Funner is a word

[TheBuzzSaw]

Google actually was word in the English language prior to the search engine... True it wasn't used however it was existent none the less...

Google: A 1 followed by 100 0's

That's a googol. Google is a unique spelling.

 

[Caturdayz]

That's a googol. Google is a unique spelling.

Oh, I am sorry. It does appear that Sergey and Larry deliberately misspelled Googol for the name of their search engine.

 

[RDK]

It's a word, it's just not one of those official dictionary words.

Holy ****. This thread just got Hiemie Smashed.

My original point is that everybody has their own language. There is not one unified one. The purpose of grammar is to try to unify these languages as best as possible so as to promote effective communication. But it is a descriptive science not a prescriptive science.

Yes, but at what point do you sacrifice prescriptability for descriptability? The means defeat the purpose in this case. Without SOME sense of order, it just falls back into being a million different languages or types of communications without unification or any strings between them.

I think it's acceptable to have a unified language structure AND small nuances or personal / regional deviances within the structure, but limited to that structure. Yes, "funner" is technicall a word, but what's next? How much more are we going to sacrifice before the English language is a jumble of desynchronized, personalized words that not everybody understands?

I take issue when people try to enforce arbitrary and pointless grammar rules. Everybody understands the meaning of the word 'funner'. And it is even more clear in context. However, breaking good rules that are are used to prevent ambiguity or confusion perhaps needn't be done.

What I don't understand is why you apparently can't end a sentence with a preposition. What *** came up with that rule? It doesn't hurt anybody. It just seems pointless, almost as if the English majors at Language-Con are throwing the "rule" in your face just to say "We can make up ******* laws like this, and you have to follow them when your write college papers."

 

[Deleted member]

As long as you *****es understand the difference between "ME" and "I", I don't give a **** about what kind of grammar you use.

"Billy and me just came back from the store"

.............................kfasdlkjlksjlkjglkfgldlgkdfg

 

[AltF4]

I think it's acceptable to have a unified language structure AND small nuances or personal / regional deviances within the structure, but limited to that structure. Yes, "funner" is technicall a word, but what's next? How much more are we going to sacrifice before the English language is a jumble of desynchronized, personalized words that not everybody understands?

But this is a process that has been going on for as long as language has existed. If your great great grandfather heard you talk, he would probably call your speech crude and uncivilized. And his great great grandfather would say the same of his. Everyone seems to think that their dialect is perfect, and any changes would be detrimental. But this is not the case.

 

[Surri-Sama]

But this is a process that has been going on for as long as language has existed. If your great great grandfather heard you talk, he would probably call your speech crude and uncivilized. And his great great grandfather would say the same of his. Everyone seems to think that their dialect is perfect, and any changes would be detrimental. But this is not the case.

But this would be exactly my point, my grand folks don't understand half the stuff said in todays media (that targets teenagers) which means a small group of people (ages 13-19, and i say small because we are small in contrast to the rest of the age groups) have changed English, I just dont think that should be, i know theres no way to stop it, i understand its been working like this forever, what i want to know is why it keeps happening o.o;;

 

[solesoul]

But this would be exactly my point, my grand folks don't understand half the stuff said in todays media (that targets teenagers) which means a small group of people (ages 13-19, and i say small because we are small in contrast to the rest of the age groups) have changed English, I just dont think that should be, i know theres no way to stop it, i understand its been working like this forever, what i want to know is why it keeps happening o.o;;

I don't think that they can't understand you because the media targeted in that group has changed English, I think its because that group is communicating largely through slang. Slang is part of every language, but it doesn't mean the language has changed because it exists.

 

[darkshy]

I don't think that they can't understand you because the media targeted in that group has changed English, I think its because that group is communicating largely through slang. Slang is part of every language, but it doesn't mean the language has changed because it exists.

I don't think the topic is directed to slang, but more to words we percieve as grammaticaly incorrect. 'Funner' just happens to be a word that is used in basic conversation even though most people, like me, disagree on its usage. I personnaly prefer a word that sounds right more then it making sense. the sentence 'Spring break is alot more fun here the over there' is the type of sentence I prefer over anything with the word 'funner' in it.

 

[Surri-Sama]

I don't think that they can't understand you because the media targeted in that group has changed English, I think its because that group is communicating largely through slang. Slang is part of every language, but it doesn't mean the language has changed because it exists.

Ah but it is, every day more and more slang is being created (and slang is in terms of Grammer, wrong) and every day, more and more "slang" is being recognized as legit English :\

Bootylishious was slang for really hot or, has a nice ***

and now it has an "actual" meaning in English, like wth is that about O_o

 

[solesoul]

Ah but it is, every day more and more slang is being created (and slang is in terms of Grammer, wrong) and every day, more and more "slang" is being recognized as legit English :\

Bootylishious was slang for really hot or, has a nice ***

and now it has an "actual" meaning in English, like wth is that about O_o

I think you're confusing "in the dictionary" with "legit English". See, ever since the dictionary writers started trying to be humorous by adding slang and similar things to the dictionary, people have been confusing them as "legit words". But even in the dictionary, those things are classified as slang. So they're still slang, just slang that is now in the dictionary.

Also, "bootylicious" always had an actual meaning, and that meaning was the one you said. Its just that the meaning is now in the dictionary, thats all.

 

[ComradeSAL]

The fact that "funner" has a clear literal meaning is irrelevant, as language is used for far more than merely that. Just look at the word "Please." "Please pass the salad dressing" has the same literal meaning as "Pass the salad dressing," but few would argue that the two sentences are completely equivalent. Similarly, "X is more fun than Y" is not equivalent to "X is funner than Y" even though the two have the same literal meaning.

One thing language is used for is to gauge a person's intelligence. Most people, I think, associate articulate speech with intelligence, and inarticulate speech with either stupidity or ignorance. As a result, when you say "X is funner than Y," what you are really saying is not "X is more fun than Y." You are saying, "X is more fun than Y, and I am too stupid/ignorant to learn the basic rules of the English language."

Maybe not every person thinks this way, but enough do to bend the meaning of the word to the extent that it is unusable in everyday conversation.

 

[AltF4]

I agree that 'funner' carries that connotation, Comrade. But that does not revoke its word status. Clearly there are plenty of "dictionary" words that are unusable in everyday conversation, or would cause people to label you as an idiot.

 

[ComradeSAL]

I agree that 'funner' carries that connotation, Comrade. But that does not revoke its word status. Clearly there are plenty of "dictionary" words that are unusable in everyday conversation, or would cause people to label you as an idiot.

Fair enough. In that case, I'll agree that "funner" is a word. However, if you take that position you cannot criticize 4th grade teachers from attempting to eliminate the word entirely from their students' active vocabulary. No one wants their students to grow up sounding like idiots.

 

[AltF4]

Only on the basis that it will make you sound stupid, which is a separate issue. Instead of funner I could have chosen something that isn't a "dictionary word" but sounds big and intelligent. Then you'd have no reason to not use or teach it. In fact this is exactly how most "dictionary words" become so.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Only on the basis that it will make you sound stupid, which is a separate issue. Instead of funner I could have chosen something that isn't a "dictionary word" but sounds big and intelligent. Then you'd have no reason to not use or teach it. In fact this is exactly how most "dictionary words" become so.

In that case it seems that you are not directly criticizing the "grammar nazis" who attempt to correct those that say "funner," but are instead making a semantic distinction about what it means to be a "word."

This, along with most semantic nitpicking, seems to be missing the main issue, which is whether "funner" should be used. Its status as a word or non-word seems about as relevant as whether Pluto should be called a planet.

 

[AltF4]

I'm more or less making a rant against those people who feel like the English they know is "Correct" and everything else is "wrong". I'm making the case that such notions don't even exist in the first place.

 

[ComradeSAL]

OK, in that case I agree. The study of language, as you say, is in no way a prescriptive science, and the evolution of English is not only possible, but inevitable.

However, I would add a caveat that there are other reasons to adhere to conventional grammar besides ease of communication.

 

[solesoul]

I'm more or less making a rant against those people who feel like the English they know is "Correct" and everything else is "wrong". I'm making the case that such notions don't even exist in the first place.

But these notions do exist. They're the entire reason that you're fighting so hard to legitimize words like funner. These notions are called the rules of the English language. And because they are rules, there are things that fall under them as "correct" and others that fall under them as "wrong". And these people who you're ranting against, they aren't grammar nazis. They're just people who are telling you that you're making a mistake when you're classifying something that is "wrong" as "correct".

 

[Xsyven]

But these notions do exist. They're the entire reason that you're fighting so hard to legitimize words like funner. These notions are called the rules of the English language. And because they are rules, there are things that fall under them as "correct" and others that fall under them as "wrong". And these people who you're ranting against, they aren't grammar nazis. They're just people who are telling you that you're making a mistake when you're classifying something that is "wrong" as "correct".

Rules of the English language, eh? Rules, or guidelines? Both. Some things in the English language are concrete, and will most likely never change-- things like punctuation and spelling. Sentence structure and word definitions are that of the creator's thought. It's what makes writing artistic!

Dialect and word choice is what makes character. By saying certain words, you develop a certain character.




I only read the first and last page of this thread, so hopefully this is original.:


A test to prove that funner is a word. "Today was a lot funner than yesterday."

In the quoted sentence above, which word is incorrect? Funner? I said just asked which word was incorrect, and you associated the word funner, with the word word. Ba-dum-psh!

 

[solesoul]

Rules of the English language, eh? Rules, or guidelines? Both. Some things in the English language are concrete, and will most likely never change-- things like punctuation and spelling. Sentence structure and word definitions are that of the creator's thought. It's what makes writing artistic!

Dialect and word choice is what makes character. By saying certain words, you develop a certain character.

Yes, but one of the rules/guidelines to the word fun is that it is a noun, not an adjective (at least not yet). And so it has proper uses, such as those that use it as a noun, and improper uses, such as using it as an adjective or anything else. And funner is using it as an adjective, which is incorrect.

A test to prove that funner is a word. "Today was a lot funner than yesterday."

In the quoted sentence above, which word is incorrect? Funner? I said just asked which word was incorrect, and you associated the word funner, with the word word. Ba-dum-psh!

Yes, its a word, in the same way that "aint" and "d'oh" are words. But the creator of the thread is trying to say that funner is a legitimate word.

 

[Scar]

I'm a grammar Nazi and I agree with the OP. I'm all about not using dictionary definitions, because IMO words are clumsy tools we use to convey ideas. It would be arrogant of us to presume that we created a language that is sufficient to relate every idea and thought we have.

Funner is a word depending on your definition of word, and I'm sure we've covered this and it's all semantics. But I would most certainly correct someone for using a word that does not properly fit into the arbitrary rules governing language most commonly known as grammar.

 

[Surri-Sama]

I'm a grammar Nazi and I agree with the OP. I'm all about not using dictionary definitions, because IMO words are clumsy tools we use to convey ideas. It would be arrogant of us to presume that we created a language that is sufficient to relate every idea and thought we have.

Funner is a word depending on your definition of word, and I'm sure we've covered this and it's all semantics. But I would most certainly correct someone for using a word that does not properly fit into the arbitrary rules governing language most commonly known as grammar.

By what you say, your not really a Grammer Nazi, but a grammer Enthusiast (thats a hard word to spell o.o;

 

[Scar]

lol you're* not really a Grammar* Nazi. I don't necessarily see the difference, I correct people when they misuse than/then and the likes.

Proof.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Yes, but one of the rules/guidelines to the word fun is that it is a noun, not an adjective (at least not yet). And so it has proper uses, such as those that use it as a noun, and improper uses, such as using it as an adjective or anything else. And funner is using it as an adjective, which is incorrect.

But according to the nature of linguistic evolution, "fun" could very well become an adjective. In fact, based upon the repeated abuse of "funner", I'd say "fun" already became an adjective. Flexibility FTW.

 

[solesoul]

But according to the nature of linguistic evolution, "fun" could very well become an adjective. In fact, based upon the repeated abuse of "funner", I'd say "fun" already became an adjective. Flexibility FTW.

Just because people are using it as an adjective, doesn't mean that it is an adjective. By those rules, you could make an arument that most slang terms are a correct use of English, simply because they are said often.

 

[AltF4]

Solesoul: What world do you live in? You speak of "legitimate words". Define "legitimate words". Ones that are in the dictionary? Well, what dictionary? May I remind you that Merriam Webster is not the only person who writes dictionaries. There are lots of words that are in one dictionary and not others. I could just as easily write a dictionary myself that includes whatever words I want. What makes Merriam's dictionary "legitimate" and mine not?

The word 'funner' will not be debatable in 50 years. In that time, it will be fully assimilated into common speech. They'll be wondering "why did anyone ever have a problem with the word 'funner?'"

You after all this time still seem to suffer from some delusion that there is a "correct" and "incorrect" way to speak. (or type, as it were) Language exists to serve one goal: to communicate ideas. If you accomplish that goal, you're communicating using language. There is no single "correct language" because you can accomplish the goal of communication in an infinite number of ways.

What makes you think that the way you speak is "correct" and the way someone who uses slang "incorrect" aside from an elitist predisposition to think that you're smarter than everyone else. (AKA: The grade school teacher syndrome)

 

[solesoul]

I only used "legitimate" because you did, AltF4. A couple of posts back, you used the term "legit English" and I've been using it because I was trying to put things in your terms. And for someone who was telling people that you shouldn't call people who say funner stupid, your entire last post is coming off as highly rude.

That being said, yes, there are correct and incorrect ways to speak. I'm black, and I use ebonics occasionaly. That doesn't make ebonics correct English though, just because I and several thousands of people use it everyday. You, after all this time seem to suffer from some delusion that there are no rules to language. But there are. When I was studying Spanish, the teacher would teach us some phrases that she said were slang, and some that she said were widely used in Latin America, but incorrect. So its not just English AltF4, its every language there is.

And where in my posts does it say that I'm smarter than anyone else. Don't get personal and angry with someone who is disagreeing with you in a debate. Try actually providing evidence that I'm wrong, like several others in this thread have.

 

[AltF4]

You're just missing the entire point of this discussion. Despite what your high school teachers have tried to tell you, language is not defined clearly. They have fuzzy gray ares as boundaries.

What you are taught in school is a descriptive list of rules and words that are common to "English speakers". By teaching you these common rules, you will be able to communicate with the majority of people who "speak English". It is not a prescriptive list of the way things "should" be done. Because clearly no such "correct" English language exists.

Words in America have vastly different meanings than the same words do in England. Try listening to a conversation between two people in Brooklyn vs a conversation in Texas. In fact, one of the things that linguists do is map the evolution of language over spacial distances.

There is a huge difference between the Spanish spoken in Spain and the Spanish spoken in Mexico. Which one is "correct"?

 

[RDK]

I only used "legitimate" because you did, AltF4. A couple of posts back, you used the term "legit English" and I've been using it because I was trying to put things in your terms. And for someone who was telling people that you shouldn't call people who say funner stupid, your entire last post is coming off as highly rude.

That being said, yes, there are correct and incorrect ways to speak. I'm black, and I use ebonics occasionaly. That doesn't make ebonics correct English though, just because I and several thousands of people use it everyday. You, after all this time seem to suffer from some delusion that there are no rules to language. But there are. When I was studying Spanish, the teacher would teach us some phrases that she said were slang, and some that she said were widely used in Latin America, but incorrect. So its not just English AltF4, its every language there is.

But that's the wonder of language--it's created and molded by its userbase. Language is just a mode of communication between people--there is no "right" or "wrong" in language, just singularities that may or may not conform with the present ruleset preferred by the majority.

Just like in everything else, there are no absolutes in language.

 

[solesoul]

You're just missing the entire point of this discussion. Despite what your high school teachers have tried to tell you, language is not defined clearly. They have fuzzy gray ares as boundaries.

There you go again, being dismissive instead of debating. I never said anything about High School, and if you'd read my posts instead of automatically disagreeing with me, you'd see that I recognize the gray areas.

What you are taught in school is a descriptive list of rules and words that are common to "English speakers". By teaching you these common rules, you will be able to communicate with the majority of people who "speak English". It is not a prescriptive list of the way things "should" be done. Because clearly no such "correct" English language exists.

And thats still not entirely true. Just because there are several types of English doesn't mean that none are "correct" and none are "incorrect". Some of these rules you're talking about aren't broken in any type of English that I know of. Rules such as verb-noun agreement. The basic setup prescribed by that rule is the same everywhere English is spoken. So if someone spoke to you, but broke that basic rule, you may be able to understand him, but he'd still be wrong.[/quote]

Words in America have vastly different meanings than the same words do in England. Try listening to a conversation between two people in Brooklyn vs a conversation in Texas. In fact, one of the things that linguists do is map the evolution of language over spacial distances.

True, but those places don't just prove your point, they also prove mine, because there are more things similar about how they speak than different.

There is a huge difference between the Spanish spoken in Spain and the Spanish spoken in Mexico. Which one is "correct"?

Which is why I said Latin America. The phrases and words that she said were incorrect/slang were incorrect/slang in Latin America. They might even exist in Spain.

 

[SU_Remo]

AltF4, you say just as long as you are speaking in a way that you get your point across then you are accomplishing your goal. In a way, that find and good. But, grammar in present in society for a reason. Its rules gives order and organization to our language and how we use it. Still have a problem with that? Fine. But, you don't have power over people, not just teachers, regular people and their views toward you.

I took a step back and thought about what your community might be like. I mean, there has to be a significant amount of people who actually use 'funner' in everyday speech for you to utter that unbelievably unfounded, absurd claim that in fifty years, 'funner' will be "fully assimilated into common speech". Pft, that blew me away. I mean, seriously. I haven't heard one single soul sincerely use 'funner' in their speech since I was six years old. You know, the age when kids are too uneducated to know that 'funner' is considered incorrect. But they go to school, grow up, and mature enough to understand that people don't use that word. I'm still in disbelief that there are a whole community of people walking around sounding that dumb.

Now, if you think what I just said is harsh, coarse, or just unnecessary, that sucks. But, that's my whole point. Not matter how you complain or how you want to label things, you can't change how society views things. This isn't some evenly divided, on-the-fence issue like gay marriage or something. I would bet my life and everything that's important to me, that there is an overwhelming majority who don't use 'funner' and moreover, view the word as incorrect and the people who use it as 'wrong', and some would say they're 'dumb' or uneducated'. I wish I had a way to prove my last statement with some survey, but I can't. Though, I believe our education system and grammar textbooks being how they are is enough proof to back up my point of view.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Remo, you leave the impression that sounding intelligent is more important than actually have the quality (intelligent.) Just because something sounds horrible, it does not reflect on the user. For example, I abhor the word 'chunk', yet I have no problem with the individual. I don't think it would be too unfair to hold you to your own standards;

I'm still in disbelief that there are a whole community of people walking around sounding that dumb.

A whole community are walking around! Who sounds dumb now?


While funner is not likely to become standard English in fifty years, it is likely there are many words that will become standardized that we now consider slang. This has happened before in many period of history.

I do not understand why so many people care about grammar specifics. You have a problem with 'funner' yet there are many exceptions found throughout the English language that completely contradicts grammar structure:

'Pants', although a single object, is considered plural, and the noun cannot take singular form.

Its, his, and her are possessive, even though an apostrophe is needed to note possessive form.

 

[AltF4]

I chose the word funner to start the debate with because it's a word that is commonly considered "incorrect". Yet despite this, it has a clear and deliberate meaning.

But there are lots of other words that are not "dictionary" words that I deal with constantly but are never considered "incorrect". In the world of computers, words are made up daily to represent new things and ideas. Each of them has a clear and distinct meaning, even though only a small proportion of people know their meaning.

-Byte, scuzzy, fubar, frob, snarfing, etc... are all words invented in the last few decades.
-Firewall, bug, bootstrap, bluetooth, trojan, etc... are all exiting words that have been given additional meanings.

Are these "words"? And if they are, certainly all ebonics words should be as well. Indeed, there are probably more people that understand the dialect of ebonics than tech-speak.

 

[SU_Remo]

Alright, you're right, Quilt. I didn't mean too come across with the mindset that anybody who uses 'funner' or any bad grammar means that they are automatically considered dumb or stupid. Yesterday, I went back and edited some things to try to get rid of that sentiment, but I guess I didn't do that very well. All I'm trying to say is if you use words like 'funner', most likely, people will consider it to be incorrect. That's why teachers will mark off on your papers, the textbooks say it's nonstandard, and the "grammar nazis" start so much crap about it.

And about that grammatical error I made; my bad. You got me. I was typing it up quickly and multitasking. And I'm too lazy to check my work, at least when it comes to an internet forum. It's a personal problem I have. My bad, okay? But, I acknowledge that error and could've re-read my passage and fixed it. I understand and follow the rules of grammar. It was nothing more than a typo. Speaking of grammar rules, I get your 'pants' thing. English is a kooky language, but it is what it is. We all accept the 'pants' thing and the possessive thing, because that's just how it is and we're all cool with it. And, as a majority, we don't accept 'funner' as correct grammar. It is how it is.

And I do not consider 'funner' to be slang. To me, it's just effed up grammar. Those computer terms you used, AltF4, are mostly all slang, or maybe jargon, rather. But even they don't all have the same quality, other than being generally accepted in soceity. Like, fubar is just acronym that people cutely made into a word. Firewall is tech jargon that is the only way you can describe what it really is. The original definition of 'firewall' has nothing to do with computers, of course. But, it has been, to take a page from you, fully assimilated in our common speech. Oh, and it's Bluetooth, not bluetooth. It's company, a trademark, and a proper noun. Not slang.

To answer your question, yes, they are words. Funner is a word. And I understand that it's the title of this thread, but I didn't think that was your problem with it all. I thought you had an issue with the "Grammar Nazis" giving you crap about it. But you can't debate your way out of that. You can't argue away how people feel about it or what they've been taught or what it's being taught now. It does not have the same slanglike qualities to spread throughout the country like the computer jargon. And that might be the teacher's or the textbook writer's fault. Hell, it is their fault. But, it's their job and it is not a bad thing. In fifty years, it will not be in everybody's common vocabulary. It'll be in the same place it is today, or hopefully, it'll be dead.

 

[AltF4]

Bluetooth can also refer just to the standardized wireless protocol, in which case you can get away with not capitalizing it. But it's kind of like "xerox". You can "xerox a document". The word "xerox" of course originated from a real company that should be capitalized, but has since just become a normal verb.

 

[SU_Remo]

Bluetooth can also refer just to the standardized wireless protocol, in which case you can get away with not capitalizing it. But it's kind of like "xerox". You can "xerox a document". The word "xerox" of course originated from a real company that should be capitalized, but has since just become a normal verb.

Oh. Oh, okay then. I know you're a computer science major and all of that, so you probably know more about it all then I do. I just searched around and just saw Bluetooth as the company name, tradmarked, with the little blue B and stuff. But, that's cool. I learn something new everyday.

 

[Deleted member]

I thought Alt would get a kick out of this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7vMY7dFdoew

On the actual Bill Nye show they say "funner"

 

[AltF4]

Omg, epic.

 

[Taymond]

That exactly what language does! It evolves!

Words naturally change meaning, get created, or go into disuse. This is quite normal and natural. You do it every day whether you know it or not.

In fact, a lot is changing in language due to the emergence and popularity of the internet and other forms of telecommunication. A strongly growing trend is to create "text message" style speech.

It's not quite so dramatic as saying "iirc" in normal conversation (although I do). It happens because people get used to communicating in short and concise terms, and gradually begin to do so in spoken language as well.

Don't be elitist. What makes you think that English is perfect the way it is? The language evolves by natural selection. Words and phrases that are disliked are discarded, while useful and meaningful ones are made to persist.

You're exactly right. Language changes and evolves, and that's all anyone is doing in correcting perceived "incorrect" word usage. They're just perpetuating a particular standard for future generations. It's not the right or the wrong standard, it's just one of them. This is how language changes, by people having ideas about what is right speech and what is wrong speech.

The past of eat, help, and climb used to be et, holp, and clome. Forms change as people change, and old forms are eventually discarded. But you have no more right to declare which forms will persist and which won't than anyone. You can't make wild claims that in 50 years 'funner' will be fully integrated. You have no evidence to suggest the more/most comparative/superlative rules are falling out of disuse. The more/most rule for comparative/superlative use is as much as rule as the -er/-est rule. There are a large amount of words that use each rule.

Old irregulars are commonly phased out, but new irregulars spring up often, as well. Language changes based on what forms and rules large communities choose to perpetuate. If I correct "funner," I'm just perpetuating a rule I believe in. You have no right to resent my correction. This is how language changes, by correction. Older generations tell newer ones how to speak. The newer generations listen, but they still make their own decisions about what needs to change and how it needs to change.

Lots of things we don't say can be called words, depending on your definition of words, but you can't resent or dissuade progress just because you have a different idea of what rules to keep and which to discard. Large communities over large amounts of time make those decisions.

Maybe eventually people will say 'funner' if the -er/-est rule wins out. Maybe eventually they'll say 'more early' if the more/most rule wins out. More than likely, both rules will be tolerated for a good while. Large-scale exceptions or counter-rules aren't uncommon in language, particularly in English.

 

[AltF4]

Fair enough.

The way Is see it, there's a right way to disagree with funner being a word and a wrong way. The right way is by saying that funner is evolving out of use naturally. The wrong way would be to do so because you're an elitist grammar nazi enforcing arbitrary rules to look smarter.

That being said: I just realized that Firefox's automatic spell checker recognizes funner as a word, thus it is a word. End of story.

EDIT: I originally made my position much stronger than I actually feel, just for the sake of sparking debate. I mean, come on. It's a grammar debate. I didn't expect much.