Rise in Use of Word "Whilst": Why?

[El Hombre Invisible]

Except that 'while' predates 'whilst', so for a period we actually got less lazy and started inserting consonants we didn't need. )

 

[loseyourname]

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

Exactly. See what I mean about the literary richness of the English language? Almost any sentence can be interpreted in so many ways that often native speakers don't even realize it. The only reason I'm so keen on this stuff is that I'm a writer.

 

[Daminc]

Except that 'while' predates 'whilst', so for a period we actually got less lazy and started inserting consonants we didn't need. )

Could you show me where I can find the dates for the origin of these words please.

 

[nameinamillion]

As a native (UK) English speaker, and a bit of a pedant, I have always used "whilst" as an alternative to "at the same time as" when applied to two actions being performed concurrently - eg. "I was watching TV whilst eating my dinner".

This seems to me to be much better than the alternative "while eating my dinner" but does not allow what I would consider to be the pretentious somewhat affected use of "whilst" as a simple synonym for one of the uses of "while" that is, regrettably, gaining currency in some circles.

 

[jaqubim]

'Whilst' is an adverbial genitive. This means it is used to describe verbs.
For an example of where it's used, in English English at least, 'Whilst rising, the sun shone'. Not used as 'Whilst the sun was rising, it shone'. 'While' would be used instead here.

In writing, I sometimes use whilst, but I don't really remember ever saying whilst until 5 mins ago whilst/when debating it with my girlfriend. I just know I've always used it that way. Maybe it is slightly dated now though. I'm only 23, I don't want to sound like something out of Shakespeare!
Usually tend to use it when writing formally, like writing essays, not when writing my thoughts on a random forum! Sorry to bust in on this, I just want to set the world straight on it now!
We’re not stuck in the dark ages over here in England, we’re probably the most culturally advanced country around, but we do tend to stick to traditions rigidly,not all of us maybe, (but I think having a queen is a good thing).

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=whilst&image.x=47&image.y=8

More examples: I met her whilst working up North
I met her while I was working up North

In English English, both are correct. Don’t know about you, I’d call the whilst version less effort.
Why have Americans had to take things, tweak them slightly, and call it their own, or have authority over it?! i.e. Rugby into American football, the little girls game rounders into baseball, English into American English, etc! Bottom line: Our language, we're right.

 

[jaqubim]

We love you guiys really. An earlier post got my back up that's all.

 

[out of whack]

I learned to write "favour" instead of "favor" and I still do that but I cannot in good faith criticize the elimination of redundancy. Why insert silent letters? Why stretch your speech to "one hundred and sixty and one" when "one hundred sixty one" will do? Also, if you pronounce it "centER" then why write "centRE"? And if "while" is sufficient then why retain "whilst"? I think we should either pronounce "saLmon" or write "samon". English can be simplified and many exceptions can be removed without loss of meaning. Yeah, I'm out of whack.

 

[cristo]

The l in salmon tells us how to pronounce the word. If you were to omit it, the word "samon" would be pronounced "same-on."

Quit messing with a perfectly good language! If you start picking letters out, then you'll destroy the beauty of the English language.

 

[Astronuc]

eau yieuw ghyze!

 

[mathwonk]

i love 17th century posts.

 

[jaqubim]

Lol! My bad...
Basically, the English language is like someone said, a big hairy 500lb gorilla. It's never been logical. It just is how it is. Maybe I'm a stick in the mud, I just don't like seeing words disappear for the sake of people being lazy.

We've got the most diverse language, making it easy to write songs, and say exactly what we mean. But yeah, I see your points, I'd hate to have to learn English if it wasn't my native language. It's got 1000s of exceptions to the rules, and keeps some things that originated from France. Why the hell we keep those I don't know. I never understood 'centre', I just accepted that that's how it is. Italian...that's a nice simple straightforward language, they say it how they see it; how it's written, but try listening to their pop music!

 

[jaqubim]

At least we don't have to construct sentances like in Catalan, (the Basque language in Catalonia)...

Instead of "I've had a ham sandwich"
Their literal translation is "In the act of eating, you have me, 10 minutes ago, a ham sandwich".

 

[out of whack]

The l in salmon tells us how to pronounce the word. If you were to omit it, the word "samon" would be pronounced "same-on."

No point. You write samba, not salmba.

Quit messing with a perfectly good language!

Nobody is. We're messing with a good language, not with a perfectly good one. Languages that are never messed with do not evolve and there is no good reason to keep a good language from evolving into a better one.

 

[cristo]

No point. You write samba, not salmba.

There's no need for an l there, since the "mb" shortens the sound of the "a"; as in "lamb."

 

[out of whack]

There's no need for an l there, since the "mb" shortens the sound of the "a"; as in "lamb."

...or do you mean as in "chamber"?

 

[cristo]

...or do you mean as in "chamber"?

Nope, clearly I didn't! There's probably a list of rules defining which sounds overule each other. I presume "ch" followed by "a" elongates the sound of "a." Anyway, I'm not a professor of the english language, so can't comment on this. My point is, that the "weird" spellings add to the beauty of the english language.

 

[out of whack]

There's probably a list of rules defining which sounds overule each other.

...or then again, maybe there isn't a rule for everything so you just get used to the sounds as they change over the years.

My point is, that the "weird" spellings add to the beauty of the english language.

Yes, I understand that you like English the way you learned it. I am not debating your personal tastes. But you know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What seems beautiful to one seems defective to another. I find that simplification doesn't usually make things ugly except to those whose tastes are entrenched. Want it or not, English is an evolving language. My point is that evolution towards simplicity is better than evolution towards complexity.

 

[cristo]

My point is that evolution towards simplicity is better than evolution towards complexity.

But I'm not saying that there is any evolution towards complexity! Back to the original point that you made: fair enough, if you want to change the spelling of the word salmon, then go ahead, spell it as "sammon," but if you just miss out the l, and write "samon," then this is not evolving the language towards simplicity-- it's making students learn another exception!

This type of evolution of words is pointless; OK, I can see where "color" and "center" come from, since I guess it is easier to spell words how they are sounded, but in these cases it doesn't make a difference to how the word is pronounced. However, in your case it does.

In reality, however, you cannot start taking rules out, and swapping them for others (especially not when they change how a word is pronounced) without changing everything.

For example, in the phonetic language which you seek, how would you deal with the word "chaos"-- would this be re-spelt "kayoss"?

 

[out of whack]

But I'm not saying that there is any evolution towards complexity!

I know you didn't say that, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I just observe that the language changes over the years. Change can make things simpler or more complicated. I favor the former. (There, I've just dropped the 'u' from "favour".)

fair enough, if you want to change the spelling of the word salmon, then go ahead, spell it as "sammon," but if you just miss out the l, and write "samon," then this is not evolving the language towards simplicity-- it's making students learn another exception!

Ok, fair enough as well. "Sammon" still works better than "salmon". I'm not picky about the specifics.

The spelling problem must come from an excess of sounds that must be represented using only five or six vowels. Other languages get around this by adding accents to vowels. Vowels can also be combined to form the appropriate sound. Or you can have complex rules like 'a' before "mb" is pronounced as in "lamb" except after "ch"...

I can see where "color" and "center" come from, since I guess it is easier to spell words how they are sounded

Yes, these are pretty straightforward, and I don't think it makes the language uglier in any way. Eye of the beholder again.

In reality, however, you cannot start taking rules out, and swapping them for others (especially not when they change how a word is pronounced) without changing everything.

For example, in the phonetic language which you seek, how would you deal with the word "chaos"-- would this be re-spelt "kayoss"?

Oh, "chaos" is spelled correctly, it is simply mispronounced.

I don't claim that representing sounds in written form is trivial. I think languages do not evolve so much in written form but in spoken form instead. Written text simply tries to catch up with what people are saying, and people say the darndest things. Not only is it hard to transfer phonems into written form, but since pronunciation also changes in spoken language you inevitably end up with discrepancies in writing. When you end up with some that are easy to fix (as in "centER") then I see no reason not to do it.

 

[cristo]

I know you didn't say that, I didn't mean to imply that you did. I just observe that the language changes over the years. Change can make things simpler or more complicated. I favor the former. (There, I've just dropped the 'u' from "favour".)

Yea, I don't mind that sort of shortening, in fact I write color quite a bit.

The spelling problem must come from an excess of sounds that must be represented using only five or six vowels. Other languages get around this by adding accents to vowels. Vowels can also be combined to form the appropriate sound. Or you can have complex rules like 'a' before "mb" is pronounced as in "lamb" except after "ch"...

That rule is a bit silly, especially as I probably made it up, but you get what I mean. However, I think some of the rules are quite catchy, e.g: "i before e, expect after c, unless pronounced 'ay' as in neighbour or weigh."

Oh, "chaos" is spelled correctly, it is simply mispronounced.

Ahh, a subtle difference . (There's another word, subtle; I think it looks better this way than suttle). It is, however, amazing how many words have "weird" spellings when one actually thinks about it whilst typing!

I don't claim that representing sounds in written form is trivial. I think languages do not evolve so much in written form but in spoken form instead. Written text simply tries to catch up with what people are saying, and people say the darndest things. Not only is it hard to transfer phonems into written form, but since pronunciation also changes in spoken language you inevitably end up with discrepancies in writing.

You have to be a bit careful here, though. For example, the phrase "I would have" has, by some people, either due to regional dialects or just laziness, been changed to "I would of": probably because the "have" has gone to "'av" which has then beend changed to "of." I've actually read things where the author has written "I would of" (or some variation on the theme.) This is quite a dangerous thing to happen and, of course, the language should not be changed to encorporate this!

However, I realize this last comment is a completely different issue!

 

[out of whack]

That rule is a bit silly, especially as I probably made it up

I think some of the rules are quite catchy, e.g: "i before e, expect after c, unless pronounced 'ay' as in neighbour or weigh."

Who the heck pronounces these words with an 'ay'?

when one actually thinks about it whilst typing!

Stop!

For example, the phrase "I would have" has, by some people, either due to regional dialects or just laziness, been changed to "I would of": probably because the "have" has gone to "'av" which has then beend changed to "of."

Ahhh... back to serious.

Yes, that can be a mess. We can't "simplify" to the extent that a homonym is used instead of the correct word. Simplify, yes but don't lose the meaning.

 

[cristo]

Stop!

Honestly, there was no joke intended! I must be one of the people guilty of using the word "whilst."

 

[Chi Meson]

That rule is a bit silly, especially as I probably made it up, but you get what I mean. However, I think some of the rules are quite catchy, e.g: "i before e, expect after c, unless pronounced 'ay' as in neighbour or weigh."

I before e,

exception: unless after c,

exceptions: if it not pronounced as "ee"
such as neighbor, or weigh, or forfeit, or sleigh
or stein or heiffer or counterfeit vein,
or freight or height or foreign heir"

Exceptions: friend mischief seize sheik leisure*

*exception : leisure is not the above exception if you're in Britain

 

[ngalluccio]

I think the British use 'whilst' as a preposition and 'while' for a noun or direct object whilst americans will only use 'while' for both preposition and noun.

British examples: 'he drove whilst talking on his phone.' or ' he called whilst you were out.'

American Examples: 'he drove while he was talking on the phone' or 'he called while you were out.'

it's just ignorance to assume that the use of 'whilst' sounds pretentious, no need to become judgemental. It's simply the way language has evolved in each place. and technically, it's a very apt distinction to make, using two different words for two types of grammatical usage. The Brits are no more pretentious with their language as the Americans are lazy with theirs.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Saying 'Whilst' is pretentious. Linguists say that language is as language does. If enough people use it, then it's in the language irregardless.

 

[Gokul43201]

...then it's in the language irregardless.

...but after a couple seconds ...

 

[DaveC426913]

Linguists say that language is as language does. If enough people use it, then it's in the language irregardless.

o gr8 r u serious their goes teh language lol!1

 

[cristo]

Saying 'Whilst' is pretentious.

Hmm, I wouldn't agree.

I was on an American plane and on the back of the seat in front was written the message "Fasten your seatbelt while seated." Now, that annoyed me, as I, and other Brits I've spoken to, would use the word "whilst" in that sentence, as "while" doesn't sound right to me. It's just the fact that we've been brought up using slightly different English, that's all.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Fasten your seatbelt while seated.

This sentence has a couple of problems that can't be fixed by changing while to 'whilst'. Surely I wasn't going to fasten it while standing, nor would I continue to fasten it while (or whilst) I was seated. I should also note that the message to which you responded was and was meant to be ludicrous.

 

[J77]

The OED take it back to 1375:

c1375 Cursor M. 2966 (Fairf.) {Th}e folk ware ful of pride {Th}e quylest he dwelled ham bi-side.

And, in this context, it's "the whilst" -- the time during which.