Talk:firstly


 * See also: talk:secondly. --Connel MacKenzie 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Tea room discussion
The Tea room seems especially appropriate albeit oversized for this usage tempest. There had been some 19th century disapproval of "firstly", but by 1926 Fowler dismissed it. More recently, some view "firstly", "secondly", etc as too formal for, say, business writing, but essential for scholarly writing. Others only seek consistency: "First", "Second",.... or "Firstly". "Secondly", ...., but not deQuincey's preferred "First", "Secondly", .... Our entry expends a lot of space on this. Can't it be simplified. DCDuring TALK 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I fiddled around with it a bit, though I'm afraid it now takes up a bit more space (but with more whitespace, and hopefully a somewhat more logical flow). Could use a citation for de Quincey (is it one of these?) -- and for Fowler too if it's handy.  Would be curious to know what the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage has to say.  B.g.c rocks! IMO our entry should cover all of the points in the MWDEU entry, in our own way of course. -- Visviva 06:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest removing the proscribed tag. I am not a native English speaker, but having come across the word in two texts (the link comprises both of them) of Monseigneur Richard Williamson who is a native Brit from the XXI. century and commands one leading organisation of study of Sanctus Thomas Aquinas I am completely persuaded that the word is in circulation amongst the highly educated English speakers and if the common-or-garden-variety speakers sunder from or shun its use this should not be an argument in the current consideration nor stir up obfuscation for the users cherishing literary English. I exhort abolishing the proscribed tag. One must not be proscribed from utilising elevated expressions. Does anyone disprove the removal? Bogorm 10:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that would be fine. "Disputed" might be a better tag, but having no tag at all is probably the best solution; the usage note is close at hand anyway. -- Visviva 11:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Methinks the issue is resolved and rft is no more needed, is it? Bogorm 09:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)