Further vs Furthermore

[Pallab]

My co-author prefers "furthermore" while I prefer to use "further".
Are these interchangeable or is there some subtle difference in their
applicability?

thanks

[Don Phillipson]

"Pallab" <pal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:99a78ef1-f300-49ce...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

> My co-author prefers "furthermore" while I prefer to use "further".
> Are these interchangeable or is there some subtle difference in their
> applicability?

Furthermore is unambiguously an adverb and nothing else,
while further is in some contexts an adjective and in others
an adverb. Some might thus consider this means furthermore
is less likely to be misunderstood or delay the reader.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[matt271...@yahoo.co.uk]

In adverbial usage where both make grammatical sense there's no
difference in meaning or applicability that I can see. FWIW, I (BrE)
personally prefer "furthermore", quite probably (though I've never
thought about it before) for the reasons that DP states: "further" has
several other grammatical roles and could cause just a hint of
hesitation in parsing.

[Ting Tong]

"Pallab" <pal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:99a78ef1-f300-49ce...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

I'd say 'furthermore' has a stronger meaning to it, such as 'in addition
to' something else whilst 'further' sounds weaker, if you understand
what I mean. And *furthermore*, further has the added distraction of
having a meaning in distance.

'I am fed up with you leaving your room in a mess, and furthermore, you
came in after midnight'.

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Jeffrey Turner]

Ting Tong wrote:

Anything further, father?

--Jeff

--
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without
formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to
deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree
odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government
whether Nazi or Communist."

- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943

[Pallab]

On Apr 13, 10:54 am, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <ba344$4801b393$17...@news.teranews.com>

> Ting <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > I'd say 'furthermore' has a stronger meaning to it, such as 'in addition
> > to' something else whilst 'further' sounds weaker, if you understand
> > what I mean. And *furthermore*, further has the added distraction of
> > having a meaning in distance.
>

> Although when talking about physical distance, farther is better that further.
>
> --
> Your letters they all say that you're beside me now.
> Then why do I feel alone?
> I'm standing on a ledge and your fine spider web
> Is fastening my ankle to a stone.

Thank you all so much.

[Ting Tong]

"Jeffrey Turner" <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:5_CdnZviNpWGm5_VnZ2dnUVZ_oninZ2d@localnet...

> Ting Tong wrote:
>
>> "Pallab" <pal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:99a78ef1-f300-49ce...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>My co-author prefers "furthermore" while I prefer to use "further".
>>>Are these interchangeable or is there some subtle difference in their
>>>applicability?
>>>
>>>thanks
>>
>>
>> I'd say 'furthermore' has a stronger meaning to it, such as 'in
>> addition to' something else whilst 'further' sounds weaker, if you
>> understand what I mean. And *furthermore*, further has the added
>> distraction of having a meaning in distance.
>>
>> 'I am fed up with you leaving your room in a mess, and furthermore,
>> you came in after midnight'.
>
> Anything further, father?

:-) Not much further, but let me go farther - I am not your father.
Further, I fathered four children, who are further away from their
father than any would like.

[cwi...@gmail.com]

Although the words 'further' and 'furthermore' are technically synonymous, they provide different usages under their working definitions. The word 'furthermore' is used at the beginning of clauses, meaning "in addition" and "moreover". Although the word 'further' can hold the same function, it is better understood and more regarded to mean a theoretical distance. Using each word under these decisive functions allows a formative distinction and permits the reader an easier or quicker understanding.

[R H Draney]

cwi...@gmail.com filted:
>
>Although the words 'further' and 'furthermore' are technically synonymous, =
>they provide different usages under their working definitions. The word 'fu=
>rthermore' is used at the beginning of clauses, meaning "in addition" and "=
>moreover". Although the word 'further' can hold the same function, it is be=
>tter understood and more regarded to mean a theoretical distance. Using eac=
>h word under these decisive functions allows a formative distinction and pe=

>rmits the reader an easier or quicker understanding.

Your post extend four times further to the right than my screen could
contain....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Snidely]

After serious thinking R H Draney wrote :

My condolences to your impaired newsreader.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

[Guy Barry]

"Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.584a7dcaf7ff415d.127094@snitoo...

> After serious thinking R H Draney wrote :
> > cwi...@gmail.com filted:
>>
> >> Although the words 'further' and 'furthermore' are technically
> >> synonymous, =
> >> they provide different usages under their working definitions. The word
> >> 'fu=
> >> rthermore' is used at the beginning of clauses, meaning "in addition"
> >> and "=
> >> moreover". Although the word 'further' can hold the same function, it
> >> is be=
> >> tter understood and more regarded to mean a theoretical distance. Using
> >> eac=
> >> h word under these decisive functions allows a formative distinction
> >> and pe=
> >> rmits the reader an easier or quicker understanding.

I had to check Google Groups for the relevance of this - it's actually a
followup to something posted six months ago. Please include some context if
referring to something that old.

> > Your post extend four times further to the right than my screen could
> > contain....r

> My condolences to your impaired newsreader.

On the other hand, RHD's post was less than an hour old. Does this mean
you've cleared the backlog?

--
Guy Barry

[Iain Archer]

wrote on Wed, 10 Oct 2012

I do like a good formative distinction.
--
Iain Archer

[Snidely]

On Thursday, Guy Barry queried:

> On the other hand, RHD's post was less than an hour old. Does this mean
> you've cleared the backlog?

Pogo-stick reading pattern.

(and that Olympic thread will not die)

[Guy Barry]

"Snidely" wrote in message news:mn.5d947dca475190dc.127094@snitoo...

> (and that Olympic thread will not die)

Not unless someone cuts off PTD's connection.

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk7g3en....@mbp55.local...

> In message <mn.5d947dca475190dc.127094@snitoo>

> Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > (and that Olympic thread will not die)

> How many message in that thread. Thousands, surely.

Google Groups stops counting after a thousand and starts a new thread. I'm
not sure how many there have been, but I think at least three.

--
Guy Barry

[Nick Spalding]

Guy Barry wrote, in <n6Vds.430341$bM5.3...@fx09.am4>
on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:41:42 +0100:

Following the References chain, ignoring changes of Subject, there were
6809 at around 9am this morning; under the original subject there were
1486.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

My newsreader retains all messages until I delete them. I had a
clear-out a month or so back so I have no messages in the Olympic thread
prior to 1st August. There are still 6322 from then until now.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)