# oftener / more often



## carmen1987

Hi there!
I usually use "more often" (for example: We should meet up more often) but, is it alright? is it "oftener"? I googueled both of them and it seems like if both were alright... which is weird...

Thanks

Carmen


----------



## Dlyons

They are both fine - completely interchangable.


----------



## carmen1987

Thank you so much!


----------



## krumlov

So weird, I have never heard the phrase "oftener" used. It could just be me or where I live in the U.S.


----------



## chamyto

uhmm,
I would prefer to use "more often" rather than  "oftener";
it sounds very strange to me


----------



## Txiri

"Oftener" sounds weird to me as well.


----------



## Dlyons

Dlyons said:


> They are both fine - completely interchangable.



To be more precise that's true in U.K. English, but not apparently in US English.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...=oftener+or+more+often&aq=0&oq=oftener&aqi=g3


----------



## Newbie-or-Tyro

oftener is a completely correct usage of the word in many cases but as Dlyons says ,it is about utilizations and countries. you know how it is folks, people change languages as time goes by and get into the habits of using sometimes the most comfortable ways of expressions. The funny part is that even if the expression isn't totally correct ,it ends up most of the times catching on or sticking with people, there it's when scholars and experts have to change, modify and add new forms of expressions in books,dictionaries and so forth .
the bottomline now is that: more often has catched on even if it isn't gramatically correct,it should be oftener, but that's the way it is folks.
PD: The fact that some expressions and words may sound weird ,it doesn't necessarily mean they are incorrect ,again it's all about usages,regions,countries and the force of time pressing on them


----------



## paul355915

"Oftener" sounds weird to me as well.


----------



## leoxyz

Oftener is not correct.  The correct term would be _*more often.  *_At least in the US.


----------



## cubaMania

"More often" is definitely correct.
In my part of the world we don't generally say "oftener" but it appears from previous posts here that "oftener" is used in British English.
Don't forget the idiom "more often than not" as an example.

Some adjectives and adverbs allow only one or the other form and some allow both an "-er, -est" form and a "more, most" form.

I'm afraid that there is no real rule as to how to form the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs.  Generally, the best way to find out the correct form is to ask a literate native speaker.  If a literate native speaker is not readily available, resort to the use of a good dictionary.  Some good dictionaries will list the comparative and superlative forms IF THEY ARE OTHER THAN the forms using "more" and "most".  For instance, if you look up "fast" at dictionary. com you will see "faster, fastest".


> FAST
> adverb, faster, fastest.


If you look up "well" at dictionary.com you will see "better, best".


> WELL /wɛl/
> adverb better, best


However, if you look up "often" at dictionary.com you will not see "oftener, oftenest".


> OFTEN
> adverb
> 1.
> many times; frequently:
> He visits his parents as often as he can.
> 2.
> in many cases.


When using a dictionary that does this for you, if you don't see an -er -est form or an irregular form listed, then your best bet is to stick with "more" and "most".

(I think there are also lists to be found online of comparative and superlative forms.)


----------



## Agró

*often */'ɒf(ə)n, 'ɒft(ə)n/ adverb (*oftener, oftenest*) frequently; many times...
_(The New Oxford Dictionary of English_, OUP, 1998.)

*comparative and superlative adverbs (148)*

Normally comparative and superlative adverbs are made with _more _and _most_.
_Could you talk a bit *more quietly*? _(Not: *..._quietlier_)

But a few adverbs have comparative and superlative forms with -_er, -est_. The most important ones are: _fast, soon, early, late, hard, long, well, far, near, *often*_ (but _more often_ and _most often_ are more common) ...

(M Swan, _Practical English Usage_, Oxford, OUP, 1980.)


----------



## anita mazzon

Oftener fell into popular disuse around the mid-late 1900s.



Agró said:


> _Could you talk a bit *more quietly*? _(Not: *..._quietlier_)


Lo correcto es "quieter". You forgot that you're modifying "quiet", not "quietly". However, quietlier is not an error.

Incidentally, I would feel more comfortable hearing "oftener than not" than "oftener".


----------



## Agró

anita mazzon said:


> Lo correcto es "quieter". You forgot that you're modifying "quiet", not "quietly". However, quietlier is not an error.



I forgot nothing. It's M. Swan's example, not mine.


----------



## anita mazzon

Agró said:


> I forgot nothing. It's M. Swan's example, not mine.


Ah, I see. In English we usually place quotation marks around all quotes, or some other marking, to remove any ambiguity. In any case, this source is a little dated, being from 1980.

Another thing, using "nothing" in this way is strong / impolite usage in English. Softer is: I didn't forget anything. Or even more, just a simple negation: No, it's ...

Un saludo


----------



## Agró

anita mazzon said:


> Ah, I see. In English we usually place quotation marks around all quotes, or some other marking, to remove any ambiguity. In any case, this source is a little dated, being from 1980.
> 
> Another thing, using "nothing" in this way is strong / impolite usage in English. Softer is: I didn't forget anything. Or even more, just a simple negation: No, it's ...
> 
> Un saludo


Mis disculpas, entonces, en ambos casos.
G'Day!


----------



## Newbie-or-Tyro

I totally agree with Agró on the explanation about oftener.
PD: my motto is: I'm not here to criticize anybody, i'm just here to pitch in.
And I obviously need correction at times, i'm not perfect.
 And if any that'll be more than welcome


----------



## Forero

It would help to have some context, but "more often" is more common. Still, "oftener" does not sound weird like, for example, "beautifuler", or childish like "awfuler".

"More often than not" is a special case, but in some environments no _-er_ form is appropriate: "I see more good than bad [not "better than bad"] here", "He is more well than ill [not "better than ill"] today".


----------



## anita mazzon

Forero said:


> "More often than not" is a special case


Could you elaborate on this? Am unsure of your reference/meaning!


----------



## Forero

cubaMania said:


> Don't forget the idiom "more often than not" as an example.





anita mazzon said:


> Forero said:
> 
> 
> 
> "More often than not" is a special case, ...
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate on this? Am unsure of your reference/meaning!
Click to expand...

For example:

_In the eye of a hurricane, the sky is, more often than not, a cloudless blue._

The meaning here is that the sky there is more likely to be a cloudless blue than otherwise. I suppose the fact that "more often than not" refers to likelihood rather than actual frequency makes it "special", in addition to the frequency of its use as a pat phrase.

But, come to think of it, "oftener than not" does not sound strange to me, so maybe CubaMania was suggesting he might be uncomfortable with altering an "idiom" (pat phrase).


----------



## Aloyalfriend

Hi
What is the conclusion  of this issue now?
Which one is grammatically correct, oftener or more often?


----------



## Forero

Aloyalfriend said:


> Hi
> What is the conclusion  of this issue now?
> Which one is grammatically correct, oftener or more often?


Both, really. But some native speakers of English have apparently never even heard _oftener_.


----------



## Aloyalfriend

Do you ever hear *oftener* in news, magazines, movies etc.?
Is *oftener* an old-fashioned word?
How would it be possible an adverb can have two different forms of superlative?


----------



## anita mazzon

Aloyalfriend said:


> Do you ever hear *oftener* in news, magazines, movies etc.?
> Is *oftener* an old-fashioned word?
> How would it be possible an adverb can have two different forms of superlative?


Yes. Oftener fell into popular disuse around the mid-late 1900s, but there usually no such thing as saying that a word itself is old-fashioned. What makes it old-fashioned or not is the context of its usage. For one speaker it may be the norm, while for another it may be considered old-fashioned. One speaker may frequently use "oftener than not" but never "oftener", another speaker may frequently use "more often than not" as well as "oftener". Human creativity.


----------



## Aloyalfriend

Alright.
So, I think *often* is the only adverb which has two comparative forms, _oftener and more often._
According to English grammar, to form the comparative of a one syllable word, we should add _er . _Apparently, as far as I know, the only adverb this rule does not hold for, is often. Some native speakers say *I've never heard it or even seen it*, some say * it sounds weird to them to use *oftener* instead of more often*, lastly, I suppose I will  follow those who replied * oftener sounds strange to me*, for they are more than other groups!
Perhaps * more often* is not correct, yet  is a common mistake that is widely used and everyone thinks it is correct.


----------



## anita mazzon

Aloyalfriend said:


> Alright.
> So, I think "often" is the only adverb which has two comparative forms, _oftener and more often._
> According to English grammar, to form the comparative of a one-syllable word, we should add "-_er_"_. _Apparently, as far as I know, the only adverb this rule does not hold for is "often". Some native speakers say, "I've never heard it or even seen it", some say that it sounds weird to them to use "oftener" instead of more often. Lastly, I suppose I will follow those who replied "oftener sounds strange to me", for there are more of them than others!
> Perhaps "more often" is not correct, yet is a common mistake that is widely used and that everyone thinks is correct.


Hello Aloyafriend,

You're mistaken in your restriction of adverbial comparatives, in your understanding of English grammar as you have mentioned above, and in your understanding of the way languages function in general. I might respectfully suggest that, for your own benefit, you consider taking it as a matter of presumption that when a native speaker of a language tells you about some aspect of their native language, they are correct.

Kind regards.


----------



## Aloyalfriend

Thanks for proofreading
I did not say ' native speakers are incorrect', I said ' There is no general rule or answer', if you had spent your time understanding what I meant ' (It is true I had some mistakes, but not that much that you can't understand what I meant), you would not have said I meant you native speakers are incorrect


----------



## anita mazzon

No problem. I was referring to your comment about it being possible that "more often" is incorrect.


----------



## anita mazzon

Oh duh, haha silly me.


----------



## Ivan_I

Is this OK?

Do you oftener lose or win?


----------



## Forero

Ivan_I said:


> Is this OK?
> 
> Do you oftener lose or win?


It sounds odd to me. This is about what happens more commonly, not about the (average) time between events.


----------



## Ivan_I

Don't see why it can't be the (average) time between events.


----------



## Isabel Sewell

There are many other synonyms in use today. Oftener seems to be archaic. 

of·ten
/ˈôf(t)ən,ˈäf(t)ən/
_adverb_
comparative adverb: *oftener*

frequently; many times.
"he often goes for long walks by himself"
synonyms: frequently, many times, many a time, on many/numerous occasions, a lot, in many cases/instances, repeatedly, again and again, time and again, time and time again, time after time, over and over, over and over again, day in, day out, week in, week out, all the time, regularly, recurrently, continually, usually, habitually, commonly, generally, ordinarily, as often as not; More

in many instances.
"vocabulary often reflects social standing"


----------



## Ivan_I

How would you rephrase this one?
Do you oftener lose or win?


----------



## Isabel Sewell

Ivan_I said:


> How would you rephrase this one?
> Do you oftener lose or win?



My suggestion is
Do you win more often or do you lose more often?

It seems that the confusion might be about using the archaic word "oftener" in a phrase that does not compare one noun to another noun.

And I can see how you may be attempting to say "Do you win oftener than lose?"; but that would not be an accurate question.


----------



## Wandering JJ

Isabel Sewell said:


> My suggestion is
> Do you win more often or do you lose more often?
> 
> It seems that the confusion might be about using the archaic word "oftener" in a phrase that does not compare one noun to another noun.


You may be confusing the issue by talking of nouns: "often" is an adverb and therefore modifies verbs and may compare one verb with another, as in "win" and "lose", but not nouns.


----------



## Isabel Sewell

Wandering JJ said:


> You may be confusing the issue by talking of nouns: "often" is an adverb and therefore modifies verbs and may compare one verb with another, as in "win" and "lose", but not nouns.




Exactly, to win and to lose are verbs, and still the question would not work with oftener.

Comparative adjetives (angrier, freer, etc...) are used to compare one noun to another. This is an elementary school level link
Examples of Comparative and Superlative Adjectives for Kids


----------



## Jaykay1053

I say and teach, “more often”, and “more often than not” and would ask, “Do you win more often than you lose?”.

Although, from Canada, I have always tended toward British pronounciation (pronounced ‘pronunciation’, for example) and OED spelling, I would have marked “oftener” as incorrect until I saw the British quotes above! We don’t say oftener in Canada.


----------



## Forero

I would accept _oftener_ in a sentence like this:

_Yes, he plays ping pong, and especially badminton, fairly often, but he play tennis oftener than ping pong, and he seldom plays croquet.
_


----------



## merquiades

I don't doubt that "oftener" is correct.  I'll make that clear.  However, I must say I have never heard it in my life until now, and wouldn't consider using it.  It sounds as weird to me as _horribler, terribler, gracefuller_.  But it's not the first time I've heard an irregular comparative that has struck me as weird.


----------



## Jaykay1053

1. I write with pen more often than (with) pencil.

I have never heard oftener or read it in any magazines, newspapers or books, including books by British, American and Canadian authors.

2. More often than not, I eat eggs for breakfast.

More often will always be considered correct, so I recommend its use over that of oftener. When in doubt, use more xxx rather than tacking er onto a word you’re not sure of.

Exception: more fast
faster
quicker
more quickly
quicklier 

Do you win more often than you lose?

I win more often than I lose.

I hope this clears things up!


----------



## Chasint

Just adding another voice against 'oftener'. I have never said it, never heard anyone say it, and never read it anywhere except in this thread.


----------



## Wandering JJ

Chasint said:


> Just adding another voice against 'oftener'. I have never said it, never heard anyone say it, and never read it anywhere except in this thread.


 An excellent summary!


----------



## pops91710

Chasint said:


> Just adding another voice against 'oftener'. I have never said it, never heard anyone say it, and never read it anywhere except in this thread.



Same here. Back in primary school  we would have our hands whacked for using such grammar. Apparently there are some holdouts still using it, but not in metro areas. It sounds "backwoods" to me.


----------



## Brumon

I think we can here draw a conclusion with a glotto-historically meaningful remark:  use of "more often" is an additional step in the on-going "de-Germanization" of English as the final, winning worldwide communication tool (a requiem for esperanto, French, etc.!). The trend is from synthetical forms to analitical ones, statistically a winning process in today's planet-wide language scene.

... oops, "analytical ones" of course (perhaps a subconscious nod on the path of the "normalization" of English?!).


----------

