# Among, amongst; amid, amidst; while, whilst?



## lory_k75

What is the difference?

E.g. The golf courses are set among (amongst?) a spectacular landscape of palm trees, lakes and volcanic mountains ...

Thanks in advance!

<<Moderator Note:
Abenr's thread on the same topic, started on 1 June 2006, has been added to this thread.
October 2006's thread has been added too.
And February 2007's.
Panjandrum>>


----------



## Brioche

There is no difference in meaning.

Among is by far the more commonly used word.


----------



## lory_k75

Thank you.. keep getting corrected, now I know both can be used..


----------



## panjandrum

lory_k75 said:
			
		

> Thank you.. keep getting corrected, now I know both can be used..


Next time you get corrected, ask for a clear explanation - and let us know 
I think the choice depends on how you feel, and what the sentence sounds like - nothing else. As we are among friends here, I might want to say _the golf courses were set *amongst* a number of spectacular ....._ because I might find _amongst a_ easier to say than _among a_. 
But that's only a thought.


----------



## GenJen54

*Amongst* is rarely used in AE, although it is definitely understood.

It is similar to while/whilst.  Somewhere along the linguistic way, Americans started dropping the "s" and using a non-s variant:  among / while.


----------



## river

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> *Amongst* is rarely used in AE, although it is definitely understood.
> 
> It is similar to while/whilst. Somewhere along the linguistic way, Americans started dropping the "s" and using a non-s variant: among / while.


 
Or amid/amidst. _ Amongst_ might be considered overrefined here. Is it commonly used in BE?


----------



## panjandrum

Among is the dominant form.
Amongst appears often enough for it not to be remarked on (there are 27million of them on Google, 77million among).
Edit to add: Those counts are from UK-based sites.


----------



## nmichelle

i was talking to my english teacher once about this and she was telling me that whilst (or amongst for that mattter) were used mainly in old english. 

it's better to say while or among when writing (it's like the passe simple in french - they use it mainly for litterary works set in the past).

 i think you'll only use whilst/amongst for style purposes...


----------



## Alicia Translator

please please native-speakers, write more about this! I'm totally interested!


----------



## nmichelle

essentially it has the same meaning and both words are interchangeable. 
as i said before, it's mainly used for stylistic purposes, as one of the above posters said, it's whatever 'fits' in the sentence.

*however* it's not used that much anymore (here in canada anyway). if you're describing say a historic time then whilst or amongst would probably fit right in your story. 

though if you're writing about modern times, a story or describing something that happened in the present-day time, the +st (amonst/whilst) would look a bit out of place. it's not necessarily wrong to use it but it's just not used frequently in writing pieces.



> *WR Rule #22* - Except as a topic of discussion, chatspeak and SMS style are not acceptable. *Members must do their best to write using standard language forms.* *<<This includes using capital letters where appropriate.>> *


----------



## panjandrum

Welcome to WordReference nmichelle 

Amongst is surprisingly common, so is whilst (both appear >100million times in Google).

Too common to be considered unusual - certainly in BE (British English) - although less common in AE than BE.


----------



## river

This may be of interest http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_31-8-2003_pg3_5


----------



## Alicia Translator

thanx river! very interesting indeed! Although the writer is mistaken to think "orange" is "l'orange" (as a whole word) in French, since the "l'" is the article "le" in its contracted form. So orange is orange, simply. But for the rest, very enlightening!


----------



## lory_k75

I have just been given the following explanation (from the person that corrected my writing and made me post the question in the first place...): Among is to be surrounded (in my initial example the golf courses would be surrounded by the spectacular landscape).
Amongst is to actually be in the middle of (so the golf course would actually be in the middle of the spectacular palm trees, lakes etc.)

It seems to make sense but does it'ring a bell' to anyone, is it correct?


----------



## badgrammar

Okay, this question is taking me back to the days with Maggie, the best damn English teacher there ever was...  What did she tell me about this?  There is or was a rule about when you use one or the other.  It may have fallen by the wayside in today's English.

Excuse me as I go into a trance and attempt to communicate with the Spirit of English class past...  Ooohhhmmmm....


----------



## maxiogee

On a related note, the Irish author John McGahern died yesterday. One of his most famous works was _Amongst Women.

Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam dílis.
_


----------



## panjandrum

lory_k75 said:
			
		

> I have just been given the following explanation (from the person that corrected my writing and made me post the question in the first place...): Among is to be surrounded (in my initial example the golf courses would be surrounded by the spectacular landscape).
> Amongst is to actually be in the middle of (so the golf course would actually be in the middle of the spectacular palm trees, lakes etc.)
> 
> It seems to make sense but does it'ring a bell' to anyone, is it correct?


It may seem to make sense, but there seems also to be no evidence anywhere to support it.  I imagine that various people have contrived distinctions to assist students - or to stop them from repeatedly asking questions 

I should confess that I wouldn't want to use either among or amongst in the example you quoted.  You may not have noticed, but back up in post #4 I had to change the sentence.

Here is the original:
_The golf courses are set among (amongst?) a spectacular landscape of palm trees, lakes and volcanic mountains ..._

Here is my example:
_... the golf courses were set *amongst* a number of spectacular ..._
 
In my view (funny how the topic subconsciously influences the words we use) you can't be among one thing, a landscape.  So I would prefer to write either:
_The golf courses are set among palm trees, lakes and volcanic mountains ..._
- or -
_The golf courses are set amidst a spectacular landscape of palm trees, lakes and volcanic mountains ..._


----------



## nycphotography

panjandrum said:
			
		

> No, it's not quite the same.
> Amongst other things .... there are many annoying things about this shop, here is one of them.
> 
> Apart from anything else .... there are other annoying things about this shop, but this is the one, clinching condemnation.
> 
> [Check out the Among v Amongst thread if interested in this off-topic topic]


 


I would easily use "Amongst other things" for either case.

I wouldn't likely use "apart from everything else", but if I did, it would carry the latter meaning.


----------



## mjscott

Except by Europeans, I have never heard _amongst_ used among Americans.


----------



## rsweet

You're absolutely right, Panj. Americans spot words such as "amongst," and "whilst" as dead giveaways that the speaker is not "from these here parts."

Sorry,  I just got finished watching the 1960 film classic, _The Magnificent Seven,_ and I've still got cowboy talk in my ears.


----------



## nycphotography

rsweet said:
			
		

> You're absolutely right, Panj. Americans spot words such as "amongst," and "whilst" as dead giveaways that the speaker is not "from these here parts."
> 
> Sorry, I just got finished watching the 1960 film classic, _The Magnificent Seven,_ and I've still got cowboy talk in my ears.


 
To my AE ear, I hear:

among = in the group of
amongst = mixed up together with (ie _not_ orderly)

So "amongst other things" doesn't automatically register as foreign to me.


----------



## abenr

Hi, Everybody!

To see "*amongst*" in American English is unusual. In British English, however, it's common. I've always wondered if the those who speak British English have rules outlining when to use "*among*" and when to use "*amongst*." If so, what might they be?

Cheers,
Abenr


----------



## danielfranco

So, if I'm understanding it correctly, "amongst" might be an archaic spelling of "among"? Or maybe they are just alternate spellings of the same word.


----------



## LV4-26

Same as with _amid/amidst_, I assume?

EDIT : _while/whilst_?


----------



## panjandrum

The thread Amongst v Among has been added to the existing thread entitled Among v Amongst.  Please check the earlier posts in the thread.
Panjandrum
(Moderator)


----------



## Yôn

"I stand amongst you today..."
"He was only one among the many..."

These sentences sound good the way I've done them.  They might sound better to someone else with a different word.  The point I'm trying to make is that I hear both forms used, I use both forms myself, and I feel that the form used is completely dependant on how you want the sentence to sound.  In some cases, amongst might sound more "sophisticated" if that is the word, but in other cases it might just sound clumbsy and wrong.  It just depends on how you want the sentence to flow, and how you want it to be understood by your audience.


My opinion, of course.




Jon


----------



## abenr

lory_k75 said:
			
		

> What is the difference?
> 
> E.g. The golf courses are set among (amongst?) a spectacular landscape of palm trees, lakes and volcanic mountains ...
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> <<Moderator Note:
> Abenr's thread on the same topic, started on 1 June 2006, has been added to this thread.
> Panjandrum>>


 
I had a chance this morning to browse through my library and am leaping back into my own thread with some newly found information. Fowler, in his original "Dictionary of Modern English Usage," a volume I find essential and one I recommend unhesitatingly, offers these findings: (1) "_among_" is the normal word, (2) "_amongst_" is more usual before vowels, (3) before "_the_," the two forms are used with no distinction.

Let us all praise H.W. Fowler. 

Abenr


----------



## petereid

Whilst, amongst, amidst, are not archaic.  They are still in use by a lot of people.

And in response to #18:-
It may be just me, but I consider "among" to be less specific than "amongst"
"I have several foreigners among my friends, amongst which are two chinese".
Is it just me? Or do others use both?


----------



## panjandrum

I happily use both.  I go for whichever sounds better in the sentence.


----------



## Pythagoras

danielfranco said:
			
		

> So, if I'm understanding it correctly, "amongst" might be an archaic spelling of "among"? Or maybe they are just alternate spellings of the same word.



According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Among is Old English while Amongst is Middle English.  Old English is prior to 1149 while Middle English is 1150 - 1349. So Among is at least one year senior to Amongst. Apparently there are other variants such as amang and emong!


----------



## KarenS

I agree with Panjandrum.  Neither among nor amongst would be correct in this sentence.  To use the word among (or amongst as I am in agreement that they are interchangeable and the only difference is in the tone you want to convey) you must be referring to three or more things.  Otherwise you use between.  Examples:

_I must choose *between* staying and leaving._

_I must choose a lab partner from *among* my classmates. _

In your sentence I would use:

_The golf courses are set *against* a spectacular landscape of palm trees, lakes and volcanic mountains ... _

Because, while you do have three things (Palm trees, lakes, and volcanic mountains), the actual direct object of the sentence is the singular word, "landscape."  

_ 
Hope this helps!!

_


----------



## abenr

KarenS said:
			
		

> I agree with Panjandrum. Neither among nor amongst would be correct in this sentence. To use the word among (or amongst as I am in agreement that they are interchangeable and the only difference is in the tone you want to convey) you must be referring to three or more things. Otherwise you use between. Examples:
> 
> _I must choose *between* staying and leaving._
> 
> _I must choose a lab partner from *among* my classmates. _
> 
> In your sentence I would use:
> 
> _The golf courses are set *against* a spectacular landscape of palm trees, lakes and volcanic mountains ... _
> 
> Because, while you do have three things (Palm trees, lakes, and volcanic mountains), the actual direct object of the sentence is the singular word, "landscape."
> 
> 
> _Hope this helps!!_


 
Direct object? I'm afraid not. "Against" is a preposition and does not take a direct object. When I studied English grammar in university, we learned that transitive verbs take direct objects. They may be teaching English differently today. It seems to me the 'landscape" is part of the object of the preposition. I'd be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. 

Cheers,
Abenr


----------



## Hullu

while: temporal (during, etc.)

whilst: temporal AND "whereas"

so there's a meaning difference with these two. but it seems AmE does not use 'whilst' much.


----------



## KarenS

You're right that it wasn't a direct object, sorry, misnomer on my part.  

But my point remains the same... I think "against" would be a better choice than "among" or "amongst."


----------



## abenr

KarenS said:
			
		

> You're right that it wasn't a direct object, sorry, misnomer on my part.
> 
> But my point remains the same... I think "against" would be a better choice than "among" or "amongst."


.

I'm with you when it comes to "against." It's a better choice than either "among" or "amongst."

Abenr


----------



## A90Six

KarenS said:
			
		

> You're right that it wasn't a direct object, sorry, misnomer on my part.
> 
> But my point remains the same... I think "against" would be a better choice than "among" or "amongst."


How about *within*!

Just a note:

*Amid* and *amidst* have shortened forms also used today, *mid* and *midst *and the two are not always interchangeable. *Amongst* can sometimes be seen poetically as *'mongst*, but for *among* there is no *'mong*! (Poor old *'mong*, an outcast amongst its peers.)


----------



## RuK

There's been discussion in the French-English forum that I hope you can shed light on, oh eminences: what is the distinction between among and amongst (also amid and amidst) - are they synonyms, or do rules exist to stipulate when to use which one? 
Thanks


----------



## clapec

I think they are synonyms, but let's wait for native speakers


----------



## EvilWillow

Hi,
according to Merriam Webster, the forms with -st are variants (and thus equal in meaning). You can use whichever you prefer.


----------



## Joelline

Hi,

I believe that among and amid are the AE preferences; while (BE whilst) amongst and amidst are the BE preferences.  Otherwise, they are synonymous.


----------



## mgarizona

One distinction for those who care to make them is between the stagnant and the mobile:

She was standing among the on-lookers.
She was moving amongst the on-lookers.

Another distinction is between identifying a single point and a variety of points:

They were standing among the on-lookers. (Implies they were standing together)
They were standing amongst the on-lookers. (Implies they were spread about.)


----------



## dwipper

Mgarizona, I've never heard those distinctions.  Are they the result of a textual source or personal experience?


----------



## mgarizona

Personal experience? Certainly. 

Textual source? Who can remember?

Something I learned, and believe serves me nicely.


----------



## panjandrum

New Fowler's Modern English Usage:





> There is no demonstrable difference of sense or function between the two, and the distribution is puzzling except that amongst seems to be somewhat less common in AmE than in BrE.


----------



## mgarizona

Obviously most people aren't overly careful about the words they use, so it wouldn't be difficult to 'demonstrate' that there is no difference in the general usage.

But, as I said earlier, "for those who care to make them," the OED glosses the differences, such as they are, thus:

For 'amidst':

There is a tendency to use _amidst_ more distributively than _amid_, e.g. of things scattered about, or a thing moving, in the midst of others.

For amongst:

Less usual in the primary local sense than _among_, and, when so used, generally implying dispersion, intermixture, or shifting position.


----------



## elroy

In American English, it's common to say "Talk amongst yourselves" (Google confirms that it's significantly more common than the version with "among").  This, however, may be a "fixed expression" of sorts; I cannot think of any other common American-English uses of "amongst."

"Whilst" and "amidst," however, are virtually never heard in American English, since they both sound archaic.  It always strikes me as odd when I hear a speaker of British English using "whilst" ever so casually in informal contexts.


----------



## panjandrum

NFMEU does not suggest that it is possible to demonstrate that there is no difference. 
He says it is impossible to demonstrate that there is a difference, no doubt having gone looking for such evidence. In general, where there is a detectable and reliable nuance of meaning, Fowler will report it.

I wouldn't want to take the OED's observation of a *tendency* or a *general implication* as suggesting anything more than the words convey. It gives no etymological basis for a difference between among and amongst.


----------



## mgarizona

Anyone who doesn't care to differentiate needn't, obviously. 

But in case anyone feels they might be served by the diffences those 'tendencies' suggest--- as I feel I have been served by them--- there they are.


----------



## RussUS

Alicia Translator said:


> please please native-speakers, write more about this! I'm totally interested!


 
As a crotchety old guy who believes in tradition and traditonal usage and grammar, I have noted with interest in the US in the past couple of years, many people are using amongst, rather than among.

These are of a type which I, maybe unfairly, characterize as the semi-educated trying to collect one of two usages which makes them appear more literate than they are. Other examples of that ilk: overuse of the words: particular; aspect; any way, shape or form; issue; making verbs out of nouns in unusal form: conversate--of course from conversation, but which should be converse.


----------



## ilikeenglish

I also feel "amongst" is old-fashioned.  A little old, though looks quite decent.


----------



## Super Wombat

Hi folks,
 
is it true that *amongst* is not used in AE??? Admittedly the example below is better with the word *amidst* (or at least I think so)... but at this point... perhaps is it the same thing with amid and amidst?
 
_And lastly *Asolo, *a town very dear to poets and artists, which is full of villas and palaces and beautiful churches amongst/amidst a beautiful natural landscape._


----------



## Dimcl

Hi JustMarried. Frankly, I can't say that I've heard or read "amongst" or "amidst" in the past 40 years (except in very archaic novels). Being Canadian, I am kind of bilingual (AE/BE) and would find it very strange to hear or read "amongst" (even stranger to hear "amidst").


----------



## Woofer

I wouldn't say that it is entirely not used, merely that it is very rare and has a definite old-fashioned formal feel to it which restricts its usage to certain contexts.  On the other hand, describing a town filled with artists, poets, villas and palaces is arguably exactly that type of context.

But you're right, "amidst" is a better choice.


----------



## The MightyQ

Agreed. I have been canadian for _many_ more years than I was british, and would never use either, unless I was trying to make it sound archaic.
But check the definition of each as well. Neither among nor amongst is correct here, and I have some doubt about amid/amidst.


----------



## C. E. Whitehead

Hmm . . . I would not use anything archaic in a title or anything, if I wrote about it in modern times, unless it was dialogue.  (You can of course incorporate a bit of dialogue into a title.)  If I write about something from whatever period in modern times, I sort of expect modern English.

But I gather amongst is not so archaic in B.E.



nmichelle said:


> essentially it has the same meaning and both words are interchangeable.
> as i said before, it's mainly used for stylistic purposes, as one of the above posters said, it's whatever 'fits' in the sentence.
> 
> *however* it's not used that much anymore (here in canada anyway). if you're describing say a historic time then whilst or amongst would probably fit right in your story.
> 
> though if you're writing about modern times, a story or describing something that happened in the present-day time, the +st (amonst/whilst) would look a bit out of place. it's not necessarily wrong to use it but it's just not used frequently in writing pieces.


----------



## clio44

Strange. I'm Canadian too, but wouldn't find it strange to hear "amongst"..... it does seem slightly more formal, but I came on this forum because I was curious to see if there was any nuance of difference between the two, as I'd just written a post using "amongst" twice...... so take that as you will


----------



## Voco pro Tatiano

danielfranco said:


> So, if I'm understanding it correctly, "amongst" might be an archaic spelling of "among"? Or maybe they are just alternate spellings of the same word.


Hi Friends,
This could be a total red herring, but I have latly been studying the Latin Gospels, and their English translations.

English (Douay)
And others there are 
who are sown   \  These two lines have been exchanged
*among *thorns: /   in the English to read better.
these are they 
that hear the word,

Now the highlighted word 'in', (Latin), in the abl(ative) case should normally be rendered as 'within', whereas in the acc(usative) case, it should be as 'into'. However, in both cases, the English seems to favour 'among'.
Now I am wondering if we have here a relic of an ancient differentiation in meaning. Could it be that originally, you "put the cat (in(to)) among the pigeons", but you found the cat ((with)in) amongst the pigeons.
Could it be that the st ending is a relic of the ablative useage, indicating where it is found (in), and the non st ending is a relic of the accusative, indicating where it was put (to)?

Best regards,
Dave.


----------



## Vinlander

News from the language battle front (undergraduate writing), North American theatre. _Among_ and _amongst_ mean the same thing in American/Canadian English (in all my half century of experience) but _amongst_'s use in undergraduate writing has exploded over the last couple of years. It is not that students sometimes use _among_ and sometimes use _amongst_, it is that they will use the latter exclusively in their writing. It is also not that _amongst_ has entered their spoken vocabulary, one only hears _among_ (though that could change) and you won't see _amongst_ on, for example, Facebook.

The logic of this for undergraduate students is, as far as I can ascertain, based on two of the fundamental truths of undergraduate writing:1) Words that seem more complicated and strange sounding are better than simple and familiar terms, hence _amongst_.

2) Words that are longer are better than words that are shorter, the better to pad that paper length, hence _amongst_.​From a teaching standpoint, this change is unfortunate because previously if you found _amongst_ in a paper you could be almost certain that the passage it came from (if not properly quoted and cited) was plagiarized (though you would still have to find source of the plagiarism to do anything about it). One can no longer go on that assumption (though it usually is pretty obvious).

So, if, in North America, you want to write like an undergraduate student trying to be pretentious, use _amongst_ and use it a lot.

Breaking news; the explosion of _amongstness_ may very well be tied to the growing use of electronic Thesauri. If, for example, you put _among_ in the Word Thesaurus you get, "*a·mong* or *a·mongst*: a preposition indicating that something or somebody is surrounded by people, things, ideas, or circumstances." If you put in _amid_ you do not see _amidst_, so my bet is we will not see a rise in _amidstness_.

Vinlander


----------



## Voco pro Tatiano

Voco pro Tatiano said:


> Hi Friends,
> This could be a total red herring, but I have lately been studying the Latin Gospels, and their English translations.
> 
> Latin (Clementine)
> English (Douay) modified to fit better, the Latin
> qui *in spinis* (abl)
> who *among thorns*
> seminantur
> are sown
> 
> Whereas:
> Latin (Clementine)
> English (Douay) modified to fit better, the Latin
> jaciat sementem
> should cast seed
> *in terram*, (acc)
> *into the earth*,
> 
> Now the highlighted word 'in', (Latin), with 'spinis' in the abl(ative) case, also highlighted, should normally be rendered as 'within', whereas in the acc(usative) case, it should be as 'into'. Here Douay also uses simply 'in', missing the accusative implication of movement towards.
> Now I am wondering if we have here a relic of an ancient differentiation in meaning. Could it be that originally, you "put the cat (in(to)) among the pigeons", but you found the cat ((with)in) amongst the pigeons.
> Could it be that the st ending is a relic of the ablative useage, indicating where it is found (in), and the non st ending is a relic of the accusative, indicating where it was put (to)?
> We, with our greatly simplified grammar, have for the most part ceased to differentiate between the various cases of indirect object.  Accusative is normally the direct object, but in Latin, can be one of three possible indirect object cases, each of which has a very different meaning.
> There still exists a set of declined adjectives in English, whicvh are obviously a relic of the ablative.  These all end in 'en' or 'ern'. a few here are:
> brazen, leathern, wooden, golden, leaden.
> Meaning, originally, made of:
> brass, leather, wood, gold, lead.
> 
> Now given the survival of these relics, can it not be that the preposition ending 'st' is a relic of the ablative case, implying location, whereas the lack of that ending implies movement towards that situation, a relic of the accusative case?
> 
> Best regards,
> Dave.


ps
I have trimmed down the Latin to its bare essentials, and explained the meaning as clearly as I can.
It is used to illustrate an original archaic useage, which may yet persist in some relic form in English, which is indeed a daughter language of Latin.


----------



## Elwintee

LV4-26 said:


> Same as with _amid/amidst_, I assume?
> 
> EDIT : _while/whilst_?



This English speaker is influenced by half-remembered quotations such as that from the Bible: "Ruth ... amidst the alien corn".  For me, these days, it is a style or personal preference thing.  The "st" ending can also come in handy for euphony (for instance, "he is one amongst many who ..." sounds better to me than "he is one among many who...").  Otherwise, I see no real difference between any of the twin alternatives.


----------



## ladyla

Interesting! I have a feeling that the usage has something to do with the purpose of the writing / speaking, and its intended audience. 

In a formal setting you might use amongst/amidst/whilst. You might use it in persuasive writing as it could be considered more eloquent and formal. In everyday speech, its probably used fairly randomly. One speaker might be comfortable always using amongst, another might rarely use it. Another factor is whether the next word begins with a vowel, as mentioned above. For example, I might say "Whilst I'm over here" rather than "While I'm over here" as it rolls of the tongue better. 


"But amidst the global outcry, a voice of reason must be heard."

Sorry, weird sentence, but it was all I could think of to demonstrate how you might use "amidst" instead of amid in a persuasive speech. Although I suppose amid would do aswell!


----------



## SleepingLeopard

nycphotography said:


> To my AE ear, I hear:
> 
> among = in the group of
> amongst = mixed up together with (ie _not_ orderly)
> 
> So "amongst other things" doesn't automatically register as foreign to me.


 
Hi everyone,

(Sorry to reopen such an old thread)

I have a question (from a native speaker) for Americans. While I agree that _whilst _is only said by Brits (I only say _while_), someone recently pointed out to me that I had said the word _amongst._ I had never consciously realized that I say it (when I write, I only write among), but I now realize that in speech I use both the words _among _and _amongst_, making the distinction that nycphotography made above.

This poster and I are both (I assume from his nickname) from New York. Is this something that only we New Yorkers say, and not other Americans? I now live in Florida, and my friends here all say that it sounds British when I say it. Do any other Americans from other states use the word _amongst_?


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

I am also a New Yorker, and while I would never say "whilst", I also occasionally say "amongst". Perhaps it was the childhood influence of learning the "Hail Mary" as including the line "... _Blessed art thou amongst women_."  The similarity to "amidst" (which I also say) is probably also an influence.


----------



## SleepingLeopard

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> Perhaps it was the childhood influence of learning the "Hail Mary" as including the line "... _Blessed art thou amongst women_."  The similarity to "amidst" (which I also say) is probably also an influence.


 
Aha! I never thought of that! I did grow up Catholic, and remember this Hail Mary line very well.

I also occasionally say "amidst", now that I think of it.
(I wonder why we draw the line at "whilst". I couldn't imagine ever saying it, any more than calling an elevator a "lift". )


----------



## panjandrum

I have moved Sleeping Leopard's and GWB's posts about among/amongst from the original thread to this long thread that is specifically about their topic of interest.
You'll let me know if this is a problem, I'm sure


----------



## Voxy

> (...) The release comes amidst news of (famous fruit company) plans for Mac OS X 10.6, which will focus on performance and quality. (...)



Hi folks,

sorry to revive this particular thread, which I avidly read through. Very 
interesting, very enlightening. Thanks to all of you. 

Actually I've found the quote above at an American website. The use of the 
term "amidst" puzzled me a lot and I believe that the only purpose (I can think of) 
to use this particular term is, that the writer eventually wants to appear smart 
and clever. Can this be the case? Just curious.

Thanks

Voxy


----------



## RussUS

Voxy said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> sorry to revive this particular thread, which I avidly read through. Very
> interesting, very enlightening. Thanks to all of you.
> 
> Actually I've found the quote above at an American website. The use of the
> term "amidst" puzzled me a lot and I believe that the only purpose (I can think of)
> to use this particular term is, that the writer eventually wants to appear smart
> and clever. Can this be the case? Just curious.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Voxy


Voxy,

Yes, I believe it to be the case.

You may have noted above that I contend the desire to appear smart and clever explains this usage and also holds true with amongst (in the US.) The difference with amongst is that it has taken over as the more common usage. 

I attribute this, to a large part, to our television and blog dominated world--one newscaster, analyst or commentator says something a bit different and literally within a day, others have picked it up until all of them, like little children at a picnic instructed to "take out their lunch pails," are demonstrating the same behavior.

Consider also, for example, "issues," which is virtually always used rather than "problems" or "difficulties." 

This happens as well with improper usages, the most egregious being the more and more frequently used, "between he and...," which I find offensive, but used almost exclusively by those wishing to "appear smart and clever," as you surmised.

Sadly, I predict, within a year, some English speaker, offering their assistance to one learning English will tell them "between he and.." is the correct usage. They will explain that they found it x trillion times when they Googled it, and quote knowledgeable users using it, then cite that ever offensive "It sounds better to me," quote which sometimes passes for grammatical advice in the forum.

Best,

Russ


----------



## Voxy

Well, Russ, I entirely understand you. Actually I also notice a very conspicuous
trend to use very simple English all over the world. Amongst other trends.
And this is the crux here, this is exactly the decisive point. Virtually all People 
from all over the world utilize English AS A SECOND LANGUAGE. This is 
not objectionable at all, but the price is simplification, I guess. 
However, I can assure you, the very same happens to e.g. German too.  

Until now I considered "between he and...," as *good* casual English, forgive me,
but what do I know? I have to admit that I'm pretty much Blog-talk infested.
I'm afraid so.

Did I mention Hollywood Filmcompanies? They all like to release Movies, 
which all make use of rather simple Dialoges (amongst other sort of simplification), 
in order to please a widespread international audience. Hence, in the end of the day
eventually a lot of new atrocious wordings have been seeded, and grow... 
Again, I'm afraid so.

Back to the topic: The usage of either words in question can't be
conclusively justified. Context matters a little bit, personal preferences
matter a little bit, regional commitments and not no mention anecdotical 
memories ("Hail mary...") That's what I learnt so far, among other things. 

Thanks for input on that particular subject. I appreciate it very much.

Voxy

Edit: I quickly reviewed my post and noticed that I occasionally used 
"among/amongst" like I'd usually utilize "beside". Are both terms interchangeable 
to some extent?
_That's what I learnt so far, among other things.
That's what I learnt so far, beside other things._


----------



## JulianStuart

One little piece of usage data : I have frequented a photography forum (similar to this one, and using the same forum software!) for the last 8 years and must have read thousands of threads.  I've probably seen the word "*whilst*" used several hundred times and * in every single case* it was by someone who identified themselves as *from the UK*  Sorry, but I have no data on among(st) or amid(st) !


----------



## coppergirl

"Amongst", "whilst" and "amidst" are all very common here in the UK, and are certainly on a par with "among", "while" and "amid".  In other words, they are used fairly interchangeably here.


----------



## Matching Mole

I don't have much use for either amid or amidst, and rarely if ever hear them said, so I can't judge, from my own experience, which version is "higher register", if that is what a desire "to appear smart and clever" implies.

_Amidst_ seems frequently to be used in headlines, e.g. "China Evacuation  Amidst Flood Fears", and this only sounds like "headline speak" to me, without any particular pretension. However, being British, I don't find "st" endings pretentious in any case, as they are quite naturally used in words like "whilst" and "amongst". I agree with Coppergirl's view that they are also used fairly interchangeably; that is certainly how I seem to use them. I don't know why I choose "whilst" instead of "while" in a particular sentence; it's not a conscious choice.


----------



## smeredith

Sorry if I'm repeating what other people have already said!

I would say that "amongst" and "whilst" are more used in old fashioned English and also in poetry aswell...but I do use it when I speak normally and people sometimes look at me a bit wierdly...if that helps at all

amongst implies that it's to do with a setting or a landscape... which would explain why your example:

The golf courses are set *amongst* a spectacular landscape of palm trees, lakes and volcanic mountains

has amongst and not among

whilst also implies you're doing something at the same time:

e.g. Whilst chopping the vegetables, Martin prepared the soup.
But in this example "while" could just as easily be used!

smeredith xxx


----------



## TurgidOne

Yes, Brits use much more than we. Dicitonary.com's page on "amidst" does not make much clearer.

I think it largely depends on the sound to one's ear: if the next word begins with a vowel, the form ending in "st" seems preferable. 

Similar, but not equal: "a" euphemism, but "an" honor.

And what to make of "toward" vs. "towards"?


----------



## panjandrum

Hello TurgidOne, and welcome to WordReference.

I closed this thread temporarily lest anyone be tempted to respond to your off-topic points 

You will find many threads that discuss the use of a/an.
You will also find many that discuss toward/towards.

The WordReference dictionary cleverly includes a list of all the threads that include the search terms in their title.

For example click on this link toward towards, or indeed on this one a or an.

All of the forum threads are linked to the dictionary in this way.  That is one of the reasons we require everyone to keep to the topic of the thread.

Further discussion on the specific topic of this thread is, of course, welcome - and the thread is open again.


----------



## TurgidOne

OK, but I wasn't that off-topic -- all "topics" as you must define them are tied together by the "usage as dictated by the sound to the ear" theme. Had I been more responsible, I guess, I would have linked the latter two to remarks to their respective threads?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## pacuare

From my experience the "st" endings would  only be used in AE when putting on an english accent whilst trying to sound distinguished or possibly archaic. In BE I think it's more of a modern convention to drop the "st", but the two forms are still regularly used both written and spoken. I think I use the "st" endings more often, but it's just a question of preference.


----------



## aloofsocialite

It's so weird that people think "amongst" sounds affected or like BE.  "Amongst" is part of my common vocabulary, as much if not more than "among", since to me "among" sounds weird in some phrases.  I would tend to say "Don't worry, you're amongst friends" rather than "among", though both are fine and perfectly common.  Same with amid and amidst, both are common enough here and neither sound strange or foreign to me, it just depends on the context; however, "whilst" I take as being chiefly British English or out of classical literature, though I'm sure there are plenty of Americans that use it.  I might use "whilst" in something like "Whilst I do find it funny, it was done in bad taste" to change the tone of what's being said, or to make it sound intentionally peculiar (since the term "bad taste" is also regarded as being from a somewhat refined phraseology in AE, they work together).  That's the beauty of language: we can use whatever words we want, common or otherwise, to make things more interesting, (if only for ourselves).


----------



## demon001

There is a post earlier that states that usage dictates using "amongst" when it precedes a word starting with a vowel and "among"  when it precedes  a word starting with a consonant. You'll find that although they may not know the rule it is almost universally applied by English speakers everywhere, AE and BE.


----------



## notofthisworld"t"

My daughter is writing a college book report and wrote, "among each chapter".  This did not sound right.  I excelled in college English, even being able to grammatically correct my teacher in a confusing sentence.  So, as I read each person's response here, [from 6+ years ago no less], I found what I'd hoped.  May I also ask/suggest this:            would not one always use "among" when speaking of plural nouns?  If one is speaking of a singular noun, as I indicated in what she wrote above, it seems more appropriate to say, "amidst each chapter".  So, could/would this be true for all of these words here? 

 "Amongst the population, there is very little care."

 "Among the people we meet personally, we see hope."

        or

"While you guys go to the store, Mom will bake the bread whilst I roast the turkey."

        and

"Amid all the chapters, I found one awaiting treasure."         "Amidst each chapter, though, I did find some helpful information."

But if we throw out amongst altogether, then I would definitely agree with using "amidst" for any singular noun while (whilst?) using "among" when followed by a plural noun.

<< Moderartor's note: Technical question will be answered by private message.   >>


----------

