Seabiscuit - meh

[plonq]

We watched Seabiscuit last night.  It didn't completely suck, but it wasn't the greatest movie I've ever seen either.  I'd rate it above mediocre.

Can one of you grammar nazis out there please explain further versus farther to me in a way that doesn't make my brain explode?

I have checked a couple of on-line references, and they do not agree.  One suggests that the words are virtually interchangeable at the discretion of the writer, whereas another source suggests that farther is a measure of distance, but further is a measure of time.

Here is the context in which I was using it:

"Here are records back to November, 2003 for this car.  I can go back further/farther if you require more data."

Comments

[ceruleanst.livejournal.com]

The latter source is correct. "Farther" means "more far" (because "farrer" wouldn't sound good). Think of what you're modifying and see whether "far" applies. You can go back far, you can run far, you can see far.

"Further" means "more," "for longer." To do something further is to continue to do it. You explain further, you wait further.

The confusion arises because a lot of things technically imply both. You have to travel for more time to cover more distance. But to be absolutely correct you shouldn't use "further" when "farther" applies. "Further away" is always wrong.

Examples:
It must be somewhere in here; I will search for it further.
It's not anywhere in here; I will search farther for it.
You must run farther along this road.
You must run further on this treadmill.

Our lazy global dialect:
If you just say "further" all the time nobody will notice or care.

Addendum

[ceruleanst.livejournal.com]

I just realized why you were having trouble with your sentence. "A measure of time" is really an insufficient way of explaining the concept. The fact that they're chronological records has nothing to do with it. The topic was about how far you should go back in them, this far, or farther.

Also, real "Grammar Nazis" say "Fuhrer." "Ach! Mein feet! I cannot march Fuhrer!"

Re: Addendum

[plonq.livejournal.com]

My brain asplode.

While I was nosing around for some answers to this conundrum, I stumbled into a dissertation on lay/lie/laid. To quote it in part:

"...though lie is indeed intransitive, lay is not restricted to transitive uses..."

Argh! Well, I know that laid is always intransitive; e.g., "I got laid."

[sunsplash.livejournal.com]

Farther is right... I dunno why, but it's right :)

[plonq.livejournal.com]

I used "farther" in my correspondence for exactly the same reason that you've said. I dunno why, but it seemed right.

I gotcha covered ...

[farlo.livejournal.com]

"Farther" implies relative distance whilst "further" implies continuation. There is overlap.

"I can go back farther" is correct if you mean to specify a relative distance in time. "I can go back further" is correct if you mean to specify a continuation of the current timespan towards the past.

Re: I gotcha covered ...

[plonq.livejournal.com]

The problem in this case is that both of your definitions could apply.

Re: I gotcha covered ...

[farlo.livejournal.com]

Sweetie, life is filled with greys ... I mean grays ... oh, bother! ;)