Talk:secondly

Alleged Impropriety

I found no evidence suggesting secondly to be grammatically incorrect; rather, several reliable sources suggested that, while "second, third..." are valid as adverbs, "secondly, thirdly..." are equally acceptable. See, for example, AskOxford [1]. Merriam-Webster lists both "second" and "secondly", while Fowler regards "firstly, secondly, thirdly..." as more correct than the "pedantic" alternative. The assertion that secondly is "grammatically incorrect and should not be used" seems dubious in the face of this evidence, and has no place in the article if, as is currently the case, no source is provided. Sylvie (Talk) 03:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I'd say you didn't look very hard. This has one discourse on it. Secondly, "secondly" itself isn't strongly proscribed, but firstly is (by everyone except Fowler.) [2], Example proscription. You can search for plenty more, that go into some of the finer debates. Here you can read another view on why. --Connel MacKenzie 13:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

“proscribed ... by everyone except Fowler”. No. this is not sooth. According to firstly#Usage_notes OED has not stated its attitude, thence appertains to the exceptions as well. Id est, at least two leading dictionaries do not support the proscription. In Wiktionary:Tea_room#firstly I advocated the removal of this encumbering tag from the entry. Leading contemporary philosophers make use of it (link to the quotation here), thence it is incontestably in circulation amongst the leading writers which eo ipso refutes the proscribed claim. Literature and proscribed are incongruous. Bogorm 11:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Forsooth! 1.145.84.65 10:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"This has one discourse on it." you say? Well, firstly your link no longer works, secondly the text is not available online even with a functioning URL, and thirdly I am not persuaded by the mere mention of a "discourse" that the book makes any claim about any of these words being "ungrammatical" — which is, after all, what Sylvie said that they found no evidence of.

—DIV (1.145.84.65 12:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC))

I would agree that claims of secondly being "grammatically incorrect" are completely overblown. The fact remains that it may sound awkward to some people. So there is freedom to recommend to use it or avoid it. But what is being overlooked here is the context.

Personally I have no problem with the word introducing a sentence or clause: "Firstly, make your bed; secondly, do the laundry!"

But I do find some other usages awkward: "The firstly small and cuddly pup grew into a fussy mutt who refused to touch the secondly reheated stew."

Note that first and second don't work here at all: *"The first small and cuddly pup grew into a fussy mutt who refused to touch the second reheated stew."

(Improved with: "The at-first small and cuddly pup grew into a fussy mutt who refused to touch the stew [that had been] reheated for a second time.")

Better might be something like: "The initially small and cuddly pup grew into a fussy mutt who refused to touch the twice-reheated stew."

—DIV (1.145.84.65 11:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC))