[General] "Prior" and "priorly"

[Olympian]

Hello,

I have read that "prior" means: (from freedictionary.com)
adj.

1. Preceding in time or order: "[They] insist that foreign vessels seeking access obtain prior approval" (Seymour M. Hersh).

2. Preceding in importance or value: a prior consideration.
​

and

"priorly" is an adverb -

Priorly, various campaigns to urge people to shift their cellular numbers to their names have been run however have not met major success.​

​

My question is - can I use "priorly" in the following sentences?

1. She has been Professor prior at Massey University
2. Prior, he was Deputy President of Singapore Management University.​

Thank you

​

 

[Rover_KE]

The use of 'priorly' is so rare that most people will think it is a mistake.

You can usually use 'previously' instead.

Rover

 

[Olympian]

The use of 'priorly' is so rare that most people will think it is a mistake.

You can usually use 'previously' instead.

Rover

@Roger_KE, thank you for your response. Actually, "priorly" is what came to my mind when I read those sentences. So I was wondering if "priorly" is favored by BrE.

The example for "priorly" at the freedictionary.com site mentioned above, was from Balochistan Times and I am assuming that they use BrE at Balochistan Times because Balochistan is in Pakistan, and as in India, they too, perhaps use BrE. Hence, I thought that perhaps "prior" is more an AmE usage.

I am aware that there is still some (a lot of?) archaic BrE usage in India. And so, sometimes the current English usage elsewhere or in AmE seems a bit strange to my ears. Hence such questions. ;-)

 

[MikeNewYork]

I too would react quizzically to "priorly".

 

[Olympian]

I take it then that 'priorly' is not wrong, but as Rover_KE suggested, 'previously' is a better word. Thanks.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I take it then that 'priorly' is not wrong, but as Rover_KE suggested, 'previously' is a better word. Thanks.

Yes.

 

[5jj]

I think, like Rover, that most speakers of BrE would regard 'priorly' as wrong.

 

[probus]

Most speakers of AmE too. In 66 years of reading English, I have never previously encountered priorly.

 

[Olympian]

I think, like Rover, that most speakers of BrE would regard 'priorly' as wrong.

@5jj, thank you. I am just curious about this. I know just because words have similar meanings, and are synonymous, it does not mean that they can be used interchangeably. Perhaps this is the case here. Because both 'priorly' and 'previously' mean the same (as far as I can see/understand), and they are both adv.

By the way, I found this link which seems to suggest it is archaic. There are some sentences there using 'priorly' in old publications.

 

[MikeNewYork]

@5jj, thank you. I am just curious about this. I know just because words have similar meanings, and are synonymous, it does not mean that they can be used interchangeably. Perhaps this is the case here. Because both 'priorly' and 'previously' mean the same (as far as I can see/understand), and they are both adv.

By the way, I found this link which seems to suggest it is archaic. There are some sentences there using 'priorly' in old publications.

I think what 5jj meant was "wrong for today". The word exists; there is nothing we can do about that. What is important is what people use today. Words come and words go. This one has left the stage.

 

[Olympian]

I think what 5jj meant was "wrong for today". The word exists; there is nothing we can do about that. What is important is what people use today. Words come and words go. This one has left the stage.

@MikeNewYork, thank you for clarifying. Unfortunately, we are left with a lot of archaic words in Indian English.

 

[5jj]

@MikeNewYork, thank you for clarifying. Unfortunately, we are left with a lot of archaic words in Indian English.

The word may not be archaic in Indian English. Most of the people who respond in this forum happen to come from North America, the UK or Australia. Many things that are acceptable in Indian English sound unnatural to us, but that does not mean they are wrong in Indian English.

 

[Olympian]

The word may not be archaic in Indian English. Most of the people who respond in this forum happen to come from North America, the UK or Australia. Many things that are acceptable in Indian English sound unnatural to us, but that does not mean they are wrong in Indian English.

@5jj, thank you for your kind words. But it is frustrating, at least to me, because even though Indians understand each other, we want to communicate effectively with the world, and this is possible only if we know what the current standard usage is, or if the world understands (and accepts) Indian English. As is the case with humans, they tend to discriminate (or look down upon others) on the basis of several things, including language. Based on the current standard usage in the world, such non-standard English, may unfortunately be viewed as sub-standard, by at least some.

 

[5jj]

@5jj, thank you for your kind words. But it is frustrating, at least to me, because even though Indians understand each other, we want to communicate effectively with the world, and this is possible only if we know what the current standard usage is,

There is not one current standard usage.To many people who learn English from British course books and CDs, many other varieties of spoken English, including some British dialects, may not be easy to to understand.

or if the world understands (and accepts) Indian English.

I think that in the world of international business, Indian English is accepted as much as any variety.

As is the case with humans, they tend to discriminate (or look down upon others) on the basis of several things, including language. Based on the current standard usage in the world, such non-standard English, may unfortunately be viewed as sub-standard, by at least some.

There are still English people who feel that English is 'our' language, and that all other varieties are sub-standard. There are undoubtedly some North Americans, British people, Australians and New Zealanders who do consider Indian English to be sub-standard; this is often tied in with racial prejudice generally. We cannot pretend that such prejudice does not exist.

However, in the field of language, Indian English is a legitimate variety of English. Native speakers of Indian English speak a language that is far more natural than that of the majority of native speakers of other languages who have learnt English. The accent of Indian speakers is probably easier for speakers of RP or General American to understand that than the accents of people from Glasgow, Durham, New Jersey or many other places. The written form may have a rather formal and slightly old-fashioned sound to some of us, but that does not mean that we look down on it - we simply accept that it is different.

 

[probus]

@MikeNewYork, thank you for clarifying. Unfortunately, we are left with a lot of archaic words in Indian English.

Actually, this is much less true today than formerly. When I first went to India in 1975 words like chap, cad and bounder that had already faded from use in BrE were still commonly heard.

Nowadays the whole world hears CNN, al Jazeera, the BBC World Service etc. Therefore I believe that a more standard version of international English is emerging.

The remaining distinguishing features of Indian English today, in my opinion are:

1. Accent. The accent of Indian English owes a lot to the cadences of India's languages.

2. Loan words from Indian languages that have not spread much beyond India. I am thinking of things like pukkah, wallah, ghari, chit etc. Some were such good candidates too. The OED defines pukkah as "good of its kind."

3. A few archaisms that have survived in India but not elsewhere, such as godown for warehouse.

 

[Olympian]

@5jj and @probus, thank you. :up: