Ode to the Adverb

When it comes to grammar, the one thing that really aggravates me is the self-appointed grammarian, the person without a teaching certificate or appropriate PhD who can’t resist correcting other people’s use of words. Language is fluid. It lives and breathes. It changes and evolves. Anyone going through life with a rule-book in their pocket is someone with whom I have little in common.

Second to that, is the adverb. I just don’t get them. I don’t understand their appeal. I don’t understand their purpose, except as a way to weed out weak-minded authors from publishers’ slush piles. When I was naive and inexperienced and found myself using them in my prose, you could be guaranteed that I was just searching for words. Typing out an adverb was a way of  buying time until my next thought could come along.

Basically, in my opinion, any book with more than one adverb per page should have every adverb cut out, and then stapled to the author’s fingers.

Little good can come from the use of adverbs. They are roadblocks to understanding. They are literary potholes, jarring the reader’s concentration. They are empty spaces where substance and meaning could otherwise be.

Except, of course, in advertising slogans.

A well placed adverb in an advertising can work wonders on the most experienced reader’s eyes, and befuddle the most tired of ears. Perhaps this is because advertising is not supposed to impart information. Slogans are designed only to be remembered – like the exaggerated laugh in the middle of a tired crowd.

Now the biggest peeve among self-appointed grammarians seems to be the continuing trend away from -ly adverbs. In normal conversation, in films, blogs, and in the dialogue of novels, the -ly is fast vanishing.

I have to admit that it’s irked me at times too. They look odd, and that seems to be the reason why they are used. For anyone with a love for language, they don’t just beg for attention – they stomp their feet, demanding it. This weekend, when I noticed National Geographic has dropped the -ly from their newest slogan, I have to wonder how much longer the -ly is going to survive.

Live curious, while certainly catchy, would seem to be missing two important letters at the end.

Of course Subway has also been doing it for years:

And Apple’s slogan, as seen here, and used extensively between 1997 and 2002, seems to be missing the same two important letters.

There are plenty of other examples. To see them, all you have to do is turn towards the nearest television.

I’ve asked several people what they think of this. Most people shrug. A few, however, roll their eyes or shake their heads, lamenting what they perceive as the end of civilization. However…

Attn: Amateur Grammarians

I hate to break this to you, but grammarians-in-the-know are quick to point out that an adverb does not necessarily need the -ly to be grammatically correct.

In fact, an adverb is actually defined as any word that modifies a verb, regardless of its dressing. Words like curious, fresh and different do not necessarily need to be wearing the hose and garters of the -ly to be adverbs. They simply need to describe a verb. An adjective used as an adverb is grammatically correct.

Ha.

The English language is supposed to evolve. New words are created, and old words are put away. They are changed and modified by either genius (Shakespeare) or repeated use by the masses.

Those who believe we should be wepyng and waylyng for the losian, laene adverb*, should revisit Chaucer… reminisce… and get on with their lives.

*Old English for weeping, wailing, poor, lost.

No related posts.

Tagged as: adverbs