Is “kinda” a word?











up vote
17
down vote

favorite
2












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?










share|improve this question




















  • 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















up vote
17
down vote

favorite
2












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?










share|improve this question




















  • 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













up vote
17
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
17
down vote

favorite
2






2





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?










share|improve this question















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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








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














  • 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










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







share|improve this answer























  • 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


















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.






share|improve this answer























  • It's also in Wordnet.
    – Matthew Flaschen
    May 18 '11 at 19:22


















up vote
7
down vote













Wiktionary contains such words.



The entry for kinda (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinda) includes:




kinda





  1. (colloquial) kind of



    I kinda hafta do this right now.



    That's kinda funny.









share|improve this answer

















  • 3




    So do real dictionaries.
    – tchrist
    Feb 3 '12 at 22:54


















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.






share|improve this answer

















  • 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


















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.






share|improve this answer




























    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.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 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










    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







    share|improve this answer























    • 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















    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







    share|improve this answer























    • 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













    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







    share|improve this answer














    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








    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    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


















    • 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












    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.






    share|improve this answer























    • It's also in Wordnet.
      – Matthew Flaschen
      May 18 '11 at 19:22















    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.






    share|improve this answer























    • It's also in Wordnet.
      – Matthew Flaschen
      May 18 '11 at 19:22













    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.






    share|improve this answer














    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.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    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


















    • 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










    up vote
    7
    down vote













    Wiktionary contains such words.



    The entry for kinda (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinda) includes:




    kinda





    1. (colloquial) kind of



      I kinda hafta do this right now.



      That's kinda funny.









    share|improve this answer

















    • 3




      So do real dictionaries.
      – tchrist
      Feb 3 '12 at 22:54















    up vote
    7
    down vote













    Wiktionary contains such words.



    The entry for kinda (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinda) includes:




    kinda





    1. (colloquial) kind of



      I kinda hafta do this right now.



      That's kinda funny.









    share|improve this answer

















    • 3




      So do real dictionaries.
      – tchrist
      Feb 3 '12 at 22:54













    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





    1. (colloquial) kind of



      I kinda hafta do this right now.



      That's kinda funny.









    share|improve this answer












    Wiktionary contains such words.



    The entry for kinda (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kinda) includes:




    kinda





    1. (colloquial) kind of



      I kinda hafta do this right now.



      That's kinda funny.










    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    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














    • 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










    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.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 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















    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.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 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













    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.






    share|improve this answer












    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.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    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














    • 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










    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.






    share|improve this answer

























      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.






      share|improve this answer























        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.






        share|improve this answer












        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.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Jun 19 '15 at 10:01









        rogermue

        11.7k41647




        11.7k41647






















            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.






            share|improve this answer

















            • 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















            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.






            share|improve this answer

















            • 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













            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.






            share|improve this answer












            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.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            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














            • 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





            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?



            Popular posts from this blog

            What visual should I use to simply compare current year value vs last year in Power BI desktop

            How to ignore python UserWarning in pytest?

            Alexandru Averescu