8

Awfully is a word, as noted in Merriam-Webster's definition of awful. I recently said this:

Your snoring is awfully bad.

I was in a group, and the majority agreed that awful was correct:

Your snoring is awful bad.

Which is correct: awful bad or awfully bad, and why?

4 Answers4

10

I believe that the person who suggested you should use 'awful bad' has an awfully bad command of English and it would be an awful idea to abandon the correct use of 'awfully' as in your exemplary sentence:

Your snoring is awfully bad.

Jonathan Leffler
  • 6,751
  • But some people don't like "awfully" as an intensive adverb either. The Oxford American Dictionary says "careful writers" avoid it. And yet Huxley, Wilde and Kipling have used "awfully". Do they have an awfully bad command of English? – morphail Oct 13 '11 at 16:39
  • @morphail Huxley, Wilde and Kipling: English, Irish and English. Perhaps there's different usage recommendations for their side of the Atlantic. – Hugo Oct 13 '11 at 17:00
7

Just in case we’re still pursuing this, the OED’s earliest citation for the use of awful as an adverb is dated 1818. There are subsequent citations from Mark Twain and Anthony Trollope.

Barrie England
  • 140,205
  • Also interesting given Twain was American, Trollope was English and both writing around the same time. – Hugo Oct 13 '11 at 17:02
2

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage on awful vs awfully.

"The intensive adverb awfully was attacked as a Britishicism by Richard Grant White in 1870. The Oxford American Dictionary as recently as 1980 continues the depreciation of the intensive with the remarkable claim that "careful writers" avoid it. Perhaps so, but good writers have certainly not avoided it since it became established in the mid-19th century. Some of our examples are from fiction and drama, but others are from ordinary discursive prose"

They give 14 examples of awfully as an intensive adverb, from writers like Wilde, Kipling, James, Huxley, Maugham.

morphail
  • 1,229
  • 1
    Nice reference. And this seems to confirm the OPs comment that the grammar police dislike awfully: "The intensive awfully was attacked as a Briticism by Richard Grant White in 1870. The Oxford American Dictionary as recently as 1980 continues the deprecation of the intensive with the remarkable claim that 'careful writers' avoid it. Perhaps so, but good writers certainly have not ..." – Peter Shor Oct 12 '11 at 15:31
  • -1 for a link with no summary, for when the link rots. Also, what's MWEDU? – Hugo Oct 13 '11 at 17:03
  • Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage. Peter Shor gives a summary in his comment. – morphail Oct 13 '11 at 17:25
  • @morphail: a comment is not really an answer. Also, that's a very long entry, most of which has to do with the reduced meaning of "awful" (i.e. using it for things that really aren't that bad), rather than using "awful" as an adverb. So it would be especially important for you to summarize the part(s) that you believe answer this question. As it is, this is not an answer. – Marthaª Oct 13 '11 at 18:18
  • 1
    It's awfully bad luck on Diana,/ Her ponies have swallowed their bits;/ She fished down their throats with a spanner/ And frightened them all into fits.

    (John Betjeman)

     – Barrie England Oct 13 '11 at 18:58
0

What is "awful/awfully" doing here? It is modifying the adjective "bad" (telling how bad).

Which part of speech can modify an adjective? Adverbs (Adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, other adverbs.)

Which word is the adverb? "Awfully."

David Bowman
  • 1,809
  • 1
    Does this mean you think "bloodily stupid fool" is better than "bloody stupid fool"? – Peter Shor Oct 13 '11 at 23:27
  • Awfully is correct in the sentence provided above and clearly we would not use blodily stupid because not all words take on -ly for its suffix –  Nov 03 '14 at 08:13