QT brought up that "thusly" really isn't a word (Here we go again!). It may, indeed, be a word, though it seems that it isn't always an accepted word. Here is what the AHD says about it:

"Thusly was introduced in the 19th century as an alternative to thus in sentences such as Hold it thus or He put it thus. It appears to have first been used by humorists, who may have been echoing the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish. The word has subsequently gained some currency in educated usage, but it is still often regarded as incorrect. A large majority of the Usage Panel found it unacceptable in an earlier survey. In formal writing thus can still be used as in the examples above; in other styles this way, like this, and other such expressions are more natural."

Do you consider "thusly" to be a word?

It's certainly a word, because lots of people use it; and we all know what it means.

It's a recently invented word, but so are many others.

To me it is a facetious word. I would look strangely on anyone who used it 'normally', without being aware of its archness. But perhaps there are many people for whom it is now a normal word.

Thusly is listed by some dictionaries as "a non-standard variant," which means thus or so. The OED Online simply says that it is colloquial and "thusly = thus," and gave four citations:

quote:

---

1865 Harper's Mag. Dec. 133/2 It happened, as J. Billings would say, ‘thusly’. 1876 [see DINGUS]. 1889 Boston (Mass.) Jrnl. 17 Jan. 2/3 On his way home George mused thusly. 1893 LADY BURTON Life Sir R.F. Burton II. 3 Stories never lose anything in the recital, and consequently this one grew thusly.

---

It sounds like it was a fad word of the time. The "see dingus" reference piqued my curiosity. Dingus is defined as "A gadget, contraption, ‘thingummy’," and the 1876 quote is from the Pioche Jrnl. (Nev.): "The latest thing in the way of a soul-warmer that the youths of Pioche have got is a dingis made thusly."

I don't think much of thusly. A lot of people seem to think that an adverb should end in -ly, so they add it to perfectly good adverbs and come up with words such as firstly and thusly.

I found a new meaning of thus in the OED Online (new to me; the citations range from a 1387 to 1880):

quote:

---

Frankincense. a. Olibanum. b. Resin obtained from the spruce-fir, and from various species of pine. American thus, the resin of the Long-leaved Pine, Pinus palustris, and the Frankincense or Loblolly Pine, P. Tæda, both of the southern U.S.

Tinman

---

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

Interesting, Tinman. Your information shows that it hasn't been that recently invented. In all three of those sentences, I can't see that they could have used the word "thus" instead. That is, you wouldn't say, "...Billings would say, 'thus.'" Or, "...George mused 'thus.'" You could word it differently, but I don't see how "thus" would work; yet, "thusly" seems to work. Until seeing those sentences, I hadn't seen the point of "thusly," but now at least I can see how it developed.

Quote "...That is, you wouldn't say, "...Billings would say, 'thus.'" Or, "...George mused 'thus.'"..."

Why not? I would. The COED shows it thus:

Thus adv. formal 1a in this way b as indicated 2a accordingly b as a result or inference 3 to this extent; so (thus far; thus much)

The COED does not, incidentally, have an entry for "thusly" and long may that continue to be the case.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

The word thus 'frankincense' is one of the extremely rare minimal pairs between the sounds [ð] and [θ]. Another is thou [ðaU] 'you sg. archaic' vs [θaU] 'thousandth of an inch', and a third is mouth noun vs verb.

The COED does not, incidentally, have an entry for "thusly" and long may that continue to be the case.

And, yet...the OED online not only has it, as Tinman says, but shows that it was first used in 1856. Further, it continues to be in use to this day as it is cited in Google 351,000 times. So, what in your mind would be the reason a word should be in a dictionary? This one is in the Gold Standard Dictionary and has been in use...fairly strong use...since 1856. That's not enough for you?

I am just playing the Devil's Advocate here, since jheem is still traveling. I think I can anticipate his response to your comment. This is not one of my favorite words, either, and I have never (probably will never) used it. I am just wondering why you don't consider it good enough for a dictionary.

BTW, I see your point about "thus" being used in those sentences instead of "thusly." However, we all know, after many discussions about it here, that there are words that have identical meanings so that shouldn't be a reason for not accepting "thusly."

Thusly shall I also use soly and thereforely - and maybe even hencely.

Quote "...I am just wondering why you don't consider it good enough for a dictionary...."

Because it:

A. is uncecessary

B. is an incorrect construction

C. adds nothing of value to the language.

Is that the point of a dictionary, though, to judge what the necessary, good words are that add value to the language? [Where is jheem when I need him?]

There are a lot of unnecessary, incorrectly constructed words that add nothing to the language that are in the dictionary. Even Jesse Scheidlower, an editor for the OED, recently told me in an e-mail I posted here that "incorrect construction" of words does not keep it out of the OED.

BTW, who would then make those judgments about words? The very small number of people who happen to be dictionary editors?

This is the old argument: should dictionaries be prescriptive or descriptive? Descriptive dictionaries describe how people use words. Prescriptive dictionaries tell how to "correctly" use words.

It is not quite that cut and dried; many dictionaries are a combination of both. Many dictionaries define words as people actually use them and at the same time include usage notes on any controversy. They often categorize words as "standard," substandard," "colloquial," "slang," etc. I favor these kinds of dictionaries.

Other dictionaries, usually usage manuals of some type, define words and usage as they deem "proper" and "correct." These dictionaries often explain the subtle differences between words that are often "incorrectly" used interchangeably.

Let's use of infer and implyas an example. These words are used interchangeably by many, perhaps most, people. But they have very distinct meanings that are made clear in the precriptivist dictionaries. The descriptivist dictionaries will usually report both the distinct and interchangeable meanings. Often they will have a usage note explaining the controversy.

I think the difference in these words is worth preserving, but not worth fighting over.

Probably most of us are part descriptivist and part prescriptivist. Some appear to be adamantly prescriptivist.

Edward Finegan, Professor of Linguistics and Law, of the University of Southern California discusses prescriptive vs. descriptive. This site, from the School of Library and Information Science (SLIS)
Indiana University - Bloomington, briefly describes dictionaries, asks questions, provides a reading list, and lists several sources, providing a link to some of them.

Tinman

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

I said "...The COED does not, incidentally, have an entry for "thusly" and long may that continue to be the case...." In other words, I would prefer that it doesn't become accepted.

But when a word does become accepted it is the job of a dictionary to report its use. The COED is less likely than the OED to include all variants and eccentric constructions since its scope is much less. This is one reason why I prefer it; there is much dross in the OED.

But "thusly" is a word that is just as pointless as the awful "irregardless" - which has no more need for its existence. Both the prefix to "regardless" and the suffix to "thus" have been added by people whose knowledge of English is flawed. Sadly history has proved that such flawed words find themselves into the vocabulary regardless of the efforts of purists and lexicographers alike.

It all depends on your definition of a dictionary. For some it is a prophylaxic against bad grammar; for others it is a descriptive document of a state of a language. In anglophone countries, the dictionary (insert OED, AH, MW, et al here) has always taken on a bit of the function of the language academy in other countries. (Having just returned from France, I was astonished at how little anybody there listens to the proscriptions of the Academy.)

I like thusly, though I'd never used it in normal conversation or writing, because it reminds me that folks are always trying to speak better than they can. That's also why I like the whole hypercorrection pantheon of shibboleths that ~ which, between you and I, etc., too.

There's something I don't quite like about the is X a word or not question. Thusly is a word (sub-standard or not), and not because it exists in a certain dictionary. It's a word because we all have no trouble identifying it in context in speech or a text. (In this I'm siding with aput above.)

I learned a new word last Tuesday (the last day of Karneval in the Rhineland): der Nubbel. It's not a German word, but a Kölsch dialect one. It's a kind of scape-goat effigy that is burned (traditionally at midnight) as the last act of Karneval taking all of the revellers' sins with it. Point is: is it a word or not? It's not in my German dictionary. (Have to look it up in the dialect dictionary.) If I used it in Cologne, chances are people will understand me, but try it in some village in Thuringia or Bavaria. Who knows?

But "thusly" is a word that is just as pointless as the awful "irregardless" - which has no more need for its existence.

Yes, "thusly" is rather similar to "irregardless," I agree. Like you, Richard, I also dislike the latter word. Yet, if you recall, I found it in our Compact OED, though I think you have said it's not in yours. I just think it is interesting how they decide which words to include, and which words not to include. I suspect you are right, Tinman, that most dictionaries are part prescriptive and part descriptive.

der Nubbel And, of course, no English dictionaries would include it. Do we have a similar word? I mean, is there a word where you burn something in order to take away sins?

The gutenberg site indicates that a US humor magazine was using thusly for a while in 1870, and an English magazine did the same in 1891. It seems, at least at first blush, that the word was something of a fad.

From the same site you'll find this in Showell's Dictionary of Birmingham (roughly 1885 or 1886), which our Birmugians may enjoy:

in Canute's reign there was an Earl Beorn, the king's nephew, and it has been fancifully suggested that in this name Beorn may lie the much-sought root for the etymology of the town's name. Beorn, or Bern, being derived from ber, a bear or boar, it might be arranged thusly:-- Ber, bear or boar; moeng, many; ham, dwelling--the whole making Bermoengham, the dwelling of many bears, or the home of many pigs!

I do not comment; I merely quote.