Is funnier a word or is it more funny

Is “Funnier” A Word? 

Comparative diction in English can be a very challenging thing. Some words have comparatives built-in, while others need to be paired with “more” or “less” to be correct. Funny, however, has its own unique rules and can change depending on how you are using it. 

In short, “funnier” is technically a word; however it has its specific usage rules and cannot be substituted in for “more/less funny.” to clear things up, “funnier” is a word that can be used in specific comparative situations. In contrast “less funny” is more apt for talking about situations that lack humor. In addition, “more funny” is also a correct term technically. However, it can be clunky and has lost popularity over the years. 

How To Use “Funnier” And “Less Funny” 

First, “funnier” is a correct term that can be used to compare situations with a lot of humor. This works because the comparison “-ier” is built-in grammatically correct. For example, you could use this word in a sentence like, “I think that Mark’s presentation was funnier than Dan’s.” 

You should probably avoid using “more funny” in these situations, as most think it’s clunky. Although it is correct to use, “funnier” is more widely accepted in today’s day and age. 

Lastly, you should use “less funny” to describe situations that aren’t funny. This works best because there isn’t a built-in comparative to say “less funny,” and it simply sounds better in the end. For instance, you could say something along the lines of, “I think that Dan’s presentation was a lot less funny than Mark’s.” 

Using “More” And “Less” With Funny

You can technically use “more” and “less” with funny, and in some cases, it is even suggested. However, there are some situations where “more” and “less” become very important. If you find something moderately funny or feel apathetic about it, you can use “more/less funny” to describe your feelings. 

For instance, you could say, “I found the book more or less funny,” or “I found it more funny than not.” Statements such as these allow your reader to know that you thought something was mildly funny.

Examples Of Using “Funnier” And “Less Funny” 

Here are some basic examples of correctly using “funnier” and “less funny.”  

• I didn’t enjoy my night. I was expecting the board game to be more fun. 
• After careful deliberation, we think that Ramon’s presentation was funnier than everyone else’s. 
• That amusement park was a lot less fun than I had hoped for.

Related: A lesson on “Fewer” and “Less”

Want to sharpen your business writing skills? Discover our acclaimed online courses at syntaxtraining.com Whether you want to learn about taking taking meeting notes, become a master proofreader, master punctuation or tune-up your business writing skills, our courses are here to help you.

As is the case with most English and grammar related topics, people tend to have strong opinions one way or the other. Today’s topic is no different, and I expect this post to elicit some strong opinions between the two primary camps.

On the one side, you have those who say that fun can never take the comparative and superlative endings that are typical of adjectives, i.e., funner, funnest.

On the other side, you have those who say that fun is well established as an adjective in writing and speech, and, therefore, must be allowed to inflect like one.

Is Funner a Real Word: How about Funnest?

In this post, I hope to reach some type of middle ground between these two camps and advise the average writer on how to proceed with the word fun. Is funner a word? Is funnest a word?

Let’s find out.

Is Fun a Noun?

What everyone agrees on is the fact that fun is a noun. It emerged as such in the late 17th century as a “cant” or slang word.

• We had fun at the party last night.
• Riding a motorcycle is great fun.
• Seibert also brings in the matter of personality—charisma and charm, which are crucial matters in tap—and he has some fun with people who were short on it. –The New Yorker

The phrase “we had fun” is the grammatical equivalent of “we had pizza.”

• We had fun at the party last night.
• We had pizza at the party last night.

Yes, fun is more of an abstract idea than a physical pizza, but they both function as nouns in such a sentence.

Is Fun an Adjective?

The differences in opinion only arise when the following question is asked, “Can fun be an adjective?”

• That was a fun movie.
• We had a fun time.
• The beach is a fun place.

In all of the above sentences, fun is being used as if it were an adjective. Is this acceptable? That depends, largely, on whom you ask and their age.

As I mentioned above, everyone agrees that fun is a noun, and for more than 200 years, it functioned almost exclusively as a noun.

Sometime in the early-to-mid 1900s its use began to drift, probably as a result of its quasi-adjective/ambiguous use in phrases like “a fun fair” or sentences like “It is fun to ski.” It’s still being used as a noun in these two examples, but it looks as if it could be an adjective. This ambiguity probably led to its misuse.

Traditionalists hold that fun can only function as an noun, while others claim it can be an adjective too.

The Oxford English Dictionary states that the use of fun as an attributive adjective (a fun trip) is now established in informal use but is not accepted in Standard English. The American Heritage Dictionary advises writers to avoid it in formal writing.

This would be my advice as well. If you want your writing to appear authoritative, I would advise you not to use fun as an adjective. If you are writing a research paper, job cover letter, resume, college application, etc., you should avoid this use and hold to the traditional rule:

• Fun is a noun, not an adjective.

While the use of fun as an attributive adjective (a fun time) is common to hear in informal speech, the comparative and superlative forms funner and funnest, as if fun were a standard adjective, is another matter altogether.

Outside of direct quotations, usually those of small children, the use of funner is almost universally rejected and almost never appears in printed sources.

The above graph charts funner vs. more fun in books since 1800. In the past 200 years, funner has barely even registered in these print sources across American and British English.

The same goes for funnest; you can hardly make out the line of its printed use.

This should be expected, of course. These types of nonstandard words are usually only found in speech and not in edited prose.

What’s the Bottom Line?

When asked the question, “Should I write funner or more fun?” I answer unequivocally more fun. I say this for a few reasons.

First, I am among the group of writers who find funner and funnest to be particularly grating, so, on some level, it is a personal preference.

Second, I think this is the majority consensus of readers and writers. With the popular use of these two forms, more fun or funner / most fun or funnest, so incredibly lopsided, it is clear to see what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

More fun is accepted; funner is not.

Most fun is accepted; funnest is not.

If you want to be taken seriously as a writer or you are an ESL student learning the language, do not use funner or funnest or your writing.

Summary

Fun is increasingly being used as an attributive adjective in informal contexts.

If one were doing a piece of formal writing, research paper, resume, cover letter, dissertation, etc., I would advise the writer to steer clear of fun as an adjective.

Avoid completely the words funner and funnest.

A search of Google Books for the phrases «the more funny» does turn up a few relevant matches, though some of the matches returned are not relevant because they involve the form «the more X, the more Y,» where either X or Y = «funny things» (for example), so more in those cases is modifying things, not funny. Still, the admirable G.K. Chesterton, in Heretics (1905) uses «more funny» in a situation where, as far as I can see, he could have used «funnier»:

The question of whether Swift was funny in his irony is quite another sort of question to the question of whether Swift was serious in his pessimism. Surely even Mr. McCabe would not maintain that the more funny «Gulliver» is in its method the less it can be sincere in its object. The truth is, as I have said, that in this sense the two qualities of fun and seriousness have nothing whatever to do with each other, they are no more comparable than black and triangular. Mr. Bernard Shaw is funny and sincere. Mr. George Robey is funny and not sincere. Mr. McCabe is sincere and not funny. The average Cabinet Minister is not sincere and not funny.

Likewise, in an 1890 translation of George Sand, Nanon (1890):

When he next came he expected to have been thanked and kissed for it [the gift of a dress and a hat]. Not at all ; she was dissatisfied because her shoes were low and plain,—she wanted high heels and rosettes. This too amused him ; he was always amused by her grand-princess fashions. The more he hated the nobility the more funny he thought it to see this little irreconcilable offshoot from a noble stem, that he could have crushed between his finger and thumb, fly in his face and order him about at pleasure.

And from Graham Greene, Journey Without Maps (1936):

They [African native people] wore uniforms, occupied official positions, went to parties at Government House, had the vote, but they knew all the time they were funny (oh, those peals of laughter!), funny to the heartless prefect eye of the white man. If they had been slaves they would have had mo dignity; there is no shame in being ruled by a stranger, but these men had been given their tin shacks, their cathedral, their votes and city councils, their shadow of self-government; they were expected to play the part like white men and the more they copied white men, the more funny it was to the prefects.

In all three of these quotations it seems possible that the author’s (or translator’s) desire to retain a visible more to match the more in the parallel construction may have prompted the use of «the more funny.»

A search for the phrase «the most funny» yields fewer matches because there is no «the most X, the most Y» form to encourage its use. But matches do occur, sometimes influenced by other parallel forms. For example, from Scottish Notes and Queries (October 1887):

Bruin’s brochure will appear under every advantage as to typographic accuracy and beauty, adorned with the most curious cuts, the most funny and fantastic figures ; the most grotesque letterings, and the most delectable sculptures.

And here is G.K. Chesterton again, in The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic (1929):

In that one extraordinary phrase [«strange heresies and even bearded and wedded clergy,» in Truth magazine], The word «strange» is strange enough. The word «heresy» is stranger. Perhaps at first sight the word «bearded,» with its joyous reminiscences of the game of Beaver, may appear the most funny. «Wedded» is also funny. Even the «and» between bearded and wedded is funny. But by far the funniest and most fantastic thing in all that fantastic sentence is the word «even.»

And from a letter written by Benjamin Disraeli in mid-December 1853, reprinted in Benjamin Disraeli Letters: 1852–1856 (1997):

But the most funny thing of all, & the most delightful is, that Palmn. has contrived to land the Peelites with the Movement party! Remember Gladstone’s Conservative Peroration this time last year!

So in answer to your question, you most certainly can choose to use «more funny» or «most funny» instead of «funnier» or «funniest,» and not be alone and unprecedented in your word choice. But as you know, the overwhelming tendency in English runs in the other direction.