need to worsen it if you ask me.

 

[arildno]

English is not the greatest sounding language to begin with; there's no need to worsen it if you ask me.

I love the sound of English, from drawling Texan to Queen's English.
But, it's great to be informed about how certain words 'feels like' for the native speaker; for any language, that is really the major hurdle foreigners have difficulties getting past.

 

[loseyourname]

I love the sound of English, from drawling Texan to Queen's English.
But, it's great to be informed about how certain words 'feels like' for the native speaker; for any language, that is really the major hurdle foreigners have difficulties getting past.

I guess I've just always been a fan of the latin-derived languages, especially Spanish (real Spanish, not Mexican Spanish) and Italian. I've never really liked the sound of the Germanic languages. They do make great literary languages, though. The multiplicity of meanings and ambiguities of so many of the words, and the free borrowing from other languages (especially in English), along with the heavy use of cognates, can make for very rich prose. A lot of that can be lost in translation. Take a language like Armenian, or the worst of all languages in this regard, Navajo. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in that language - any given sentence means exactly one thing, with no connotation whatsoever beyond the denotation of the words. They literally have several hundred different words for walking, depending on what direction you're facing, your pace, the weather, and every other imaginable variable. Nothing is context dependent - a fiction writer's nightmare. On the other hand, that's what made it the unbreakable code in WWII. Only native speakers could tell what was being said. Regarding Armenian, though, even if I don't think it's the greatest language for literary purposes, I do find the actual sound of it to be absolutely gorgeous, especially the eastern dialect.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

To the Hombre - Of course 'while' can be used to contrast. What I meant in saying that 'although' or 'yet' would be the more correct words is that they can only be used to contrast.

Ahhhh, so that's what you meant when you said:

'whilst' has no additional connotation that implies the consequent clause is in opposition to the antecedent clause in your sentences

Gotcha. Um..

Using those words instead of 'while' takes the ambiguity out of the sentence, and gets rid of the need for qualifiers. Take the earlier sentence you posted:

"My twin brother eats donuts for breakfast while I, on the other hand, eat them for lunch."

It is necessary to add in 'on the other hand' because otherwise the sentence is ambiguous.

"I am a carnivore while my girlfriend is a vegetarian." No ambiguity, no need for 'on the other hand'. It's a very common use of the word.

 

[Daminc]

"I am a carnivore while my girlfriend is a vegetarian." No ambiguity, no need for 'on the other hand'. It's a very common use of the word.

Of course that could mean you are not a carnivore when your girlfriend isn't a vegetarian. :)

I have an idea that, over time, the language has gotten lazier. 'Whilst' uses a lot more muscles in the tongue than 'while'. Similarly 'one hundred and sixty' has been shortened to 'one sixty' because of laziness.