Last week I was reading Asimov’s [I]Foundation Trilogy[/I] -in the original it’s even more amazing, Dedalus- and I came across many some- anywhere[I]s[/I]
I couldn’t tell the difference of meaning or the implications of putting that "s"... It does remind me of the German "ander-/anders" where it implies fashion: "other/in another way".
Also it made me recall my old confusion between toward and towards, which I finally ended up by considering them equivalents… I don’t know if I’m right, but hitherto I haven’t been corrected (I tend to say towards /twa:ds/).
Although some style books prefer ‘forward’ and ‘toward’ to ‘forwards’ and ‘towards’, none of these forms is really incorrect, though the forms without the final S are perhaps a smidgen more formal. The spelling ‘foreword’ applies exclusively to the introductory matter in a book.
There is a strong chance that the ‘somewheres’ and ‘anywheres’ are a work of science fiction on Asimov’s part.
The whole ‘toward’/‘towards’ thing is lost in the mists of time now. Originally, that ‘-s’ was an adverbial suffix. Compare the use of ‘unaware’ with ‘unawares’, where there is still a difference. It is far more common to hear ‘towards’ than ‘toward’, and their meanings are exactly the same now.
There is a strong chance that the ‘somewheres’ and ‘anywheres’ are a work of science fiction on Asimov’s part.
I wish I had the book here by me… Just to make a few quotations… However, I must return it last week to the library.
Asimov’s English does look a bit odd… Well, I don’t like to name it "odd" for I simply love it; I’d rather say not-standard… Indeed it shocked me, for I had never found such structure nowheres but somehow it did look English to me.
I have heard a lot of people say "nowheres" and "anymores" etc…. It really bothers me because I think it sounds very bad. I don’t have any problem with "towards" however. I agree that it now has exactly the same meaning as "toward."
In the "Los Angeles Times Stylebook" (Copyright 1979, 1981), under toward, backward is "Do not add s."
In "The Careful Writer," by Theodore M Bernstein. TOWARD(S): "In the United States the favored form is toward; in Britain, towards. See alsoUPWARD(S)."
In Bruce Ross-Larson’s "Edit Yourself," he recommends that "toward" be compare[d] with "to." And for the word "towards" should be changed to "toward."
Personally, I prefer "toward" because it’s shorter. I like the KISS style of writing, which I learned early in writing but many times have departed from: KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid!
There is something to be said for brevity: it’s good. As a British writer, I naturally tend towards ‘towards’ (I put two in without thinking). Seeing as it is always a preposition there is no need for an Old English adverbial suffix. I imagine the suffix was added to ‘toward’ because it sounded like other ‘-ward’ words (that can become adverbs). American English has ‘corrected’ this by insisting on ‘toward’. British English has retained ‘towards’ because the word is often used in conjunction with a verb.
Now, ‘upwards’ is generally used as an adverb, but in a few cases can be used as an adjective:
"Upward of a thousand people watched the first hot-air baloon rise upwards into the sky above Paris."
"This upward trend just keeps going upwards."
Here there is an obvious distinction between adverbial and adjectival positions, and that might be a decent reason for distinguishing between the two.
However, I believe all standard forms of English are agreed that ‘unaware’ is an adjective and ‘unawares’ is an adverb.
"Unaware that she was still dressing, the Marquess caught Lady Penelope unawares."
"Unaware that she was still dressing, the Marquess caught Lady Penelope unawares."
I speak no standard English, I fear.
Does this sentence mean: "The Marquess, not knowing that she was still dressing, caught her unawares."?
If so, unaware is taking the form of an adverb for it tells us HOW he caught her. I think the English tongue no longer distingish between adjective and adverb in some cases: "good/well", "quick/quickly",... Please, correct me if I’m wrong.
[quote author=WonderingSpaniard link=board=grammar;num=1086798353;start=0#10 date=06/11/04 at 07:35:45]"The Marquess, not knowing that she was still dressing, caught her unawares." WS.
The above is a good interpretation of Garzo’s example. The subject of unaware is the Marquess. Thus, unaware is used as an adjective, for adverbs cannot modify nouns. It is not "taking the form of an adverb."
The verb caught is modified by unawares, which by definition is an adverb. (An adverb modifies either the whole sentence, the verb, or both.) Here it means "without intention," referring to the innocuous nature of the Marquess’s conduct.
I almost instinctively thought unaware is an adjective and unawares adverb. Then again I may be wrong, but here is a short path of grammatical apology as to why I think as the former is an adjective.
English has a construction called participle construction. This looks like:
Participle + Ø/complement, Noun Verb.
The subject of the participle is the same Noun, which is also the subject of Verb. This construction has the effect to emphasise the relationship of the two actions (occurring simultaneously, causality, concession, etc.).
When the participle in the first part of the sentence is being, it tends to be ommitted for the sake of brevity. Thus, an adjective comes to begin the whole sentence. Thus a participle construction can look like:
Adjective Ø/complement, Noun Verb.
This fits perfectly well to the example sentence we have been talking about.
"Unaware that she was still dressing, the Marquess caught Lady Penelope unawares."
Who was unaware of the Lady’s unavailability? The Marquess. This led me to think the Marquess is the subject of "[being] unaware" here.
