More importantly

Question

That phrase while used by almost every talking head in the media bothers me. Why not most important, or more important?

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]That phrase while used by almost every talking head in the media bothers me. Why not most important, or more important?[/nq]
MWCD10:
Main Entry: im·por·tant·ly
Pronunciation: -lE
Function: adverb
Date: 1647

1 : in an important way
2 : it is important that
usage A number of commentators have objected to importantly as a sentence modifier (sense 2) and have recommended important instead. Actually both the adverb and the adjective are in reputable standard use in this function. Important is always used with more or most . Importantly is somewhat more flexible in not requiring more or most .
Draw your own conclusions.

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]That phrase while used by almost every talking head in the media bothers me. Why not most important, or more important?[/nq]
"More importantly" sounds more important.

Bob Lieblich
Try it

Usenet · Answer

on 04 Nov 2003:
[nq:2]That phrase while used by almost every talking head in the media bothers me. Why not most important, or more important?[/nq]
[nq:1]MWCD10: Main Entry: im·por·tant·ly Pronunciation: -lE Function: adverb Date: 1647 1 : in an important way . Draw your own conclusions.[/nq]
Exactly. And don't be afraid to make the wrong choice; yo'll be in good company whichever way you wander. I do not like the -ly school of writing and speaking: firstly, secondly, and last of ally; importantly. It seems so unecessarily to mely. Except in sentences like "He paused importantly before dropping the other shoe", where it addes a touch of ambiguity that resonates muffledly.

Give me F. Scott over all the others in that list. Even H. L. Mencken could have mischosen.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]That phrase while used by almost every talking head in the media bothers me. Why not most important, or more important?[/nq]
Because talking heads have a sense of self-importants, so they speak more importantly than others.

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Exactly. And don't be afraid to make the wrong choice; yo'll be in good company whichever way you wander. I do not like the -ly school of writing and speaking: firstly, secondly, and last of ally; importantly. It seems so unecessarily to mely.[/nq]
Wait, so would you say
Remarkable, even the clown was solemn.
Significant, the data from both sources support our hypothesis.

?
I wouldn't. It'd have to be "remarkably" and "significantly". People who use "firstly" and so on are observing that the great majority of sentence adverbs end in "-ly" and are (over)generalizing it to "firstly" and so on. And for some reason comparative adjectives can be used as sentence modifiers but positive adjectives can't; people who use only "more importantly" are (quite reasonably, if you aske me) generalizing the rule against positive adjectives to include all adjectives.

"More importantly" and "more important" both sound grammatical as sentence modifiers to me. "Firstly" doesn't, quite.

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Usenet · Answer

on 05 Nov 2003:
[nq:2]Exactly. And don't be afraid to make the wrong choice; ... last of ally; importantly. It seems so unecessarily to mely.[/nq]
[nq:1]Wait, so would you say Remarkable, even the clown was solemn. Significant, the data from both sources support our hypothesis.[/nq]
No, of course not. These are legitimate sentence-modifying adverbs. I was talking about "firstly, secondly, thirdly" and "Importantly" only. I would never use "Importantly" as a sentence modifying adverb. It would be not uncommon to see something like "Importantly, the winner walked up to the stage and stuffed the first prize money into the huge bra-pocket between her silcone implants" in hack writing, but I would never write such stuff. And before I accepted "Significantly, the data from both sources support our hypothesis", I'd try to rewrite it to fit the context.
[nq:1]I wouldn't.[/nq]
Me too neither.
[nq:1]It'd have to be "remarkably" and "significantly".[/nq]
Absolutamente.
[nq:1]People who use "firstly" and so on are observing that the great majority of sentence adverbs end in "-ly" and ... to include all adjectives. "More importantly" and "more important" both sound grammatical as sentence modifiers to me. "Firstly" doesn't, quite.[/nq]
I won't quarrel about the grammaticality of 'More importantly" or even "Firstly". They are both accepted by enough authorities. I think it's a question of good versus unthinking style, not grammar.

Usenet · Answer

} I wouldn't. It'd have to be "remarkably" and "significantly". People who } use "firstly" and so on are observing that the great majority of sentence } adverbs end in "-ly" and are (over)generalizing it to "firstly" and so } on. And for some reason comparative adjectives can be used as sentence } modifiers
How do you know that they're not comparative adverbs, which tend to take the same form as the comparative adjective (cf. "worse" as the comparative of the adverb "ill" and "better" as the comparative for the adverb "well" (most of them of course are regular, so you won't find them in your dictionary, as you will the comparatives of the adverbs "well" and "ill"))?
} but positive adjectives can't; people who use only "more } importantly" are (quite reasonably, if you aske me) generalizing the rule } against positive adjectives to include all adjectives.

Or using the wimp (=RAE "whimp"?) form for comparative adverbs.

} "More importantly" and "more important" both sound grammatical as } sentence modifiers to me. "Firstly" doesn't, quite.

That's because the adverb is "First". This stuff is all in the dictionary.

R. J. Valentine

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]} I wouldn't. It'd have to be "remarkably" and "significantly". People who } use "firstly" and so on are observing ... comparative adjective (cf. "worse" as the comparative of the adverb "ill" and "better" as the comparative for the adverb "well"[/nq]
I don't think they do tend to do that, do they? "Better" and "worse" are the only examples I can think of where the adjective and adverb don't have the same form. (The adverb "slower", for instance, is the comparative of the adverb "slow", not "slowly".) I don't think I can say "kinder" to mean "more kindly" or "more enthusiastic" to mean "more enthusiastically".
[nq:1]} "More importantly" and "more important" both sound grammatical as } sentence modifiers to me. "Firstly" doesn't, quite. That's because the adverb is "First".[/nq]
Well, yes. Or at least because "first" is an adverb.
[nq:1]This stuff is all in the dictionary.[/nq]
But as you and others have demonstrated in the "adjective" thread, a dictionary can't be counted on to give an accurate description in grammatical terms of what part of speech a word is..

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Usenet · Answer

}
}>
}> } I wouldn't. It'd have to be "remarkably" and "significantly". People who }> } use "firstly" and so on are observing that the great majority of }> } sentence adverbs end in "-ly" and are (over)generalizing it to }> } "firstly" and so on. And for some reason comparative adjectives can }> } be used as sentence modifiers
}>
}> How do you know that they're not comparative adverbs, which tend to take }> the same form as the comparative adjective (cf. "worse" as the comparative }> of the adverb "ill" and "better" as the comparative for the adverb "well" }
} I don't think they do tend to do that, do they? "Better" and "worse" are } the only examples I can think of where the adjective and adverb don't have } the same form.
Did you really mean "don't" in that last sentence? (For that matter, did you really mean "only"?) But the single-word comparative form of all adverbs is the same as the single-word comparative form of the corresponding adjective. You haven't noticed? You think all those people doing so just don't know that the word they use as an adverb is "really" an adjective?
} (The adverb "slower", for instance, is the comparative of the } adverb "slow", not "slowly".)
Would it confuse you to know that it's also the comparative of the adverb "slowly". You wouldn't calm someone down and say "Talk slowly"? You wouldn't take the next step and say "Talk slower"? If you did, would you go back and say, wait a minute, I should have said "Talk slow" the first time. You can look up the irregular forms "better" and "worse" to confirm that they are the same for both adjective and adverb. You can observe that people use the comparative adverbs. So you really have to posit thousands of ly-less adverbs to get to a usable rule?

} I don't think I can say "kinder" to mean } "more kindly" or "more enthusiastic" to mean "more enthusiastically".

I'll bet with a little effore you can say "kinder" to mean "more kindly", because it does. If you wimp out to the "more" form for comparatives, you just stick it on the base form; you don't strip the "ly". You knew that.

If you're man enough to use "enthusiasticker" as a comparative adjective, what's to stop you from using it as a comparative adverb? It's maybe a quarter of an inch extra stretch.
}> } "More importantly" and "more important" both sound grammatical as }> } sentence modifiers to me. "Firstly" doesn't, quite. }>
}> That's because the adverb is "First".
}
} Well, yes. Or at least because "first" is an adverb. }
}> This stuff is all in the dictionary.
}
} But as you and others have demonstrated in the "adjective" thread, a } dictionary can't be counted on to give an accurate description in } grammatical terms of what part of speech a word is..
No, what I have demonstrated is that trips off into academia should start from an accepted base. Define all the differences and tests you want, but you don't have the stature to start out by contradicting my trusty old American Heritage Dictionary (I) (and neither does John Lawler, if it makes you feel less picked on). Let me jerk it around a little, so it shouldn't sound personal (if it does): if you want to deny that English has a future tense, go ahead and use the extra words like "specially inflected single-word" or something.

The keystrokes won't kill you, and you may be able to program a function key to make it easier. Things like "adjective" and "future tense" were there before you and Prof. Lawler were born, and they'll be there after you die. Your contribution potential is in showing how some kinds of thing are different, not in claiming that people are wrong about half of them.
But here we have some easy rules:
The single-word comparative forms of adverbs are the same as the single-word comparative forms of the corresponding adjectives.

The single-word superlative forms of adverbs are the same as the single-word superlative forms of the corresponding adjectives.

good, better, best
well, better, best
bad, worse, worst
ill, worse, worst
Those are in the dictionary. The rules stand. Here's the wimp exception: You can often stick a "more" in front of an adjective or an adverb to get the two-word alternative comparative. You can often stick a "most" in front of an adjective or adverb to get the two-word alternative superlative.
Extra for experts:
Do all adjectives have comparative and superlative forms? Do all adverbs have comparative and superlative forms? Do all adverbs have corresponding adjectives?
Do all adjectives have corresponding adverbs?
Which ly-less "adverbs" are just excuses for not recognizing the compatative of the "ly" form?

R. J. Valentine
ObFree: "often", "soften", and "listen" have silent t's.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]}> }> } I wouldn't. It'd have to be "remarkably" and "significantly". }> } People who use "firstly" and so ... the same form. Did you really mean "don't" in that last sentence? (For that matter, did you really mean "only"?)[/nq]
To elaborate: "Better" and "worse" are the only examples I can think of where the comparative adjective and adverb have the same form, but the positive adjective and adverb don't have the same form.
[nq:1]But the single-word comparative form of all adverbs is the same as the single-word comparative form of the corresponding adjective. ... } adverb "slow", not "slowly".) Would it confuse you to know that it's also the comparative of the adverb "slowly".[/nq]
I just don't think it is. It would be too much of a coincidence for this to happen only with adjectives that also have corresponding identical adverbs, and I don't think it happens with those that don't.
[nq:1]You wouldn't calm someone down and say "Talk slowly"? You wouldn't take the next step and say "Talk slower"? If you did, would you go back and say, wait a minute, I should have said "Talk slow" the first time.[/nq]
No, but if the first time I said "Talk quickly" and the second time I said "Talk faster," I wouldn't go back and say, wait a minute, I should have said "Talk fast" the first time, but that doesn't prove that "faster" is the comparative of "quick". I don't think "Talk quicker" is grammatical - or at least, it's no more grammatical than "Talk quick" is.
[nq:1]So you really have to posit thousands of ly-less adverbs to get to a usable rule?[/nq]
I'm not convince that there are that many. Maybe this is just a case of person-to-person grammaticality variation.
[nq:1]} I don't think I can say "kinder" to mean "more kindly" or "more } enthusiastic" to mean "more enthusiastically". I'll bet with a little effore you can say "kinder" to mean "more kindly", because it does.[/nq]
Sorry, it just doesn't sound grammatical to me.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

More importantly

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions