This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I'd like to point out that -ly hasn't always been as strictly obligatory for the formation of adverbs as in the contemporary language; in older stages, specifically Middle English, it was still optional to some extent, compare the introduction of this paper for the known history of -ly. In Old English, there was an older suffix still used to form adverbs, namely -e. This became a mere schwa vowel -e in Middle English via regular phonetic evolution, and was eventually lost on the way to Modern English, which is why adjectives and adverbs derived from them in the old way indeed became homonymous. A similar syncretism happened in German, which has happily done without a separate, obligatory marker for adverbs for centuries now, although it can, if needed, use a phrase analogous to in a X way/manner, and thus, adverbs are not distinguished from adjectives in German. Middle English, however, as explained in the paper, inherited -lice from Old English, which was re-interpreted as a new, productive adverb marker and eventually became more or less obligatory. However, there are still those mostly colloquial cases as I want it bad, pretty good, awful high etc., or even phrases found in formal language such as funny enough, and in light of the history, they should not be seen as failure to apply correct grammar but simply archaisms: phrases in which the older, Old English, way of forming adverbs, which eventually became unrecognisable by virtue of mechanic phonetic evolution, happens to be preserved. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your learned comments but the article does not say that -ly is strictly obligatory for adverbs and it would not be correct to say so. For example, uphill may be used as an adverb. The ways in which adverbs may be formed in English is perhaps best covered at the article adverb. I shall take a look... Warden (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Note that I deliberaly wrote "strictly obligatory for the formation of adverbs" (out of adjectives; I should have added that for clarity as well as precision, I admit), not for adverbs (in general). :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I just noticed that my comment should have gone to the discussion page for the Wiktionary article, not here ... talk about not paying enough attention. :-/ --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
