Is “kinda” a word?
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
I've used "kinda" as a word basically meaning "kind of" just run together. I wouldn't use it formally, but I noticed that Microsoft Word's spellchecker says that it isn't a word. I searched some and it seems that I'm not the only one who uses it, but it doesn't seem to be too popular.
So is it an actual word? How accepted is it?
word-choice word-usage is-it-a-word
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
I've used "kinda" as a word basically meaning "kind of" just run together. I wouldn't use it formally, but I noticed that Microsoft Word's spellchecker says that it isn't a word. I searched some and it seems that I'm not the only one who uses it, but it doesn't seem to be too popular.
So is it an actual word? How accepted is it?
word-choice word-usage is-it-a-word
10
Kinda is a kinda baboon.
– nohat♦
Sep 29 '10 at 17:55
Yes, I noticed that, thank you. :P
– Ullallulloo
Sep 29 '10 at 18:05
9
Makes me think of the mythical alot :) hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/…
– Kosmonaut
Sep 29 '10 at 20:07
22
The obvious answer here of course is "Well, kinda..."
– mickeyf
Sep 30 '10 at 3:20
4
What kinda question is that!
– OneProton
Sep 30 '10 at 18:48
|
show 7 more comments
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
I've used "kinda" as a word basically meaning "kind of" just run together. I wouldn't use it formally, but I noticed that Microsoft Word's spellchecker says that it isn't a word. I searched some and it seems that I'm not the only one who uses it, but it doesn't seem to be too popular.
So is it an actual word? How accepted is it?
word-choice word-usage is-it-a-word
I've used "kinda" as a word basically meaning "kind of" just run together. I wouldn't use it formally, but I noticed that Microsoft Word's spellchecker says that it isn't a word. I searched some and it seems that I'm not the only one who uses it, but it doesn't seem to be too popular.
So is it an actual word? How accepted is it?
word-choice word-usage is-it-a-word
word-choice word-usage is-it-a-word
edited Sep 30 '16 at 18:34
Helmar
4,91472360
4,91472360
asked Sep 29 '10 at 17:26
Ullallulloo
88241124
88241124
10
Kinda is a kinda baboon.
– nohat♦
Sep 29 '10 at 17:55
Yes, I noticed that, thank you. :P
– Ullallulloo
Sep 29 '10 at 18:05
9
Makes me think of the mythical alot :) hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/…
– Kosmonaut
Sep 29 '10 at 20:07
22
The obvious answer here of course is "Well, kinda..."
– mickeyf
Sep 30 '10 at 3:20
4
What kinda question is that!
– OneProton
Sep 30 '10 at 18:48
|
show 7 more comments
10
Kinda is a kinda baboon.
– nohat♦
Sep 29 '10 at 17:55
Yes, I noticed that, thank you. :P
– Ullallulloo
Sep 29 '10 at 18:05
9
Makes me think of the mythical alot :) hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/…
– Kosmonaut
Sep 29 '10 at 20:07
22
The obvious answer here of course is "Well, kinda..."
– mickeyf
Sep 30 '10 at 3:20
4
What kinda question is that!
– OneProton
Sep 30 '10 at 18:48
10
10
Kinda is a kinda baboon.
– nohat♦
Sep 29 '10 at 17:55
Kinda is a kinda baboon.
– nohat♦
Sep 29 '10 at 17:55
Yes, I noticed that, thank you. :P
– Ullallulloo
Sep 29 '10 at 18:05
Yes, I noticed that, thank you. :P
– Ullallulloo
Sep 29 '10 at 18:05
9
9
Makes me think of the mythical alot :) hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/…
– Kosmonaut
Sep 29 '10 at 20:07
Makes me think of the mythical alot :) hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/…
– Kosmonaut
Sep 29 '10 at 20:07
22
22
The obvious answer here of course is "Well, kinda..."
– mickeyf
Sep 30 '10 at 3:20
The obvious answer here of course is "Well, kinda..."
– mickeyf
Sep 30 '10 at 3:20
4
4
What kinda question is that!
– OneProton
Sep 30 '10 at 18:48
What kinda question is that!
– OneProton
Sep 30 '10 at 18:48
|
show 7 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
up vote
19
down vote
accepted
As you said, it means "kind of". It's very informal and you won't find it in dictionaries. In formal contexts, you can use "rather" with the same meaning, e.g.:
It was rather cold.
Note:
"kind of" is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (see below). "Kinda" is not.
Definition:
1: to a moderate degree
2: in a way that approximates : more
or less
Synonyms:
enough, kindly [chiefly Southern],
fairly, like, moderately, more or
less, pretty, quite, rather,
relatively, something, somewhat, sort
of
Yes, of course kinda is a real word. The Dictionary itself even says so.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:51
4
Rather, to me, seems like the opposite of kind of. Rather means "to a large degree", while kind of means "somewhat".
– kotekzot
Apr 13 '12 at 20:46
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has 1650 incidences of kinda:
TOTAL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC
1650 172 1023 244 169 42
It is used overwhelmingly in fiction, and the few examples in newspapers and academic texts are almost exclusively in quotations of spoken English.
So, as the other answers have said, kinda is a pretty informal word, not used in formal texts except in quotations. I personally would only use the word in very informal situations. Its 1650 incidences in COCA are comparable to other adverbs, such as besides (1720), tight (1642), and regardless (1607). As to whether or not it is an “actual” word, I think this is pretty clear evidence that it is. As for its acceptability, it is listed in some dictionaries, including Random House and Merriam-Webster.
It's also in Wordnet.
– Matthew Flaschen
May 18 '11 at 19:22
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Wiktionary contains such words.
The entry for kinda (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinda
) includes:
kinda
(colloquial) kind of
I kinda hafta do this right now.
That's kinda funny.
3
So do real dictionaries.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:54
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
The NOAD reports that kinda is an informal contraction of kind of; it was first used in the early 20th century, and it was originally an American English alternation.
Kind of is an informal phrase for rather.
2
Actually, 'kinda' also occurs for a more literal "kind of", eg "He was some kinda nut!"
– Colin Fine
Oct 1 '10 at 15:32
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
It is a word in spoken language and used in private letter-writing, but has not yet reached the level of recognition as standard language just as words like gonna, or "of" for have and others. One more generation and it is in dictionaries with a note about usage and in two generations it will be a normal variant.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Authorities at Oxford and Webster do not control or shape the English Language, they only define it. In reality, the collective mind of every English speaker shapes the language. And because some words have gained popularity in some groups and not others, the language has spread out into many dialects. If you've ever read Mark Twain, you might have found his works difficult to understand as he wrote in the dialect of the Mississipi region. Now imagine if all English speakers wrote in their own dialect. We would all have to make a great effort to understand each other. Authorities of the English language basically determine what words and grammatical structures the majority of English speakers can understand, so that every English speaker can read books and other published works without trouble. However, not everyone can understand their English. My mother teaches in an inner city school and many of her students struggle in grammar because phrases like "Y'all goin' to the zoo" sound perfectly fine to them as they are grammatically correct in their dialect. So in short, "kinda" is a word, but not in the common dialect that English Authorities provide. When writing, I would consider to what audience the work is intended for. For example, if I were to write an article about the Packers and Bears rivalry, I would use it because people in the Midwestern United States commonly use it. However I would replace it with a word like "rather" or find stronger diction if writing a formal and proper essay to an English Teacher.
1
Welcome to ELU, Matt. You have posted what looks like a legitimate comment as if it were an answer. We value the opinions of every member in our community, but reputation is one of the measures of that value. Take a look around our site, note the best answers, and do your best to emulate them so that you can build enough reputation to post comments in their proper place.
– ScotM
Jun 30 '15 at 19:54
1
ScotM's comment is valid and provides useful advice for getting established on this site—but the question that Matt Luettgen is responding to here seems to invite opinion-based answers (that is, glorified comments) by seeking responses that necessarily hinge on the answerers' views of what constitutes a word.
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:12
@SvenYargs I'm surprised that comment came from you! What constitutes a word is a very important part of the question, and a very important issue for this site :) It's not really a matter of opinion type thing on this kinda site - or it shouldn't be! (Although, I've upticked your comment!)
– Araucaria
Jun 30 '15 at 20:22
1
I read questions of the form "Is X an actual word?" as asking not "Does X exist?" (which it obviously does) but "Is using X appropriate (or legitimate)?"—in which case answerers are invited to apply their personal standards for assessing appropriateness or legitimacy, plunging their answers deep into the territory of opinion (in my opinion).
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:46
@SvenYargs Hmmm, but words have phonetic qualities that random lumps of syllables don't have. They also have syntactic properties too. So for example you might be able to modify one of the words in a group to show that they weren't one word :)
– Araucaria
Jul 4 '15 at 6:41
add a comment |
protected by user140086 Mar 15 '16 at 6:00
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
19
down vote
accepted
As you said, it means "kind of". It's very informal and you won't find it in dictionaries. In formal contexts, you can use "rather" with the same meaning, e.g.:
It was rather cold.
Note:
"kind of" is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (see below). "Kinda" is not.
Definition:
1: to a moderate degree
2: in a way that approximates : more
or less
Synonyms:
enough, kindly [chiefly Southern],
fairly, like, moderately, more or
less, pretty, quite, rather,
relatively, something, somewhat, sort
of
Yes, of course kinda is a real word. The Dictionary itself even says so.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:51
4
Rather, to me, seems like the opposite of kind of. Rather means "to a large degree", while kind of means "somewhat".
– kotekzot
Apr 13 '12 at 20:46
add a comment |
up vote
19
down vote
accepted
As you said, it means "kind of". It's very informal and you won't find it in dictionaries. In formal contexts, you can use "rather" with the same meaning, e.g.:
It was rather cold.
Note:
"kind of" is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (see below). "Kinda" is not.
Definition:
1: to a moderate degree
2: in a way that approximates : more
or less
Synonyms:
enough, kindly [chiefly Southern],
fairly, like, moderately, more or
less, pretty, quite, rather,
relatively, something, somewhat, sort
of
Yes, of course kinda is a real word. The Dictionary itself even says so.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:51
4
Rather, to me, seems like the opposite of kind of. Rather means "to a large degree", while kind of means "somewhat".
– kotekzot
Apr 13 '12 at 20:46
add a comment |
up vote
19
down vote
accepted
up vote
19
down vote
accepted
As you said, it means "kind of". It's very informal and you won't find it in dictionaries. In formal contexts, you can use "rather" with the same meaning, e.g.:
It was rather cold.
Note:
"kind of" is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (see below). "Kinda" is not.
Definition:
1: to a moderate degree
2: in a way that approximates : more
or less
Synonyms:
enough, kindly [chiefly Southern],
fairly, like, moderately, more or
less, pretty, quite, rather,
relatively, something, somewhat, sort
of
As you said, it means "kind of". It's very informal and you won't find it in dictionaries. In formal contexts, you can use "rather" with the same meaning, e.g.:
It was rather cold.
Note:
"kind of" is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (see below). "Kinda" is not.
Definition:
1: to a moderate degree
2: in a way that approximates : more
or less
Synonyms:
enough, kindly [chiefly Southern],
fairly, like, moderately, more or
less, pretty, quite, rather,
relatively, something, somewhat, sort
of
edited Nov 30 '10 at 18:52
mmyers
5,43053451
5,43053451
answered Sep 29 '10 at 17:46
b.roth
16.6k1876121
16.6k1876121
Yes, of course kinda is a real word. The Dictionary itself even says so.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:51
4
Rather, to me, seems like the opposite of kind of. Rather means "to a large degree", while kind of means "somewhat".
– kotekzot
Apr 13 '12 at 20:46
add a comment |
Yes, of course kinda is a real word. The Dictionary itself even says so.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:51
4
Rather, to me, seems like the opposite of kind of. Rather means "to a large degree", while kind of means "somewhat".
– kotekzot
Apr 13 '12 at 20:46
Yes, of course kinda is a real word. The Dictionary itself even says so.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:51
Yes, of course kinda is a real word. The Dictionary itself even says so.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:51
4
4
Rather, to me, seems like the opposite of kind of. Rather means "to a large degree", while kind of means "somewhat".
– kotekzot
Apr 13 '12 at 20:46
Rather, to me, seems like the opposite of kind of. Rather means "to a large degree", while kind of means "somewhat".
– kotekzot
Apr 13 '12 at 20:46
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has 1650 incidences of kinda:
TOTAL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC
1650 172 1023 244 169 42
It is used overwhelmingly in fiction, and the few examples in newspapers and academic texts are almost exclusively in quotations of spoken English.
So, as the other answers have said, kinda is a pretty informal word, not used in formal texts except in quotations. I personally would only use the word in very informal situations. Its 1650 incidences in COCA are comparable to other adverbs, such as besides (1720), tight (1642), and regardless (1607). As to whether or not it is an “actual” word, I think this is pretty clear evidence that it is. As for its acceptability, it is listed in some dictionaries, including Random House and Merriam-Webster.
It's also in Wordnet.
– Matthew Flaschen
May 18 '11 at 19:22
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has 1650 incidences of kinda:
TOTAL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC
1650 172 1023 244 169 42
It is used overwhelmingly in fiction, and the few examples in newspapers and academic texts are almost exclusively in quotations of spoken English.
So, as the other answers have said, kinda is a pretty informal word, not used in formal texts except in quotations. I personally would only use the word in very informal situations. Its 1650 incidences in COCA are comparable to other adverbs, such as besides (1720), tight (1642), and regardless (1607). As to whether or not it is an “actual” word, I think this is pretty clear evidence that it is. As for its acceptability, it is listed in some dictionaries, including Random House and Merriam-Webster.
It's also in Wordnet.
– Matthew Flaschen
May 18 '11 at 19:22
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
up vote
16
down vote
The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has 1650 incidences of kinda:
TOTAL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC
1650 172 1023 244 169 42
It is used overwhelmingly in fiction, and the few examples in newspapers and academic texts are almost exclusively in quotations of spoken English.
So, as the other answers have said, kinda is a pretty informal word, not used in formal texts except in quotations. I personally would only use the word in very informal situations. Its 1650 incidences in COCA are comparable to other adverbs, such as besides (1720), tight (1642), and regardless (1607). As to whether or not it is an “actual” word, I think this is pretty clear evidence that it is. As for its acceptability, it is listed in some dictionaries, including Random House and Merriam-Webster.
The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) has 1650 incidences of kinda:
TOTAL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC
1650 172 1023 244 169 42
It is used overwhelmingly in fiction, and the few examples in newspapers and academic texts are almost exclusively in quotations of spoken English.
So, as the other answers have said, kinda is a pretty informal word, not used in formal texts except in quotations. I personally would only use the word in very informal situations. Its 1650 incidences in COCA are comparable to other adverbs, such as besides (1720), tight (1642), and regardless (1607). As to whether or not it is an “actual” word, I think this is pretty clear evidence that it is. As for its acceptability, it is listed in some dictionaries, including Random House and Merriam-Webster.
edited 1 hour ago
answered Nov 30 '10 at 19:16
nohat♦
59.7k12167236
59.7k12167236
It's also in Wordnet.
– Matthew Flaschen
May 18 '11 at 19:22
add a comment |
It's also in Wordnet.
– Matthew Flaschen
May 18 '11 at 19:22
It's also in Wordnet.
– Matthew Flaschen
May 18 '11 at 19:22
It's also in Wordnet.
– Matthew Flaschen
May 18 '11 at 19:22
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Wiktionary contains such words.
The entry for kinda (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinda
) includes:
kinda
(colloquial) kind of
I kinda hafta do this right now.
That's kinda funny.
3
So do real dictionaries.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:54
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
Wiktionary contains such words.
The entry for kinda (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinda
) includes:
kinda
(colloquial) kind of
I kinda hafta do this right now.
That's kinda funny.
3
So do real dictionaries.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:54
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
Wiktionary contains such words.
The entry for kinda (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinda
) includes:
kinda
(colloquial) kind of
I kinda hafta do this right now.
That's kinda funny.
Wiktionary contains such words.
The entry for kinda (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinda
) includes:
kinda
(colloquial) kind of
I kinda hafta do this right now.
That's kinda funny.
answered Sep 30 '10 at 15:11
Peter Mortensen
2,42862536
2,42862536
3
So do real dictionaries.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:54
add a comment |
3
So do real dictionaries.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:54
3
3
So do real dictionaries.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:54
So do real dictionaries.
– tchrist♦
Feb 3 '12 at 22:54
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
The NOAD reports that kinda is an informal contraction of kind of; it was first used in the early 20th century, and it was originally an American English alternation.
Kind of is an informal phrase for rather.
2
Actually, 'kinda' also occurs for a more literal "kind of", eg "He was some kinda nut!"
– Colin Fine
Oct 1 '10 at 15:32
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
The NOAD reports that kinda is an informal contraction of kind of; it was first used in the early 20th century, and it was originally an American English alternation.
Kind of is an informal phrase for rather.
2
Actually, 'kinda' also occurs for a more literal "kind of", eg "He was some kinda nut!"
– Colin Fine
Oct 1 '10 at 15:32
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
The NOAD reports that kinda is an informal contraction of kind of; it was first used in the early 20th century, and it was originally an American English alternation.
Kind of is an informal phrase for rather.
The NOAD reports that kinda is an informal contraction of kind of; it was first used in the early 20th century, and it was originally an American English alternation.
Kind of is an informal phrase for rather.
answered Sep 29 '10 at 19:44
kiamlaluno
43.4k56180295
43.4k56180295
2
Actually, 'kinda' also occurs for a more literal "kind of", eg "He was some kinda nut!"
– Colin Fine
Oct 1 '10 at 15:32
add a comment |
2
Actually, 'kinda' also occurs for a more literal "kind of", eg "He was some kinda nut!"
– Colin Fine
Oct 1 '10 at 15:32
2
2
Actually, 'kinda' also occurs for a more literal "kind of", eg "He was some kinda nut!"
– Colin Fine
Oct 1 '10 at 15:32
Actually, 'kinda' also occurs for a more literal "kind of", eg "He was some kinda nut!"
– Colin Fine
Oct 1 '10 at 15:32
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
It is a word in spoken language and used in private letter-writing, but has not yet reached the level of recognition as standard language just as words like gonna, or "of" for have and others. One more generation and it is in dictionaries with a note about usage and in two generations it will be a normal variant.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
It is a word in spoken language and used in private letter-writing, but has not yet reached the level of recognition as standard language just as words like gonna, or "of" for have and others. One more generation and it is in dictionaries with a note about usage and in two generations it will be a normal variant.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
It is a word in spoken language and used in private letter-writing, but has not yet reached the level of recognition as standard language just as words like gonna, or "of" for have and others. One more generation and it is in dictionaries with a note about usage and in two generations it will be a normal variant.
It is a word in spoken language and used in private letter-writing, but has not yet reached the level of recognition as standard language just as words like gonna, or "of" for have and others. One more generation and it is in dictionaries with a note about usage and in two generations it will be a normal variant.
answered Jun 19 '15 at 10:01
rogermue
11.7k41647
11.7k41647
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Authorities at Oxford and Webster do not control or shape the English Language, they only define it. In reality, the collective mind of every English speaker shapes the language. And because some words have gained popularity in some groups and not others, the language has spread out into many dialects. If you've ever read Mark Twain, you might have found his works difficult to understand as he wrote in the dialect of the Mississipi region. Now imagine if all English speakers wrote in their own dialect. We would all have to make a great effort to understand each other. Authorities of the English language basically determine what words and grammatical structures the majority of English speakers can understand, so that every English speaker can read books and other published works without trouble. However, not everyone can understand their English. My mother teaches in an inner city school and many of her students struggle in grammar because phrases like "Y'all goin' to the zoo" sound perfectly fine to them as they are grammatically correct in their dialect. So in short, "kinda" is a word, but not in the common dialect that English Authorities provide. When writing, I would consider to what audience the work is intended for. For example, if I were to write an article about the Packers and Bears rivalry, I would use it because people in the Midwestern United States commonly use it. However I would replace it with a word like "rather" or find stronger diction if writing a formal and proper essay to an English Teacher.
1
Welcome to ELU, Matt. You have posted what looks like a legitimate comment as if it were an answer. We value the opinions of every member in our community, but reputation is one of the measures of that value. Take a look around our site, note the best answers, and do your best to emulate them so that you can build enough reputation to post comments in their proper place.
– ScotM
Jun 30 '15 at 19:54
1
ScotM's comment is valid and provides useful advice for getting established on this site—but the question that Matt Luettgen is responding to here seems to invite opinion-based answers (that is, glorified comments) by seeking responses that necessarily hinge on the answerers' views of what constitutes a word.
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:12
@SvenYargs I'm surprised that comment came from you! What constitutes a word is a very important part of the question, and a very important issue for this site :) It's not really a matter of opinion type thing on this kinda site - or it shouldn't be! (Although, I've upticked your comment!)
– Araucaria
Jun 30 '15 at 20:22
1
I read questions of the form "Is X an actual word?" as asking not "Does X exist?" (which it obviously does) but "Is using X appropriate (or legitimate)?"—in which case answerers are invited to apply their personal standards for assessing appropriateness or legitimacy, plunging their answers deep into the territory of opinion (in my opinion).
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:46
@SvenYargs Hmmm, but words have phonetic qualities that random lumps of syllables don't have. They also have syntactic properties too. So for example you might be able to modify one of the words in a group to show that they weren't one word :)
– Araucaria
Jul 4 '15 at 6:41
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Authorities at Oxford and Webster do not control or shape the English Language, they only define it. In reality, the collective mind of every English speaker shapes the language. And because some words have gained popularity in some groups and not others, the language has spread out into many dialects. If you've ever read Mark Twain, you might have found his works difficult to understand as he wrote in the dialect of the Mississipi region. Now imagine if all English speakers wrote in their own dialect. We would all have to make a great effort to understand each other. Authorities of the English language basically determine what words and grammatical structures the majority of English speakers can understand, so that every English speaker can read books and other published works without trouble. However, not everyone can understand their English. My mother teaches in an inner city school and many of her students struggle in grammar because phrases like "Y'all goin' to the zoo" sound perfectly fine to them as they are grammatically correct in their dialect. So in short, "kinda" is a word, but not in the common dialect that English Authorities provide. When writing, I would consider to what audience the work is intended for. For example, if I were to write an article about the Packers and Bears rivalry, I would use it because people in the Midwestern United States commonly use it. However I would replace it with a word like "rather" or find stronger diction if writing a formal and proper essay to an English Teacher.
1
Welcome to ELU, Matt. You have posted what looks like a legitimate comment as if it were an answer. We value the opinions of every member in our community, but reputation is one of the measures of that value. Take a look around our site, note the best answers, and do your best to emulate them so that you can build enough reputation to post comments in their proper place.
– ScotM
Jun 30 '15 at 19:54
1
ScotM's comment is valid and provides useful advice for getting established on this site—but the question that Matt Luettgen is responding to here seems to invite opinion-based answers (that is, glorified comments) by seeking responses that necessarily hinge on the answerers' views of what constitutes a word.
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:12
@SvenYargs I'm surprised that comment came from you! What constitutes a word is a very important part of the question, and a very important issue for this site :) It's not really a matter of opinion type thing on this kinda site - or it shouldn't be! (Although, I've upticked your comment!)
– Araucaria
Jun 30 '15 at 20:22
1
I read questions of the form "Is X an actual word?" as asking not "Does X exist?" (which it obviously does) but "Is using X appropriate (or legitimate)?"—in which case answerers are invited to apply their personal standards for assessing appropriateness or legitimacy, plunging their answers deep into the territory of opinion (in my opinion).
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:46
@SvenYargs Hmmm, but words have phonetic qualities that random lumps of syllables don't have. They also have syntactic properties too. So for example you might be able to modify one of the words in a group to show that they weren't one word :)
– Araucaria
Jul 4 '15 at 6:41
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Authorities at Oxford and Webster do not control or shape the English Language, they only define it. In reality, the collective mind of every English speaker shapes the language. And because some words have gained popularity in some groups and not others, the language has spread out into many dialects. If you've ever read Mark Twain, you might have found his works difficult to understand as he wrote in the dialect of the Mississipi region. Now imagine if all English speakers wrote in their own dialect. We would all have to make a great effort to understand each other. Authorities of the English language basically determine what words and grammatical structures the majority of English speakers can understand, so that every English speaker can read books and other published works without trouble. However, not everyone can understand their English. My mother teaches in an inner city school and many of her students struggle in grammar because phrases like "Y'all goin' to the zoo" sound perfectly fine to them as they are grammatically correct in their dialect. So in short, "kinda" is a word, but not in the common dialect that English Authorities provide. When writing, I would consider to what audience the work is intended for. For example, if I were to write an article about the Packers and Bears rivalry, I would use it because people in the Midwestern United States commonly use it. However I would replace it with a word like "rather" or find stronger diction if writing a formal and proper essay to an English Teacher.
Authorities at Oxford and Webster do not control or shape the English Language, they only define it. In reality, the collective mind of every English speaker shapes the language. And because some words have gained popularity in some groups and not others, the language has spread out into many dialects. If you've ever read Mark Twain, you might have found his works difficult to understand as he wrote in the dialect of the Mississipi region. Now imagine if all English speakers wrote in their own dialect. We would all have to make a great effort to understand each other. Authorities of the English language basically determine what words and grammatical structures the majority of English speakers can understand, so that every English speaker can read books and other published works without trouble. However, not everyone can understand their English. My mother teaches in an inner city school and many of her students struggle in grammar because phrases like "Y'all goin' to the zoo" sound perfectly fine to them as they are grammatically correct in their dialect. So in short, "kinda" is a word, but not in the common dialect that English Authorities provide. When writing, I would consider to what audience the work is intended for. For example, if I were to write an article about the Packers and Bears rivalry, I would use it because people in the Midwestern United States commonly use it. However I would replace it with a word like "rather" or find stronger diction if writing a formal and proper essay to an English Teacher.
answered Jun 30 '15 at 18:50
Matt Luettgen
111
111
1
Welcome to ELU, Matt. You have posted what looks like a legitimate comment as if it were an answer. We value the opinions of every member in our community, but reputation is one of the measures of that value. Take a look around our site, note the best answers, and do your best to emulate them so that you can build enough reputation to post comments in their proper place.
– ScotM
Jun 30 '15 at 19:54
1
ScotM's comment is valid and provides useful advice for getting established on this site—but the question that Matt Luettgen is responding to here seems to invite opinion-based answers (that is, glorified comments) by seeking responses that necessarily hinge on the answerers' views of what constitutes a word.
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:12
@SvenYargs I'm surprised that comment came from you! What constitutes a word is a very important part of the question, and a very important issue for this site :) It's not really a matter of opinion type thing on this kinda site - or it shouldn't be! (Although, I've upticked your comment!)
– Araucaria
Jun 30 '15 at 20:22
1
I read questions of the form "Is X an actual word?" as asking not "Does X exist?" (which it obviously does) but "Is using X appropriate (or legitimate)?"—in which case answerers are invited to apply their personal standards for assessing appropriateness or legitimacy, plunging their answers deep into the territory of opinion (in my opinion).
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:46
@SvenYargs Hmmm, but words have phonetic qualities that random lumps of syllables don't have. They also have syntactic properties too. So for example you might be able to modify one of the words in a group to show that they weren't one word :)
– Araucaria
Jul 4 '15 at 6:41
add a comment |
1
Welcome to ELU, Matt. You have posted what looks like a legitimate comment as if it were an answer. We value the opinions of every member in our community, but reputation is one of the measures of that value. Take a look around our site, note the best answers, and do your best to emulate them so that you can build enough reputation to post comments in their proper place.
– ScotM
Jun 30 '15 at 19:54
1
ScotM's comment is valid and provides useful advice for getting established on this site—but the question that Matt Luettgen is responding to here seems to invite opinion-based answers (that is, glorified comments) by seeking responses that necessarily hinge on the answerers' views of what constitutes a word.
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:12
@SvenYargs I'm surprised that comment came from you! What constitutes a word is a very important part of the question, and a very important issue for this site :) It's not really a matter of opinion type thing on this kinda site - or it shouldn't be! (Although, I've upticked your comment!)
– Araucaria
Jun 30 '15 at 20:22
1
I read questions of the form "Is X an actual word?" as asking not "Does X exist?" (which it obviously does) but "Is using X appropriate (or legitimate)?"—in which case answerers are invited to apply their personal standards for assessing appropriateness or legitimacy, plunging their answers deep into the territory of opinion (in my opinion).
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:46
@SvenYargs Hmmm, but words have phonetic qualities that random lumps of syllables don't have. They also have syntactic properties too. So for example you might be able to modify one of the words in a group to show that they weren't one word :)
– Araucaria
Jul 4 '15 at 6:41
1
1
Welcome to ELU, Matt. You have posted what looks like a legitimate comment as if it were an answer. We value the opinions of every member in our community, but reputation is one of the measures of that value. Take a look around our site, note the best answers, and do your best to emulate them so that you can build enough reputation to post comments in their proper place.
– ScotM
Jun 30 '15 at 19:54
Welcome to ELU, Matt. You have posted what looks like a legitimate comment as if it were an answer. We value the opinions of every member in our community, but reputation is one of the measures of that value. Take a look around our site, note the best answers, and do your best to emulate them so that you can build enough reputation to post comments in their proper place.
– ScotM
Jun 30 '15 at 19:54
1
1
ScotM's comment is valid and provides useful advice for getting established on this site—but the question that Matt Luettgen is responding to here seems to invite opinion-based answers (that is, glorified comments) by seeking responses that necessarily hinge on the answerers' views of what constitutes a word.
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:12
ScotM's comment is valid and provides useful advice for getting established on this site—but the question that Matt Luettgen is responding to here seems to invite opinion-based answers (that is, glorified comments) by seeking responses that necessarily hinge on the answerers' views of what constitutes a word.
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:12
@SvenYargs I'm surprised that comment came from you! What constitutes a word is a very important part of the question, and a very important issue for this site :) It's not really a matter of opinion type thing on this kinda site - or it shouldn't be! (Although, I've upticked your comment!)
– Araucaria
Jun 30 '15 at 20:22
@SvenYargs I'm surprised that comment came from you! What constitutes a word is a very important part of the question, and a very important issue for this site :) It's not really a matter of opinion type thing on this kinda site - or it shouldn't be! (Although, I've upticked your comment!)
– Araucaria
Jun 30 '15 at 20:22
1
1
I read questions of the form "Is X an actual word?" as asking not "Does X exist?" (which it obviously does) but "Is using X appropriate (or legitimate)?"—in which case answerers are invited to apply their personal standards for assessing appropriateness or legitimacy, plunging their answers deep into the territory of opinion (in my opinion).
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:46
I read questions of the form "Is X an actual word?" as asking not "Does X exist?" (which it obviously does) but "Is using X appropriate (or legitimate)?"—in which case answerers are invited to apply their personal standards for assessing appropriateness or legitimacy, plunging their answers deep into the territory of opinion (in my opinion).
– Sven Yargs
Jun 30 '15 at 20:46
@SvenYargs Hmmm, but words have phonetic qualities that random lumps of syllables don't have. They also have syntactic properties too. So for example you might be able to modify one of the words in a group to show that they weren't one word :)
– Araucaria
Jul 4 '15 at 6:41
@SvenYargs Hmmm, but words have phonetic qualities that random lumps of syllables don't have. They also have syntactic properties too. So for example you might be able to modify one of the words in a group to show that they weren't one word :)
– Araucaria
Jul 4 '15 at 6:41
add a comment |
protected by user140086 Mar 15 '16 at 6:00
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
10
Kinda is a kinda baboon.
– nohat♦
Sep 29 '10 at 17:55
Yes, I noticed that, thank you. :P
– Ullallulloo
Sep 29 '10 at 18:05
9
Makes me think of the mythical alot :) hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/…
– Kosmonaut
Sep 29 '10 at 20:07
22
The obvious answer here of course is "Well, kinda..."
– mickeyf
Sep 30 '10 at 3:20
4
What kinda question is that!
– OneProton
Sep 30 '10 at 18:48