''worser'' and ''worstest''

lll   Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:44 pm GMT
I've heard people say the following sentences before:

Things will get worser.

That's one of the worstest things.

Are they okay?
Richard   Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:46 pm GMT
No. They're used mainly by ignorant people. Use ''worse'' and ''worst'' instead.
Richard   Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:49 pm GMT
''worstest'' is ignorant, because you're adding a superlative ending to something that's already a superlative to begin with.
Terry   Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:04 am GMT
I agree with Richard. Worse or worst. Never worser or worstest.
Guest   Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:12 am GMT
I've never heard "Things will get worser."

"worstest" is used only for comical effect.
Pete   Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:24 am GMT
Now, someone will pop up saying that "worser" and "worstest" are just natural, native ways of speech, so they are correct as they are part of the "evolution" of the English language, and that I shouldn't misunderstand correctness and reduce it to the concept of what I was thaught at a language school. They can fuck themselves...
Albert   Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:21 am GMT
''worser'' and ''worstest'' are indeed incorrect. ''worse'' and ''worst'' are already comparitive and superlative to begin with, and so, adding endings to them to show that is redundant.
Guest   Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:38 am GMT
"worser" and "worstest" are just natural. So you can go fuck yourself, Pete.
Pete   Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:05 am GMT
"worser" and "worstest" are just natural. So you can go fuck yourself, Pete.

Déjà vu... I knew this shit was gonna happen. You can fuck YOU! you worthless wanker.
I don't need to f*ck myself. I'll have my girlfriend do that, instead...
Guest   Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:08 am GMT
Just eat shit and die, Pete, you sexless retard.
guest   Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:05 am GMT
Given that there's no Royal Acadamy of the English Language, it's hard to say that something like worser and worstest is definitely "wrong". However, a Google search shows that "worser" is several hundreds of time less common than worse, and worsest is a few thousands of times less common than worse. Worsest is 100000's of times rarer then either, and "worster" can't be evaluated this way (it seems to be a name or an abbreviation of Worcestershire, or something else).

I would just stay away from these two forms.
Pete   Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:28 am GMT
>>Just eat shit and die, Pete, you sexless retard.<<

Guest = troll

>>Given that there's no Royal Acadamy of the English Language<<

You should create one or two, guys. Really.
Travis   Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:42 am GMT
>>Given that there's no Royal Acadamy of the English Language, it's hard to say that something like worser and worstest is definitely "wrong".<<

But should there be an Academy of the English language, much the less a *Royal* Academy of the English language? I assume you all know about the French equivalent of such's efforts to regulate the French language, and how well that is going right now.

>>However, a Google search shows that "worser" is several hundreds of time less common than worse, and worsest is a few thousands of times less common than worse. Worsest is 100000's of times rarer then either, and "worster" can't be evaluated this way (it seems to be a name or an abbreviation of Worcestershire, or something else).<<

Of course, one must not confuse written usage with spoken usage, especially native spoken usage, and thus one must not assume that frequencies in written usage necessarily correspond to frequencies in spoken usage in all dialects in the language in question.

>>I would just stay away from these two forms.<<

Are you speaking to non-native speakers or to native speakers here?
Travis   Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:44 am GMT
>>>>Just eat shit and die, Pete, you sexless retard.<<

Guest = troll<<

So individuals are trolling when they simply are not taking well to your particular views on the English language and what usage happens to be "correct" in it? I find it surprising that one wouldn't *expect* such reactions to views such as yours about such.

>>>>Given that there's no Royal Acadamy of the English Language<<

You should create one or two, guys. Really.<<

Do you mean two *Royal* Academies of the English Language, per se, or just two Academies of the English Language, without the "Royal" part? I assume you know what you are implying with that statement of yours.
Pete   Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:55 am GMT
Guest = troll

guest is someone else, isn't it?

<<Do you mean two *Royal* Academies of the English Language, per se?>>

Well, that "Royal" stuff is just a nominative thing. You could call it as you wish. But it's imperative for you to create one of those, mate.