Posts By Email
Grab The RSSAmong vs. Amongst
One of our readers, Tania Botha asked:
“When (if ever) must one use “amongst” – I systematically use “among” in my own writing and change it when editing other people’s texts, because “amongst” seems so old-fashioned. Is there a rule?”
You can use among and amongst interchangeably, but as Tania pointed out, among is more common in modern writing.
From Dr Grammar’s FAQs “Both are correct and mean the same, but among is more common.”
Some people try to distinguish between the two, but this really is a case when either word is valid. I’d recommend choosing whichever fits your piece of writing best: if you’re writing a fantasy story, or a piece of historical fiction, you might want:
- “As Tarquin stood amongst the great trees of the dark forest…”
But if you’re writing a news or feature article, you’ll probably go for:
- “If you’re among one of the biggest groups in society…”
- “Living among the Bush people taught me a lot…”
So yes, amongst does seem old-fashioned – but it’s still grammatically correct as an alternative to among. It’s up to you to select which you prefer!
Editor’s note: We had already touched on this issue in the past with the article Among/Amongst: Is there a Difference?.
Related Articles
No related posts.
Share
Join Over 50,000 Email Subscribers and Get a Free eBook!
- Subscribe to DailyWritingTips.com via email and you'll be able to download our ebook, "Basic English Grammar."
- You will also get all our writing tips delivered to your email inbox, completely free!
- The download link will go along with the first email (you might need to wait up to 24 hours).
38 Responses to “Among vs. Amongst”
Have something to say?
Popular Articles
- 40 Yiddish Words You Should Know
- 10 Rules for Writing Numbers
- Vocabulary Test 1
- Passed vs Past
- Writing a Reference Letter
- Creative Writing 101
- 44 Resume Writing Tips
- Among vs. Amongst
- 6 Foreign Expressions You Should Know
- Let the Word Do the Work
- How to Format a US Business Letter
- That vs. Which
- 50 Incorrect Pronunciations To Avoid
- The Writing Process
- Inquire vs. Enquire
- 25 Pieces of Writing Software
- 12 Greek Words You Should Know
- Cannot or Can Not?
- What Does Sic Mean?
- 100 Small But Expressive Interjections
- Wether, Weather, Whether
- 34 Writing Tips To Write Better
- Yours Faithfully or Yours Sincerely?
- Latin Words and Expressions
- Grammar Test 1
- Program vs. Programme
- Writing Prompts 101
- 7 Essay Writing Tips To Ace Your Exam
- What Is Irony? (With Examples)
- 100 Beautiful and Ugly Words
- 7 Grammatical Errors That Aren't
Gosh, I have to say I wouldn’t systematically change something just because it sounded old fashioned. But I’m in England, and I think you can get away with it more.
Though of course I would alter a single ‘among’ amongst ‘amongsts’ (or vice versa for the sake of consistency.
In all the publications I’ve worked for, ‘among’ has been in the style guide because it’s shorter and therefore takes up less space.
For my part, I think it’s useful to have a choice for the sake of prose rhythm.
Whilst the old-fashioned way/modern way makes much more sense to me nowadays, reading various people’s writings gave me the thinking that “-st” belonged to British English (“old-fashioned”), whereas omitting was American English (and other variants of English, I suppose) because the omission of the “-st” was more common in American English (“modern”).
Although this tip has made me rethink how I’ll be writing fiction and news articles!
Use whatever you want . What’s the big deal when both are grammatically correct .
Clare – great point about consistency. I agree that I would alter one instance of “among” or “amongst” in a piece where the other word predominated.
Jennifer – glad the tip helped!
For me, using language well doesn’t mean just getting things correct … it’s about having the best word for your purpose.
You just don’t know how much you are helping me.
I have been improving my English since you came into my blogging life.
By the way, thanks for introducing Dr. Grammar to me.
I was not wrong when I made a post about you, guys.
Anyway, I hope you could make a post about the right usage of advise and advice.
I am quite confused.
Thank you so much.
Thx Ali!
Clare – I see your point about prose rhythm and agree that “amongst” would work well in specific types of text. Maybe I should have added that I work mostly with business texts, which probably explains my predeliction for “among”
I remember learning there is a difference between among and amongst.
Instead of explaining, I will give an example.
Let’s discuss the issues among the departments.
Let’s discuss the issues amongst the departments.
The first sentence using among means there are issues between departments.
The second sentence using amongst means we want to talk to the departments about the issues.
Does anyone else remember being taught this in school?
guardian angel,
the difference between advice and advise is:
advice is a noun. it is a thing (suggestion, wisdom, etc.) offered/given that can be offered and accepted.
advise is a verb. it is the act of giving advice.
hope that helps almost a year later! haha
oops…there was a typo in my last comment. offered/given was an extra bit that should have been deleted!
it should have read:
advice is a noun. it is a thing (suggestion, bit of wisdom, etc.) that can be given and received/accepted.
etc…
I realize the thread is a bit dated, but as far as I can tell there is a slight difference between the “-st” and their denuded counterparts in British and Australian English. These commonwealth countries tend to use whilst, amongst, etc. when the word that follows starts with a vowel or other soft sound. This makes the two words roll off the tongue more easily than the non -st words: consider amongst youths vs. among youths. If my hunch is correct, it would be grammatically similar (and perhaps descend from) the French “liaison” between two words. One pertinent example is the insertion of “-t-” in some cases between two words that end in vowels, for example “a-t-il” instead of “a il.” Another would be the pronunciation of the last letter when ordinarily silent: in “deux hommes” the normally silent “x” is pronounced as “z”.
i fell among is with and willing. amongst is with in, but not with; standing with or next to., waiting for something else
Lloyd – I remember much the same thing.
I agree that a preference in style is a root cause of the change from “amongst” to “among”. However, I feel there is more to the story! For what it’s worth, there is a certain something lost in the translation, though I’m not sure it isn’t pedantry. I like Lloyd’s examples.
1. Let’s discuss the issue amongst departments.
To my mind, this means an issue will be discussed with a bunch of departments, and the use of the term “amongst” here is clearer than would be the use of “among”.
2. Let’s discuss the issue among departments.
This could mean either the same thing as in the first example, or it *might* mean you want to talk about something which transpired *between* departments.
This is a subtle distinction, though perhaps no more than a peculiarity. Still, to me there is definitely a difference! For terms like “while”, “has”, and “are”, the usages “-t” or “-st” are certainly for emphasis, or color. In the case of “among” or “amongst”, however, I still see meaning!
for me i use it interchangeably ,it doesn’t strike me if its old use or not …i use the word [amongst] more often ,as far as it is correct grammatically.
Which one is better?
I rather enjoy the cultural diversity I live amongst.
I rather enjoy the cultural diversity I live among.
Marci, maybe neither. Isn’t that ending a sentence with a preposition?
I rather enjoy hte cultural diversity amongst which I live.
Personally I’d have Tarquin stand amidst the trees instead, as he’s not a tree himself, but that’s really a subject for another article.
They are both interchangeable but I usually use the following rule of thumb.
among – to be used with regards to countable objects or a group
amongst – to be used with regards to uncountable, potentially infinite objects or unmeasurable objects.
So, amongst the clouds versus among my class mates.
I think usage makes a difference. “A god amongst men,” sounds like an overpowering figure, while “a god among men” seems like a powerful figure who blends in.
Something to think about.
come on,
‘among’ is common but where? ‘amongst americans’ no?
‘among’ is american and ‘amongst’ is british that’s what i know.
i am sure british use ‘amongst’ much more than they do ‘among’ but becaue of hollywood movies, things are changing. americans also use ‘if i was’, in british english, the condiotional is always ‘if i were’.
please tell me if i am wrong. is ‘among’ american and ‘amongst’ british?
It surprises me that even though I read modern books, I prefer “amongst.”
Nature – you’re right! The standard rule is the shorter words are American, while longer ones are British, ie color (A), and colour (B).
Actually, Henrik, in the midst of things, I think you nailed it.
Jason,
There is nothing wrong with ending an English sentence with a preposition. Proper English grammar dictates that it needs to happen sometimes, to quote Winston Churchill that is “something up with which I will not put.”
That sentence sounds completely ridiculous and the only way for it to sound natural is for the preposition to be at the end.
The rule itself originates from prescriptive grammarians applying Latin grammar to English, Latin was considered the most perfect language by these scholars and so they tried to improve upon English through Latin influence.
I feel “amongst” alludes to a slightly different type of relation. I typically use it in situations like:
“There exist complex interactions amongst various genes.”
I don’t really have a technical justification for this, just my instinct. “amongst” feels less like a preposition. I don’t think it sounds “old fashioned” really.
RJ is absolutely bang on. I believe this further demonstrates how modern ‘international communicative English’ can erode the subtleties of the language. As a native speaker, it is especially annoying when two words are deemed absolutely synonymous by some bright-spark, when they just aren’t. “A god amongst men” is fundamentally different to “A god among men”; the former evokes images of a formidable, dominating character, whilst the latter suggests the god goes about unrecognised. We have to be mindful that by deeming words archaic (often in fact British English!) we may be limiting our expressive potential and lowering the language bar to accomodate the generally more simplistic demands of communicative English used, and often defined by, non-native speakers.
Among and amongst (though very similar) are nearly opposite in meaning, as already noted (counter: flammable vs. inflammable). Amongst means you stand out (againST) a group. Among means you are within a group. The reason it seems old fashioned is that democracy (I am among the people) is the modern vogue; being a God amongst men was the job description of the king. It’s the archaic usage (wherefore art thou Romeo actually meant “Why are you Romeo?”, etc) that keeps the real meaning hidden. If the common usage is equivalent, then go ahead and equate them. Do it really matter, yo? Word.
i’ve always used amongst to refer to a person or thing that stands out in a crowd. for example, amongst the leaders of the world, churchill stood steadfast against the nazis. hazare was a force to reckon with amongst the apathetic politicos in parliament.
Amongst feels like a more intimate relation, as to be within (such as a group) and be a part of, or whole with existentially.
Among is to be within yet be somehow separated, or apart from.
Amongst warmth and understanding.
Among sounds colder and distant.
My usage might infer my feeling of relation to something.
Am I in kind with it?
Or just visiting?
I live amongst Canadians, and when I go south I am among Americans.
We walked amongst the trees, and drove among other cars.
At home amongst family. In a crowd among strangers.
And of course the British/Common Wealth vs. American debate is equally valid.
Wow. 2 of the last 3 posts said the opposite, Chibi and Jim.
I think Jim is right though, that amongst denotes being different from the surrounding crowd.
Crack-headed attempts to split the atom.
Among and amongst just have a sound difference — there is no meaning difference, other than the archaic sound of amongst.
Not only is this easily seen by looking in any dictionary — it’s also easily derived from the etymology of amongst. It’s from the genitive of among with a bonus t sound at the end — it’s a syntactic difference that has survived the loss of the syntax.
There’s no bonus special British subtle meaning here — there’s simply random variations of which version of a word survives synthetic reduction, an excuse for pedants to make crap up and claim snobbery. There’s a North/South of England gradient of usage — so it’s distribution depends simply on patterns of migration in the Anglophonic world.
But go ahead and show how unclever you lot are with make-believe distinctions — the kind of folks who talk about the gigahertz frequency response of headphone wires.
@Jim. Wow Jim, looks like someone got out of the wrong side of the bed, stumbled over the point of the discussion and leapt to a knee-jerk conclusion. This post isn’t about ‘crack-headed’ pedants or grammar Nazis exercising their make-believe distinctions to demonstrate their one-upmanship. The original poster posed a simple, valid question on word use. The same question I’ve just had cause to ask too – that’s how I’ve ended up here.
The responses, to my mind, are airing of thoughts and genuine attempts to help. If anyone is displaying their grammatical pretentions, it’s you Jim, with comments such as “…there’s simply random variations of which version of a word survives synthetic reduction.” And if you throw “…go ahead and show how unclever you lot are…” then you can add ‘arch’ to ‘pretentious’ as well. Perhaps even ‘dickhead’. Glass houses and throwing stones, Jim.
On a related word: I have long been bothered by the expression “unbeknownst to . . .” I even see it in up-to-the-minute blogs and hear it on newscasts. I have always thought this word to be hopelessly archaic and wonder whether you, or any of your readers, share my peeve. I guess the source of my annoyance is personal–it simply grates on my ear.
I agree with Dee Strawayer, Lloyd, Milt, and RJ…
A good analogy here would be to look at the difference between the prefixes inter- and intra-. Although these might be mistaken as “simply random variations” of a word (@jim), they have quite different meanings. For example, an inter-continental flight would be from China to the US; an intra-continental flight would be from the US to CANADA.
This is how I would “split the atom” (though I though we were just splitting hairs):
amongst = separately among
I might also tend to group them with other words:
among ~ within ~ intra
—————————–
amongts ~ with ~ inter
A small example:
“A god, separately, among men” has the same meaning/feel/sound as “A god amongst men” and is clearly different from saying “A god among men.”
We can’t let dicks like know-it-all @jim come along and butcher our language in the guise of “communication.”
Among and amongst may have had different meanings in the dictionary long ago. Or maybe this nuance only lived on in oral tradition; never explicitly written down, but established in the psyche of well read English speakers who realized that their language could also be an art form.
Advice to Jim: study a real science, not a pseudo-science.
Hear hear, Lordy!
Quite surprised there’s nary a word in this discussion about the phenomenon of connotation and its subjectivity. I’m convinced of a subtle difference between “among” and “amongst” depending upon context, and that this is one of those choices that is immune from rules – thankfully. Whether the choice is appropriate in a given instance depends mostly on the writer’s mastery, or lack thereof.
I definitely agree to the above arguments put in favour or against …but if anyone could clarify …whether the students should be awarded marks for using ‘among’ in place of ‘amongst’ in grammar paper?
I could see Irene amongst the crowd
I could not see Irene among the crowd
There is a traitor amongst us
There is no traitor among us
I’d rather use among\amongst depending on the sounding of whole sentence. I mean I’d use the one that sounds better in a particular case.
Great site!
I completely disagree with those who say that amongst is archaic. Just because it isn’t in your vocabulary doesn’t mean it’s out of use!
I can understand the view that ‘among’ and ‘amongst’ are interchangeable, at least to a degree that arguing the matter is a bit pedantic, as several people have said. However, when considering the decline of grammar and spelling in this country, perhaps it isn’t pedantry to argue such points. Personally, I would use the words interchangeable in spoken English due to laziness, but if I were writing, I would take more care to use the right one, because I do think there is a slight technical difference, as several people above have given examples to demonstrate perfectly.
If we said there were ‘problems among individuals’ I would take this to mean that there were problems between or within a group of individuals. To say ‘amongst individuals’ would, to me, indicate the problems are unattached to those individuals and is more an indication of proximity, which doesn’t make sense, since problems aren’t a physical thing.
Among the teachers, there were several males there are some teachers, some of which are males.
Amongst the teachers, there were several males there are some teachers, and dispersed between them are some males.
I don’t know if there’s a hard and fast rule, but it seems pretty clear that there’s a slight difference, even if only in a number of limited cases. I read somewhere that it’s related to whether the sentence is active or passive, and whether you are using singular or plural. I have also read that even though it sometimes seems like a distinction can be made, there is in fact not one, and they are always interchangeable, but I disagree because examples can clearly be found which are contrary to this.
the “st” in amongst could suggest the superlative. We get words like ‘good’,'better’,and ‘beST’ from Dutch, the English language’s closest relative. -er and -st are the regular suffixes used. This seems in line with the difference between “a god among men” and “a god amongst men” (as well as the other examples given above). amongst does seem to suggest a level above, or an extra separation.
In other words- Amongst refers to object A next to or within object B BUT, not of the same group as B.
Among refers to object A next to or wthin object B AND part of the same group.
this does however mean that in the text that i was writing which brought me here, I was using the wrong word.