Where as one word or two

6-minute read
(27 & 28 of 44 commonly confused words)

(This is an updated and substantially expanded version of an earlier post.)

Where as???

Yonks ago, reading The Times, I was struck by this sentence: ‘He was apolitical. He never mentioned Iraq, where as some students were vociferous.’

Hence this post.

Is it correct to write whereas as two words nowadays?

Short (and long) answer: no.

Moreover, any spellchecker software worth its salt will flag it up for you.

It had never occurred to me before that whereas might be two words.

Of course, it could easily be since it is simply a combination of where and as.

Several ‘words’ are sometimes written as one unit and sometimes as two, for example under way and underway, on line and online, and so forth. Sometimes, whether you write them one way or t’other is simply a matter of house style or language variety or personal preference. At other times, the difference can be grammatical, e.g. anymore.

But whereas is not one of those. No current dictionary that I know of accepts the two-word spelling. In contrast, the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors specifically cites whereas (along with whereabouts, whereby, whereof, wheresoever, and whereupon) as ‘words’ that must be conjoined.

A quick check in the Oxford English Corpus (OEC) shows that whereas whereas as a single word appears over 100,000 times, as two words it’s in the hundreds.

The ratio is somewhat higher in the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), giving where as at around 3 per cent of occurrences, and in the Global Corpus of Web-based English (GloWbE) it is even higher, at around 6 per cent.

In that last corpus how often it is used per million words varies considerably from country to country (data from 20 countries is included). By that yardstick, British English usage is 50 per cent higher than U.S. or Canadian. Intriguingly, highest of all is Pakistan, at nearly twice the British English frequency.

It is impossible to give an exact figure for it as two words because searching for the string where as also retrieves sentences such as ‘Wolfowitz joined the bank in 2005 after working at the Pentagon, where as deputy defense secretary he was…’. However, a quick visual scan of where as suggests at least 95 per cent are miswritings of whereas. As has been pointed out, a more fastidious punctuator would have inserted a comma between where and as in examples like the one just cited, but the modern fashion is that less is definitely more in terms of commas.

The OEC data also suggests that split where as occurs often in news and blog sources (come back subs, all is forgiven!). Just what do they teach those journalists these days?

Was it ever two words?

Historically, it was originally two words. In its very earliest use – in a written citation from about 1350 – it was a relative adverb corresponding to where, a use which is preserved in The Book of Common Prayer (1549) section on Holy Communion:

That … oure heartes maye surely there bee fixed, where as true ioyes are to be founde.

The earliest OED example of whereas used as a subordinating conjunction is from The Paston Letters (1426–7), in the meaning, now largely confined to legal writing (of which more later), ‘taking into consideration the fact that’:

Where as þe seyd William Paston, by assignement and commaundement of þe seyd Duk of Norffolk…was þe styward of þe seyd Duc of Norffolk.

(As you will no doubt have worked out, the þ symbol stands for the ‘th’ sound. It was used in Old English, is still used in Icelandic, and is called a thorn since it begins that word.)

In its principal modern meaning (‘in contrast’) to introduce a concessive clause, it first appears in Coverdale’s Bible (1535), also as two words:

There are layed vp for vs dwellynges of health & fredome, where as we haue lyued euell.

(From Book 2 of Esdras, not included in the AV.)

The first OED citation for it as one word is in Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 1 (written before 1616).

I deriued am From Lionel Duke of Clarence…; whereas hee, From Iohn of Gaunt doth bring his Pedigree.

So, while there are historical precedents for the two-word spelling, whereas is one of those words that current spelling convention decrees should not be sundered.

As the first clause, beginning a sentence?

Majority usage seems to favour putting the concessive clause introduced by whereas as the second (or further) part of the sentence, as in the Shakespearean example earlier and as in the following:

He’s the one who is moving on whereas her parents are stuck with the story, are stuck in the past.

He lived through his era, whereas so many of his friends died in racing accidents.

It is worth noting that the comma preceding whereas seems to be optional in these examples, though I think, being generally a pro-comma man, I would often be tempted to insert one,

Now, the clause starting with Whereas is quite often put first in the sentence, as in this next example:

Whereas there used to be a dozen different sets of potentially applicable organic standards, now there’s only one.

Some people object mightily to this use and suggest that it is somehow wrong. My counterarguments would be that a) it is widespread (which isn’t, admittedly, necessarily a recommendation); b) putting it first makes it possible to give end focus to the second clause, as in the example above; and c) that the OED notes ‘(The principal clause usually precedes, but sometimes follows as in 2.)’. The number 2 the OED refers to is that legal use as a preamble we’ve already encountered.

As regards relative frequencies of the two structures, a simple comparison of whereas and Whereas in a carefully balanced OEC general corpus gives a ratio of very roughly 4:1. However, in a corpus of academic journals, that ratio increases to about 13:1 – which suggests that the academics in question prefer to go with the traditional clause order – or their editors do.

That ‘legal’ whereas

We’ve just looked at whereas used to connect clauses while contrasting them.

As in the Paston Letter quotation earlier, the word is often used, especially in U.S. laws, to introduce a clause, or usually several clauses, setting out the reasons for something.

Brian Garner, the doyen of writing on legal usage, suggests that such use in a preamble is the ‘archetypal legalism’ and is best replaced by a heading such as Recitals or Background, containing simple clauses. He also notes that whereas one arbiter of style has disparaged the use of whereas instead of while as ‘stuffy’, whereas can play a useful role: it is preferable to while when while is potentially ambiguous as between its temporal and its concessive meaning:

I developed the arguments and marshaled authorities, while [read whereas if the idea of simultaneity is absent] she wrote the brief itself.

Does it have other meanings?

Yes.

1. Historically, it was used adverbially to mean simply ‘where’, as noted at the beginning of this post and repeated below, but that use died out long ago, except as a poetic archaism, as illustrated in the second quotation below from the Arts & Crafts designer and writer William Morris:

That…oure heartes maye surely there bee fixed, where as true ioyes are to be founde.

And quickly too he gat | Unto the place whereas the Lady sat.

W. Morris, Earthly Paradise ii. 655, 1868.

2. Whereas is also a noun.

It can mean ‘A statement introduced by “whereas”; the preamble of a formal document.’

While the contrary remains unproved, such a Whereas must be a most inadequate ground for the present Bill.

S. T. Coleridge, Plot Discovered 23, 1795.

The rule seems to be that if a candidate can recite half a dozen policy positions by rote and name some foreign nations and leaders, one shouldn’t point out that he sure seems a few whereases shy of an executive order.

Slate.com, 2000.

The above is a superlative example of the creative potential of the idiom frame ‘a few X short/shy of a Y’, e.g. ‘a few fries short of a Happy Meal’.

As a further historical footnote, it is interesting that the legalistic, ritual use of whereas as a preamble to legal documents led to its being used as a noun, defined as follows in the Urban Dictionary of its day, Grose’s 1796 Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue: 

To follow a whereas; to become a bankrupt…: the notice given in the Gazette that a commission of bankruptcy is issued out against any trader, always beginning with the word whereas.

---

References

“whereas, adv. and conj. (and n.).” OED Online, Oxford University Press, December 2020, oed.com/view/Entry/228215. Accessed 4 January 2021.

Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage, 3rd edn. Accessed online 4 January 2021.

New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors, eds., Stevenson, A. and Brown. L. Accessed online 4 January 2021.

.

There are some rules for joining two different words into one, but they do not cover all cases

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT JOINING WORDS TOGETHER

Is it correct to write bath tub, or should it be the single word bathtub? Is every day a correct spelling, or everyday? Uncertainties like this are widespread in English, even among proficient users. They are made worse by the fact that in some cases both spellings are correct, but mean different things.

Are there any guidelines for resolving such uncertainties? It seems that in some cases there are and in some there are not. I wish here to indicate some of these guidelines. They mostly involve combinations that can make either one word or two, depending on meaning or grammar.

.

ORDINARY COMPOUNDS

Ordinary compounds are the area with the fewest guidelines. They include words like coursework, which I like to write as a single word but my Microsoft Word spellchecker tells me should be two. As a linguist, I usually disregard computer advice about language (see 68. How Computers Get Grammar Wrong), but the question of why ordinary compound words give especial problems is interesting. First, these words need to be defined.

One can think of a compound as two or more words joined together. Linguists, though, like to speak of joined roots or stems rather than words, partly because the joining into a compound stops them being words (a few are not even words by themselves, e.g. horti- in horticulture).

Another problem with “joined words” is that some, such as fearless, are not considered compounds at all. The -less ending is called not a “root” but an “affix”, a meaningful word part added to a root to modify its meaning. Most affixes (some named suffixes, e.g. -less, -ness, -tion, -ly, -ing; some prefixes, e.g. -un-, in-, mis-, pre-) cannot be separate words, but a few like -less can (see 106. Word-Like Suffixes and 146. Some Important Prefix Types). Thus, words like fearless, unhappy and international are not compounds because they have fewer than two roots. Other compounds are swimsuit, homework and eavesdrop.

Suggestions for recognising a compound are not always very helpful. The frequency of words occurring together is no guide because it ignores the fact that many frequent combinations are not compounds (e.g. town hall and open air). The grammatical classes of the words and the closeness of the link between them are sometimes mentioned, but are unreliable. The age of a combination is also suggested, the claim being that compounds originate as two separate words, and gradually evolve through constant use first into hyphenated expressions (like fire-eater or speed-read – see 223. Uses of Hyphens), and eventually into compounds. However, some quite recent words are already compounds, such as bitmap in computing.

Much more useful is the way compounds are pronounced. Single English words generally contain one syllable that is pronounced more strongly than the others (see 125. Stress and Emphasis). This means compounds should have just one strong syllable, while non-compounds should have more. The rule applies fairly universally (see 243. Pronunciation Secrets, #3). For example, home is the only strong syllable in homework, but one of two in home rule. I write coursework as one word because course- is stronger than work.

The only problem with this approach is that you have to know pronunciations before you start, which is not always the case if English is not your mother tongue. The only other resort is a dictionary or spellcheck!

.

NOUNS DERIVED FROM PHRASAL VERBS

Happily, some compound words have some other helpful features. Most are words whose roots, if written as two words, are also correct but have different meaning and grammar, so that the meaning indicates the spelling or vice versa. A particularly large category of such words is illustrated by the compound noun giveaway (= “obvious clue”). If its two roots are written separately as give away, they become a “phrasal” verb – a combination of a simple English verb (give) with a small adverb (away) – meaning “unintentionally reveal” (see 244. Special Uses of GIVE, #12).

There are many other nouns that can become phrasal verbs, e.g. takeover, takeaway, makeup, cutoff, breakout, setdown, pickup, washout, login and stopover. In writing there is always a need to remember that, if the two “words” are going to act as a verb, they must be spelled separately, but if they are going to act as a noun, they must be written together.

.

OTHER CHOICES THAT DEPEND ON WORD CLASS

In the examples above, it is the choice between noun and verb uses that determines the spelling. Other grammatical choices can have this effect too. The two alternative spellings mentioned earlier, every day and everyday, are an example. The first (with ev- and day said equally strongly) acts in sentences like a noun or adverb, the second (with ev- the strongest) like an adjective. Compare: 

(a) NOUN: Every day is different.

(b) ADVERB: Dentists recommend cleaning your teeth every day.

(c) ADJECTIVE: Everyday necessities are expensive. 

In (a), every day is noun-like because it is the subject of the verb is (for details of subjects, see 12. Singular and Plural Verb Choices). In (b), the same words act like an adverb, because they give more information about a verb (cleaning) and could easily be replaced by a more familiar adverb like regularly or thoroughly (see 120. Six Things to Know about Adverbs). In (c), the single word everyday appears before a noun (necessities), giving information about it just as any adjective might (see 109. Placing an Adjective after its Noun). It is easily replaced by a more recognizable adjective like regular or daily. For more about every, see 169. “All”, “Each” and “Every”.

Another example of a noun/adverb contrast is any more (as in …cannot pay any more) versus anymore (…cannot pay anymore). In the first, any more is the object of pay and means “more than this amount”, while in the second anymore is not the object of pay (we have to understand something like money instead), and has the adverb meaning “for a longer time”.

A further adverb/adjective contrast is on board versus onboard. I once saw an aeroplane advertisement wrongly saying *available onboard – using an adjective to do an adverb job. The adverb on board is needed because it “describes” an adjective (available). The adjective form cannot be used because there is no noun to describe (see 6. Adjectives with no Noun 1). A correct adjective use would be onboard availability.

Slightly different is alright versus all right. The single word is either an adjective meaning “acceptable” or “undamaged”, as in The system is alright, or an adverb meaning “acceptably”, as in The system works alright. The two words all right, on the other hand, are only an adjective, different in meaning from the adjective alright: they mean “100% correct”. Thus, Your answers are all right means that there are no wrong answers, whereas Your answers are alright means that the answers are acceptable, without indicating how many are right.

Consider also upstairs and up stairs. The single word could be either an adjective (the upstairs room) or an adverb (go upstairs) or a noun (the upstairs). It refers essentially to “the floor above”, without necessarily implying the presence of stairs at all – one could, for example, go upstairs in a lift (see 154. Lone Prepositions after BE). The separated words, by contrast, act only like an adverb and do mean literally “by using stairs” (see 218. Tricky Word Contrasts 8, #3).

The pair may be and maybe illustrates a verb and adverb use:

(d) VERB: Food prices may be higher.

(e) ADVERB: Food prices are maybe higher.

In (e), the verb is are. The adverb maybe, which modifies its meaning, could be replaced by perhaps or possibly. Indeed, in formal writing it should be so replaced because maybe is conversational (see 108. Formal and Informal Words).

My final example is some times and sometimes, noun and adverb:

(f) NOUN: Some times are harder than others.

(g) ADVERB: Sometimes life is harder than at other times. 

Again, replacement is a useful separation strategy. The noun times, the subject of are in (f), can be replaced by a more familiar noun like days without radically altering the sentence, while the adverb sometimes in (g) corresponds to occasionally, the subject of is being the noun life.

.

USES INVOLVING “some”, “any”, “every” AND “no”

The words some, any, every and no generally do not make compounds, but can go before practically any noun to make a “noun phrase”. In a few cases, however, this trend is broken and these words must combine with the word after them to form a compound. Occasionally there is even a choice between using one word or two, depending on meaning.

The compulsory some compounds are somehow, somewhere and somewhat; the any compounds are anyhow and anywhere, while every and no make everywhere and nowhere. There is a simple observation that may help these compounds to be remembered: the part after some/any/every/no is not a noun, as is usually required, but a question word instead. The rule is thus that if a combination starting with some, any, every or no lacks a noun, a single word must be written.

The combinations that can be one word or two depending on meaning are someone, somebody, something, sometime, sometimes, anyone, anybody, anything, anyway (Americans might add anytime and anyplace), everyone, everybody, everything, everyday, no-one, nobody and nothing. The endings in these words (-one, -body, -thing, -way, -time, -place and –day) are noun-like and mean the same as question words (who? what/which? how? when? and where? – see 185. Noun Synonyms of Question Words).

Some (tentative) meaning differences associated with these alternative spellings are as follows: 

SOME TIME = “an amount of time”

Please give me some time.

SOMETIME (adj.) = “past; old; erstwhile”

I met a sometime colleague

.

SOMETHING = “an object whose exact nature is unimportant”.

SOME THING = “a nasty creature whose exact nature is unknown” (see 260. Formal Written Uses of “Thing”, #2).

Some thing was lurking in the water.

.

ANYONE/ANYBODY = “one or more people; it is unimportant who”

Anyone can come = Whoever wants to come is welcome; Choose anyone = Choose whoever you want – one or more people.

ANY ONE = “any single person/thing out of a group of possibilities”.

Any one can come = Only one person/thing (freely chosen) can come; Choose any one = Choose whoever/whichever you want, but only one.

ANY BODY = “any single body belonging to a living or dead creature”.

Any body is suitable = I will accept whatever body is available.

.

ANYTHING = “whatever (non-human) is conceivable/possible, without limit”.

Bring anything you like = There is no limit in what you can bring; Anything can happen = There is no limit on possible happenings.

ANY THING = “any single non-human entity in a set”.

Choose any thing = Freely choose one of the things in front of you.

.

EVERYONE/EVERYBODY = “all people” (see 169. “All”, “Each” and “Every” and 211.General Words for People).

Everyone/Everybody is welcome.

EVERY ONE = “all members of a previously-mentioned group of at least three things (not people)”.

Diamonds are popular. Every one sells easily.

EVERY BODY = “all individual bodies without exceptions”.

.

EVERYTHING = “all things/aspects/ideas”.

Everything is clear.

EVERY THING = “all individual objects, emphasising lack of exceptions”.

Every thing on display was a gift.

.

NO-ONE/NOBODY = “no people”

No-one/Nobody came.

NO ONE = “not a single” (+ noun)

No one answer is right.

NO BODY = “no individual body”.

.

NOTHING = “zero”.

Nothing is impossible.

NO THING = “no individual object”. 

There are other problem combinations besides those discussed here; hopefully these examples will make them easier to deal with.

It’s (one word or two words?)

Options

Previous Topic
·
Next Topic

sb70012

Posted: Saturday, April 22, 2017 12:32:15 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/6/2013
Posts: 1,444
Neurons: 7,459

Back to top FounDit

Posted: Saturday, April 22, 2017 12:47:54 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 19,179
Neurons: 95,445

The word, «it’s» is one word, but would be counted as two words because if not contracted, you would have two separate words. To circle the words, however, «it’s» would be one word and would be circled. Again, it is one word, but counted as two.

Back to top sb70012

Posted: Saturday, April 22, 2017 12:54:02 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/6/2013
Posts: 1,444
Neurons: 7,459

Thank you but isn’t your answer in contrast with the brown explanation? The brown explanation regard it as two words. Doesn’t it?

Back to top FounDit

Posted: Saturday, April 22, 2017 6:13:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 19,179
Neurons: 95,445

Back to top Users browsing this topic Guest