Totalitarianist

I do not understand the use of the word 'round and 'til.

It is perfectly acceptable to simply say round.

It is perfectly acceptable to simply say till.

Changing "I walked round the corner" to "I walked 'round the corner" is an unnecessary change. Few people would write 'round. Most would simply write round.

Till is quite common, even in formal writing. There is no need to change it to to 'til.

If I mistake not, till and round are not shortened forms of unti and around. If they are shortened forms of the foresaid words, then there is no reason to use 'til and 'round

I only see the words "'til" and "'round" on the internet and sometimes in books by simple-minded authors.

Mageth

I won't get 'round to properly replying to this post 'til I have the time.

Deadbeat

When I went to Tim Horton's this morning, I had a round doughnut, and paid at the till.

Totalitarianist

I am not speaking of that "till". I am speaking of the "till" which is synonymous with "until".

lisarea

Yep.

Yes, they are.

Both are shortened forms of words, and they're currently in a transitional stage, meaning that they kinda are and kinda ain't whole words unto themselves.

Look at words like 'tomorrow,' which started out as 'to morrow' then got hyphenated to 'to-morrow,' and is now a regular, self-contained word. Etcetera's another one, but in Latin. I can't off the top of my head think of other words that dropped an initial letter (it's a speech thing), but that's a pretty normal course as well.

That's how language evolves, see.

I think the worst you could say about 'til and 'round are that they're quaint by your standards. They're not by any stretch wrong or stupid, 'less and 'til your personal standards become codified by an oppressive regime or something.

Deadbeat

Actually, "until" is a post-cursor to "till", not the other way 'round.

While 'til is not absolutely correct, etymology-wise, it is still perfectly acceptable.

Totalitarianist

'Til is never used, as far as I know, in older literature. It is a new thing,and quite unnecessary inasmuch as we already have the word "till" therefor.

Locke said: "Age and reason as they grow up loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal."

Hobbes said: ". . . because till then we retain the liberty of doing, or omitting, according to our appetite, or aversion."

'Til is something I only see in simple-minded literature of the last fifty years. That is, literature on quite trivial subjects. 'Til is an annoying and unnecessary "word" and the employment thereof ought to be stopped at any cost. Till has been used always in all times hitherto-- in point of fact, until recently, if I mistake not, it was used oftener than "until"

'Round and 'til are clearly Americanisms.

beastmaster

I did some quick consultation of the dictionary (all the while thinking Totalitarianist was wrong), and it turns out he's right.

I never realized this but "till" has the same relationship to "until" as "to" has to "unto." That is, "till" is not a shortened form of "until," just like "to" is not a shortened form of "unto." Rather, "unto" and "until" are merely emphatic forms of "to" and "till."

Therefore, putting an apostrophe in front of "til" is incorrect, just like putting an apostrophe in front of "to" would be incorrect.

Likewise, "round" has a proud history in great literature of being used as an adverb. It is not a shortened form of "around" -- they are different words.

A good example is "apron." Originally, it was "napron" -- sharing the same root as "napkin." Over time, "a napron" turned into "an apron" (the "n" switched from one word to the other).

Actually, I would say that 'til and 'round are wrong (although not stupid). There is no need to use an apostrophe to account for any missing "un-" at the beginning of "till" or any missing "a-" at the beginning of "round" because "till" and "round" are ancient words that are distinct from "until" and "around."

Totalitarianist

I think that you are incorrect. For "till" is eight hundred years old and is in fact older that "until".

KoopaFanatic

Language changes. Usages change. Pronunciations change. A lot. Spellings change. If you want to complain about crappy reverse-etymologies, I'd suggest "cherry". I can't help but laugh whenever I think of it! English is full of 'em. And it's not limited to any one country's version, either.

On a slightly different note, there's a certain "improper" construction that I'm happy to see is becoming pretty mainstream: "alright". Sure, hardcore grammar pedants will say that it's supposed to be "all right," but they don't complain about "altogether" which developed the same way a while ago (although its meaning did shift a bit over time).

So it's alright to embrace the occasional spelling change. It's not like they're violating fundamental rules of English grammar (like the perennial 'net favorite of 's to represent plurals).