The adverb "scholarly"

Question

A poster whose name doesn't matter has questioned my statement that "scholarly" is an adverb, and my advice "see any good dictionary". That poster has also seemed to imply that the adverb "scholarly" is not to be found in most dictionaries.
I find the adverb "scholarly" in
The American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Edition
Webster's Third New International Dictionary
The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
The Cambridge Dictionary 1993 edition
Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary
Random House Webster's College Dictionary
2nd edition
The Thorndike-Barnhart Dictionary (World Book
edition 1963)
Webster's New International Dictionary Second
Edition
The Oxford English Dictionary
Webster's New International Dictionary

1913 edition

Two of the British dictionaries tag the adverb "scholarly" "rare", but I never said it wasn't rare.
The same poster whose name doesn't matter has correctly deduced that my playful abbreviation "SAGD" stood for "see any good dictionary". Let me now define "good dictionary":

good dictionary - one that agrees with me
I have a small number of dictionaries that do not show "scholarly" as an adverb. They are by definition, at least for the purpose of this discussion, not good dictionaries.

Logic might dictate that from the adjective "scholarly" we form the adverb *"scholarlily". This is only one case in English where the "-lily" form has been eschewed in favor of simply making the adjective also an adverb.
I'm curious to know what single word equivalent of "in a scholarly manner" would be used by the lexicographers who have seen fit to exclude the adverb "scholarly" from their dictionaries.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

"Bob Cunningham" (Email Removed) schreef in bericht
[nq:1]A poster whose name doesn't matter has questioned my statement that "scholarly" is an adverb, and my advice "see any good dictionary". That poster has also seemed to imply that the adverb "scholarly" is not to be found in most dictionaries.[/nq]
On "scholarly" Google produces 2.600.000 hits and only 6 for 'scholarlily'

Cheers
Tedfriet EFL teacher (retired)

Usenet · Answer

~~snip~~
[nq:1]Logic might dictate that from the adjective "scholarly" we form the adverb *"scholarlily". This is only one case in English ... scholarly manner" would be used by the lexicographers who have seen fit to exclude the adverb "scholarly" from their dictionaries.[/nq]
Your question appears to me to be based on the false assumption that all adverbial descriptive phrases must have a single word equivalent.

I don't think there's any law of nature or language that demands that state of affairs.

Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]On 07 Sep 2004, Bob Cunningham wrote ~~snip~~[/nq]
[nq:2]Logic might dictate that from the adjective "scholarly" we form ... seen fit to exclude the adverb "scholarly" from their dictionaries.[/nq]
[nq:1]Your question appears to me to be based on the false assumption that all adverbial descriptive phrases must have a single word equivalent.[/nq]
There is insufficient basis for that inference in what I said. Minimizing word count is always a worthwhile aim, but nothing says you have to do it.
But if I wanted to promote the avoidance of a single-word expression, I wouldn't feel right about coming up with nothing better than a multiple-word substitute.
By the way, I'm okay with using "scholarly" as an adverb, but I don't feel the same about the adverb "friendly", even though dictionaries say it exists and means "in a friendly manner". Can anyone cite an example of its use in print in modern times?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]On "scholarly" Google produces 2.600.000 hits[/nq]
That's not useful data because there's no breakdown between use of "scholarly" as an adjective and as an adverb. It's conceivable that only five of the hits were adverbs.
[nq:1]and only 6 for 'scholarlily'[/nq]
There we need to know how many of the six had humorous intent. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that all of them did.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]By the way, I'm okay with using "scholarly" as an adverb,[/nq]
How, may I ask? Like this? "He wrote scholarly."
[nq:1]but I don't feel the same about the adverb "friendly", even though dictionaries say it exists and means "in a friendly manner". Can anyone cite an example of its use in print in modern times?[/nq]
Are road signs, "print"?
http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/~xon/baylor%202003/Part2/images/texas,%20drive% 20friendly jpg jpg.jpg
Safety poster:

Best Donna Richoux

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]By the way, I'm okay with using "scholarly" as an adverb,[/nq]
[nq:1]How, may I ask? Like this? "He wrote scholarly."[/nq]
I meant I'm not uncomfortable with others using it. I might not ever use it myself.
From the online Oxford English Dictionary :
scholarly, adv.
rare.
As befits a scholar.

1598 SHAKES. Merry W. I. iii. 2 What saies my BullyRooke? speake schollerly, and wisely.

1868 Contemp. Rev. IX. 287 The revision is carefullyand scholarly done.

1903 KIPLING Five Nations 50 We shall harness horses(Death's own pale horses) and scholarly plough the sands.
[nq:2]but I don't feel the same about the adverb "friendly", ... an example of its use in print in modern times?[/nq]
[nq:1]Are road signs, "print"? http://lumumba.luc.ac.be/~xon/baylor%202003/Part2/images/texas,%20drive% 20friendly jpg jpg.jpg[/nq]
( http://tinyurl.com/5lbs3 ).
Close enough, but that use of "friendly" is in my humble opinion an adjective rather than an adverb, with "drive" being effectively a copulative verb. The usage is akin to that of "close" as in "I won't be right at that park, but I'll be (or drive) close".
[nq:1]Safety poster: [/nq]
Same.
Interesting, though. Thanks.

Usenet · Answer

} A poster whose name doesn't matter
That'd be me. Let's stand up like a man, Elwood, and respond in the same thread where something is rightly suggested, instead of starting a whole new thread with your skewed version of things. I hate to shame you by correcting so many of the errors you made in this posting, but I'll try to give you credit where you deserve it.
} has questioned my } statement that "scholarly" is an adverb,
I didn't do that, as you well know and should admit publicly, right here in this thread. I said you were right about at least one dictionary mentioning "scholarly" as an adverb, and I named the dictionary (NSOED93), but I also pointed it out that it called it " rare " and that it dated it to the 16th century. I did suggest that you were stretching the word "is" to the breaking point to imply that any good dictionary had "scholarly" as an adverb.
} and my advice "see } any good dictionary".
As if to imply that any good dictionary supposted you. I named four dictionaries commonly cited in alt.usage.english that did not support you, which I declare is sufficient counterexample to your "see any good dictionary".
I do have to give you credit here for not tring to wriggle out of my expansion of your more than obvious "SAGD" (and presumably your "TMWFI", passed over here). That would have been a childish thing to do, but you didn't.
} That poster has also seemed to imply } that the adverb "scholarly" is not to be found in most } dictionaries.
Seemed to imply? You are dreaming, sir. I named four where it didn't appear and one where it only barely appeared. I said nothing about most dictionaries, but I can, if you want make a statement about most dictionaries in this room. In the other room I may have more dictionaries than you'd want to carry around, but I suspect that the results of looking in them wouldn't be startling. There was a time when it was so used. Dictionaries that keep track of such things may well have it.

} I find the adverb "scholarly" in
}
} The American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Edition

Really, Elwood? Really? I have my copy of that one right here, and it doesn't mention "adv" with respect to "scholarly". Not a hint of it. Was that a lie or just a mistake, or can someone else confirm that some printing of AHD3 has "scholarly" as an adverb? Elwood's credibility just took off out the window in my book. He's got 24 hours to claim the blurry-vision excuse.
} Webster's Third New International Dictionary

Could be. I won't bother to check just now.
} The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
Marked " rare " with a century when it was used. But I told you that.

} The Cambridge Dictionary 1993 edition
} Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary } Random House Webster's College Dictionary
} 2nd edition
} The Thorndike-Barnhart Dictionary (World Book } edition 1963)
} Webster's New International Dictionary Second } Edition
} The Oxford English Dictionary
I haven't checked those that I have, but I wouldn't expect more than one blatant error in a list that long, and it looks like I found it right off.

} Webster's New International Dictionary
} 1913 edition
Scraping the bottom with that last. I gave my copy away before I read your first posting in alt.usage.english. Websters Second would be the one that carries weight with me. If the rest make you happy, I don't mind.

} Two of the British dictionaries tag the adverb "scholarly" } "rare", but I never said it wasn't rare.
No, but *I* said that it was.
} The same poster whose name doesn't matter has correctly } deduced that my playful abbreviation "SAGD" stood for "see } any good dictionary". Let me now define "good dictionary": }
} good dictionary - one that agrees with me
Ah. Like AHD3? Does it really?
But humo(u)r is good. I've liked that in you for some ten years now of reading your postings. It's not the greatest form of argumentation, but it could be worse.
Better to admit when you are wrong. Worse to start a new thread and make it hard for people to back up a posting.
} I have a small number of dictionaries that do not show } "scholarly" as an adverb. They are by definition, at least } for the purpose of this discussion, not good dictionaries.

Squirm, squirm, sugar baby. Had you posted it in the same thread, I would have been more impressed. I get the impression that your idea of "argument" is mere contradicting, and that you feel you have gone the extra mile when you find in your bookpile a few citations that you can convince yourself that they agree with you.
} Logic might dictate that from the adjective "scholarly" we } form the adverb *"scholarlily". This is only one case in } English where the "-lily" form has been eschewed in favor of } simply making the adjective also an adverb.
Could be that the "-lily" form is more modern than the 16th-century usage your lexicographers found.
Let's give you credit here for making English-usage points.

} I'm curious to know what single word equivalent of "in a } scholarly manner" would be used by the lexicographers who } have seen fit to exclude the adverb "scholarly" from their } dictionaries.
Why limit them to a single word, when everyone is familiar with the form "more scholarly"? They'd use "more scholarly". Do you seriously doubt it?

R. J. Valentine

Usenet · Answer

(a lot of things that were not surprising, coming from him)

I won't bother to respond in detail to Valentine's tiresome abuse, but I will say that my copy of The American Heritage Dictionary Third Edition ( AHD3 ) does indeed show "scholarly" as an adverb.
It's well known that at least one publisher makes
modifications in successive printings of dictionaries without changing the title or the edition number. I know from experience that that's clearly true of Merriam-Webster; I have no reason to think it's not true of American Heritage. So I'm willing to grant that Valentine is probably not lying when he says "scholarly adv." is not in his printing of AHD3 .
I'm using a crippled system at present. Among other things, I can't scan pages and I can't upload anything to my Web site. I'm tentatively planning to buy a new computer and start afresh. If that happens, I'll scan the page in AHD3 where it says "scholarly adv." and post it at my Web site. This will be for anyone who wants to see for certain that Valentine is wrong when he says I'm mistaken about it. It won't be particularly for Valentine to look at: I don't care whether he sees it or not.
Beyond that despite Valentine's scurrilous remarks all I'll say is that I made no errors and no misrepresentations in the posting in this thread to which Valentine has responded.
Okay, I guess I could add that if I were much interested in Valentine's view of anything, I would probably be
disappointed in his failure to see the humor in my remarks about good dictionaries and what a good dictionary is. But I'm not much interested in Valentine's view of anything.

Usenet · Answer

}
} (a lot of things that were not surprising, coming from him)

Corrections of Mr. Cunningham's errors, I assume.
} I won't bother to respond in detail to Valentine's tiresome } abuse,
Mostly centering around a cowardly follow-up starting a new thread and suppressing the name of the person who called him on his errors. I note with approval that Mr. Cunningham has partially mended his ways with this follow-up. I'll restore him to his normal level of respect (for the moment), despite the contempt he continues to show me.

} but I will say that my copy of The American Heritage } Dictionary Third Edition ( AHD3 ) does indeed show } "scholarly" as an adverb.
That would be something to see, because not only does my copy not show that, but my copy of The American Heritage Dic-tion-ar-y of the English Language: fourth edition also does not show that.

} It's well known that at least one publisher makes } modifications in successive printings of dictionaries } without changing the title or the edition number. I know } from experience that that's clearly true of Merriam-Webster; } I have no reason to think it's not true of American } Heritage. So I'm willing to grant that Valentine is } probably not lying when he says "scholarly adv." is not in } his printing of AHD3 .
Thanks, Sparky. If AHD stuck it in for your printing, it's interesting that they took it back out for the fourth edition, don't you think?

} I'm using a crippled system at present. Among other things, } I can't scan pages and I can't upload anything to my Web } site. I'm tentatively planning to buy a new computer and } start afresh. If that happens, I'll scan the page in AHD3 } where it says "scholarly adv." and post it at my Web site. } This will be for anyone who wants to see for certain that } Valentine is wrong when he says I'm mistaken about it. It } won't be particularly for Valentine to look at: I don't } care whether he sees it or not.
If he posts the URL, I'll be happy to look at it. I'm willing to believe just about any relative Mr. Cunningham has handy, and I'm willing to believe his reportage of same. I'm willing to believe anyone else who has either an "adv" with "scholarly" or no "adv" with "scholarly" in a third edition of AHD. I'm familiar with a certain tenaciousness of position that I suspect could lead to a reassertion of it in lieu of a rechecking of the source, but I have some respect in Mr. Cunningham's ability to come back later and report that his new position is a little different from his old.
I find it possible but unlikely that AHD would switch within an edition, but switch back for the next. It's a little more possible that a typo crept in early and they corrected it with a later printing and kept the same correction for the next edition.
None of my AHD(1), AHD3, AHD4, or MWCD11 have the "adv", and that's enough to refute Mr. Cunningham's original any-good-dictionary test. The " rare " part in some dictionaries I granted him from the git-go.

} Beyond that despite Valentine's scurrilous remarks all } I'll say is that I made no errors and no misrepresentations } in the posting in this thread to which Valentine has } responded.
}
} Okay, I guess I could add that if I were much interested in } Valentine's view of anything, I would probably be } disappointed in his failure to see the humor in my remarks } about good dictionaries and what a good dictionary is. But } I'm not much interested in Valentine's view of anything.

There's another error right there. Here's a restoration of the pertinent section of the posting that the above remarks were a response to (first him, then me):
Begin quote one posting upthread } The same poster whose name doesn't matter has correctly } deduced that my playful abbreviation "SAGD" stood for "see } any good dictionary". Let me now define "good dictionary": }
} good dictionary - one that agrees with me
Ah. Like AHD3? Does it really?
But humo(u)r is good. I've liked that in you for some ten years now of reading your postings. It's not the greatest form of argumentation, but it could be worse.
End quote one posting upthread

Anyone can be the judge (even Mr. Cunningham, if he's actually willing to read what is written). Did I fail to see the humor in Mr. Cunningham's remarks about good dictionaries and what a good dictionary is?

I've been reading just about all of Mr. Cunningham's work on alt.usage.english for some ten years, and I have more than once praised him for his refined sense of humor. It could be that I have had more good things to say about Mr. Cunningham and his sense of humor than any other poster to alt.usage.english. I am even willing to believe that he is just kidding around about something that was as plain as the nose on his face. But in the same posting he is tossing about words like "abuse" and "scurrilous", which may just be his version of responding "in kind" to my correction of his errors.
If I make errors, I welcome corrections from him. In that last posting, I think I typed an "s" instead of an "r" in "supporters". It would have been petty for him to make a big deal of it if he had spotted it, but at least that's closer to responding "in kind". Whining is not.

I'll cut him slack for his crippled system, which may not have shown him my recognition of the humor in his remarks almost immediately following his remarks, and almost certainly visible on the same screen if his remark was at the top of the screen. I can't cut him slack if he's just refusing to go to the next screen to see if I gave him credit and assuming I didn't. Maybe he just got bogged down in the question about the possible difference in our copies of AHD3. But I can only cut him so much slack before it becomes a pity-fest, and I'm not interested in that. If he wants pity, it's other people he should go to.
The best he's got so far in the topic he brought up is some dictionaries' mention of it as " rare ". He did the bragging; he can't back it up.

R. J. Valentine

Usenet · Answer

(more of the same sort of wild, rambling nonsense he typically posts)
Let me say again that so far as I know I have made no errors and have not misrepresented any facts in this thread. I hope that anyone who cares to look again at the postings will see that I have not.

The adverb "scholarly"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions