till

[Matthew Gordon]

I think this comment reflects the folk misconception that "till" is a shortened
form of "until". The same logic would have us using "onto" all the time in place
of "to".

A society is generally as ill-informed as its reference librarians.

"Lynn C. Hattendorf Westney" wrote:

> Until is the correct form.
>
> A society is generally as lax as its language.
>
> Lynn C. Hattendorf Westney, Associate Professor,
> Assistant Reference Librarian
> Coordinator of Reference Collection Development
> Coordinator of CRRC: Career and Resume Resources Collection
>
> The University of Illinois at Chicago  (UIC)
> The Richard J. Daley Library (MC/234) Box 8198, Chicago, IL 60680-8198 USA
> Lynn's Office: 312-996-9110 (bounces back to Reference after 4 rings)
> Reference Department: 312-996-2728
> FAX: 312-413-0424
>
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Douglas G. Wilson wrote:
>
> > >The editor insists on changing it to
> > >"til" or "'til" (so far she hasn't added the apostrophe, but I suspect she
> > >will).  I see "till" all the time in our field, esp. with ref. to the time
> > >expression, which has become a frozen frame, it seems to me.  Does anyone
> > >not agree with me on this??
> >
> > I think the editor needs to look for a different line of work if she
> > persists in this.
> >
> > I quote the M-W usage dictionary (which I like, maybe because it agrees
> > with me a lot) (1989; p. 908):
> >
> > <<What _'til_ is, unarguably, is a variant spelling of _till_ used by
> > writers who do not know that _till_ is a complete, unabbreviated word in
> > its own right. ....
> >
> > <<... if you are writing for publication, you will do well to spell it
> > _till_.>>
> >
> > -- Doug Wilson
> >