Nathan Bierma was asked whether "anyways" is a word. In the end he says that it is not accepted in Standard English. However, it can be traced back to "anywise" or in Old English "aenig wisan," which meant "in any way or manner." Apparently Dickens used it in "Our Mutual Friend":

quote:

("Anyways, I am glad," says Pleasant Riderhood, for example) but without knowing the book better, I can't tell if Dickens meant it to reflect a character's regional dialect.

The questioner said that her high school students use it. In her emails to me, my daughter uses it. Have you heard it used much?

Up here in central British Columbia, I would guesstimate usage at 50 per cent for "anyways" and 50 per cent for "anyway".
I will have to listen over the next little while and see whether individual people use one or the other consistently.

I know of only one person who commonly adds the "s." The people with whom I work just grunt and point; the rest have English degrees.

It isn't common over here, but I have heard it used. The UVic Writer's Guide suggests it's a

quote:

strictly colloquial expression, as ungrammatical in written English as "anyhows" because adverbs cannot be plural.

Most online dictionaries seem to call it "nonstandard", "colloquial, or "informal". The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary gives "US informal for anyway"

I used to hear it a lot more in Upstate New York than I do here in the Philadelphia area.

WM

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
The UVic Writer's Guide suggests it's a

quote:

strictly colloquial expression, as ungrammatical in written English as "anyhows" because adverbs cannot be plural.

"He works sometimes."

I wondered about that dogmatic statement myself, but couldn't think of a suitable example. Anyways, who's to say that the letter "s" indicates plurality here?

Yeah, there's no reason to think that the "s" indicates plurality in "anyways" or "sometimes".

But you could maybe argue that words like

he works nights
he works days
he works weekends

are adverbs and plural.

Another adverb ending with a letter s is "always". That's surely plural, coming as it does from "all ways"?

The online OED cites anyways as an adverb, meaning "in any way, in any respect, at all." In this form there are citations from 1560, 1638, 1673, 1794, and 1834. The other definition is "in any case, at all events, anyhow," and cited as an adverb conjunction. This definition has one citation from 1865, Dickens: "Anyways, I am glad, etc."

I suspect it is used more frequently in the younger generation, but I am not sure. I have to say, it irritates me when my daugher uses it, but she has other redeeming features.

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:
Yeah, there's no reason to think that the "s" indicates plurality in "anyways" or "sometimes".

Yes. It is heard in the UK, used in a slangy, trendy way. It's rather like "Hows" in "Hows about a cup of tea"? But clearly not an omitted apostrophe as sometimes used to make acronyms or other abbreviations plural.
I share Kalleh's sense of mild irritation.

I've often heard a variation . . .
Anywho

Anyone else hear that?

"Anywho, that's the way the cookie crumbles."

An interesting discussion. I wonder why some feel that anyways is always incorrect or, less accurately, ungrammatical?

It occurs in the Authorized King James Version of Bible, 1611, in Leviticus 20:4 (link):

quote:

And if the people of the lande doe / any wayes hide their eyes from the / man, when he giueth of his seed unto / Molech, and kill him not:

As usual, the MWDEU has a nice discussion of the historical facts of the word and its usage (link). Elsewheres, it also discusses anywheres, nowheres, and somewheres.

It is strange that the A-H dictionary labels anywise nonstandard (link), while the current M-W (link) and the unabridged edition of 1913 (link) do not. A quick googling reveals that its use in 19th British English is common an unremarkworthy (link).

There are two different uses of -wise, one standard (e.g., clockwise, lengthwise) meaning 'in this way or manner', deriving from the Old English wīse 'manner, way, habit' (link), and the other less formal, meaning 'relating to' (e.g., foodwise, timewise). My personal favorites -wise words are: pennywise, which seems to have nothing to do with this suffix, but rather with the adjective wise, and bitwise, as in bitwise boolean and shift operators (link). There is something adverby about this -s. It occurs in upwards and towards, and in the latter can be dropped, i.e., toward.

As for anywho, not only have I heard it, but I use it informally in a jocular manner.

quote:

As for anywho, not only have I heard it, but I use it informally in a jocular manner.

Funny, I picture it as spelled, "anyhoo." Is the pronunciation a Scottish/Gaelic remnant?

anyhoo

anyhoo 1.79 Mghits
anywho 5.03 Mghits

FWIW, Google suggests anywho for anyhoo (link).

[Corrected typo.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

quote:

quote (correcting what I presume to be a typo):

anyhoo 1.79 Mghits
anywho 5.03 Mghits

Yes, but the latter, anywho, is the name of a popular site (which is a telephone-number directory), and that may grossly skew the figures.

For what(ever) it's worth ... google hits


whatever 340,000,000
whatevers 4,240,000
whatevah 120,000
whatevahs 5,600

quote:

An interesting discussion. I wonder why some feel that anyways is always incorrect or, less accurately, ungrammatical?

Oh, I don't think it incorrect, z (and certainly not ungrammatical)...especially after I looked it up in the OED. Now Bierma does consider it "non-standard," which is similar to considering it "wrong."

For me, the annoyance is similar to someone saying, "I have less pennies than you do." It's like fingernails on a chalkboard for me, and yet I don't consider it "wrong." It's my problem, not the other person's. It's just a matter of how I've been raised. The same goes for others' irritation of my use of "I'm too nice of a person."

Maybe it is just the difference between written language and the spoken word. In speech many variant or new words or phrases are acceptable because their spoken context may contain evident elements of humour, self-mockery, or irony. In the formal constraints of writing these are inapparent, and prone to be interpreted as non-standard.

quote:

For me, the annoyance is similar to someone saying, "I have less pennies than you do." It's like fingernails on a chalkboard for me, and yet I don't consider it "wrong." It's my problem, not the other person's.

Most UK speakers would consider that wrong. Less is used for uncountable nouns as in constructions such as "I am less wealthy than you" or "there is less money around these days".

For countable nouns I would use "fewer". In your example, I would write, "I have fewer pennies than you" or "I have less money than you".

Strangely the distinction does not seem to apply for adjectives describing greater quantities. "I have more money" and "I have more pennies" are both correct.

Only sort of true.
It's one of those "rules" that is more honoured in the breach than the observance. Yes, I teach classes that in formal writing "fewer" is usually used for countable nouns and "less" for uncountable nouns but the truth of the matter is that in speech, even quite formal speech, the great majority of people (even those that claim otherwise) use "fewer" and "less" interchangeably when speaking of countable nouns. In fact in most speech communities, and this is personal observation only - I have no data to back it up, it seems that "less" is the preferred form because the use of "fewer" is perceived as having a degree of old-fashioned pomposity about it.

Uncountable nouns are always described using "less".

Almost nobody would think twice about "there are less cars on the road nowadays" or "we have less games this season".

c888 King ÆLFRED Boethius De Consolatione Philosophiæ. xxxv. §5 [6] Swa mid læs worda swa mid ma, swæðer we hit ȝereccan maȝon.
"whether we may prove it with less words or with more"

I had a feeling it had been around for a very long time goofy but couldn't think how to find the evidence. Thank you for providing it.

We've talked about "fewer" and "less" so much here that I thought we'd come to a consensus that either way is fine. Apparently not.

I think you're right about "less," Bob. I doubt this means anything, but Google shows 1,050,000,000 hits for "less" and 188,000,000 for "fewer."