Comments on: Awfullest English ever

By: tim maguire

tim maguire — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:02:25 +0000

There is a big difference between language evolving over time so that a rule becomes obsolete or a usage becomes common enough to be correct and the conscious corruption and abuse of language by marketing jerks.

The marketing jerks nearly always dumb it down, suck out the color, make our language boring.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:20:36 +0000

Up until now, I’d read it as ‘funniest’, and just couldn’t work out how a chunk of metal could be funnier than any other, or how that made it more desirable. Had I read it correctly the first time, I would have cried.

By: Cennydd

Cennydd — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:51:27 +0000

“Funnest” is bad. However, it’s not a patch on “winningest”, that abomination so beloved of American sports commentators…

By: Gez

Gez — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:41:56 +0000

This demonstrates the slippery slope of descriptivism. Fun didn’t used to be an accepted adjective. It was a noun. One could have fun but one could not be fun.

I like using fun as an adjective. “That was fun!” It sounds good and conveys meaning clearly. But ordinary adjectives have comparatives and superlatives. For example ‘big’ has ‘bigger’ and ‘biggest’. So logically, if we are to treat ‘fun’ as adjective surely ‘funnest’ is acceptable. Things like this, when combined with the multiple origins of the English language make applying standard laws almost impossible. I pity those attempting to learn English as a second language.

Also consider whether the following sentence is correct or not.

The party was a lot of fun.