More Important/More Importantly
Fragments of Angry Candy, I hope you post an opinion about this.
Some grammarians hate the use of "more importantly":
"More important" and "more importantly" are used as full-sentence modifiers, often in the initial position and treated parenthetically (set off with a comma). Either phrase can usually be translated as "what is more important."
More important, the armies in the east had used up all their supplies.
Many writers will use the adverb form, "importantly," thinking that the phrase modifies a verb in the main clause; usually, however, that is not the case. The phrase will almost invariably modify, adjectivally, the entire clause, and the adjective form, "important," will suffice. Burchfield says that "more importantly" was a despised construction during the 1970s and 80s, but that nowadays both phrases seem be used about equally and with equal acceptability.
Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996.
But then:
"More importantly, what will be written in God's book of remembrance?" There is no grammatical reason to avoid using "importantly" in this structure. Since the function of the phrase is adverbial (it modifies the proposition of the entire sentence, rather than modifying a noun), the form ending in -ly is the better choice. If anything, "more important" is the non-standard, informal choice. The only way it can be considered acceptable is if it is interpreted as a reduction of "what is more important...." This phrase is decidedly conversational, rather than formal and the reduction only increases the informality.
Authority: Ken Hyde, University of Delaware English Language Institute.
"More important" sounds so affected to me, but I'm not sure Mr. Hyde has me convinced either. But all in all, though many things may bother me, the casual use of adverbs doesn't--the most notable example being the use of "hopefully."
posted by Benni @ 1:26 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Hi Benni!
"More importantly" has never struck me as a phrase used in error. It's inelegant but idiomatic; I guess I agree with the second grammarian that "more important" feels like an informal contraction of "It is more important that..." rather than an affectation. Hm, let's try it...
"More important, the king lost his shoes."
"More importantly, the king lost his shoes."
"It gets worse. His Royal Reeboks
went AWOL."
"The disappearance of the king's shoes concerned the court the most."
Maybe the whole phrase "more important" is informal at the outset. Or at least, ambiguous. Important to whom? I guess the closest I'd have to a general rule is: if you really want to be formal, you probably mean to say: "It is more important that..." Otherwise you are informal so you should aim to sound natural and unaffected.
Ah, long long opinion. Sorry for lack of brevity! And brevity is the only writer's rule of thumb I cling to. [Aptly now I can mention Churchill's saying about pickiness over sentences ending with prepositions: "that is the sort of thing up with which I shall not put!" Hurray for the colloquial.]
Non-grammar notes:
Benni, can I be listed under "blogs of friends" please? www.thatgreenyflower.blogspot.com I think.
I wore my Benni-in-bear-hat shirt to karaoke on stage and rocked out to "Living La Vida Loca" (Jose singing, I've got video snippets of it, I'll put them up when I can). This guy there was enthused about the t-shirt; I was enthused to tell him it features my friend. Actually he's into threadless, and thought I was one of those whose pictures are up on the site. Hopeful-LY one of the karaoke pictures shows the shirt, and I can submit that...
"After the hunt, the king's legs were covered with bruises from thickets of thorns. But more importantly, the king had lost his shoes. Bruises heal, but without his gift from Hermes, he could never win another race against his speedy eunuchs."
But I guess with such a construction, I might as well use a more interesting adverb.
Anyhow, Mike (from work) thinks that both "more important" and "more importantly" are examples of really bad English. He doesn't believe it has a meaning or a purpose. I agree that if something doesn't have a meaning or a purpose in your statement, get rid of it. But I do believe that "more importantly" can serve a purpose.
When people think they're "better" grammarians and/or overcorrect, the things they say sound affected to me.
One older woman told me it was incorrect to say "I feel good"--that "I feel well" was correct. She had even "corrected" many people before. I told her that both were correct but meant different things.
Though it's merely an overcorrection, people who say, "This bag belongs to Bonnie and I," also sound affected to me. Whereas people who refer to themselves in the third person may be self-centered and silly, people who need to refer to the capitalized version of the self, regardless of context, strike me as affected.
But I'm sure I can drive other people mad as well. My use of quotations over "corrected" just reminded me of a blogger who hates that particular use...Not to mention that blogging can be seen as self-centered, if not affected.
Post a Comment
<< Home