Adverbs that have two forms

A reader asks, “Can you please explain to me why the increase in terms such as ‘more closely’ instead of ‘closer’ [and] ‘more quickly’ instead of ‘quicker’?” I suspect that some word choices have to do with a sort of “hyper-correction.” That is, we choose words that sound better to us, ones that sound “more correct.”

As my grammar and usage books point out, some adverbs have two forms: close/closely, quick/quickly, clean/cleanly, loud/loudly, slow/slowly, near/nearly, tight/tightly, deep/deeply. (Please note that the first forms of some of the adverbs can be used as adjectives, too.) Both the unadorned form and the form with -ly added are correct.

  • The airplane nearly collided in midair.
  • The airplanes flew near each other.
  • The boys dug deep into the farm’s soil to bury their dog.
  • The boys cared deeply for their dog.

Some of these pairs are interchangeable: come quick or come quickly.

The comparative forms follow the rules for making comparatives. For a one-syllable word, add -er. For most adverbs ending in -ly, use more in front of the adverb.

In the Gregg Reference Manual, Willam Sabin notes, “In some cases the choice is largely a matter of idiom.” We might prefer “dig deep” but “wound deeply,” “open wide” but “travel widely.” Sabin also points out that it may be a matter of formality: The -ly forms are more formal.

Maybe “more quickly” sounds better to the TV newscaster than “quicker.”

It is not wrong to say or write “more closely” rather than “closer,” but you are using two words where one would do in many cases. As Strunk and White said, “A sentence should contain no unnecessary words …”

Keywords: grammar guide, language, writing

This article was originally posted by the Raleigh News & Observer, a subsidiary of The McClatchy Co.; is posted here to provide continuity; and is copyright © 2011 The News & Observer Publishing Company, which reserves the right to remove this post.