# "Whilst" vs. "While" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 5, 2006, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whilst-vs-while/351396 "2006-04-05T12:53:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ZomZom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zomzom/32/5620_2.png) [@ZomZom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZomZom)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whilst-vs-while/351396/1 "2006-04-05T12:53:30Z")
In various message boards I’ll see British posters using the word, “whilst” instead of “while.” Is the “st” actually pronounced, and is this used instead of “while” most/all of the time? Do other non-American speakers of English use “whilst” instead of “while?” ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whilst-vs-while/351396/2 "2006-04-05T13:01:17Z")
From an old Archie comic: Veronica: (angry at Archie, as usual) What goes on whilst I sleep??! Pop Tate: (thinking) “Whilst”. That shows _class_! ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whilst-vs-while/351396/3 "2006-04-05T13:04:49Z")
> [@mangoldm](#): > > In various message boards I’ll see British posters using the word, “whilst” instead of “while.” Is the “st” actually pronounced, and is this used instead of “while” most/all of the time? Do other non-American speakers of English use “whilst” instead of “while?” The “st” is pronounced. There’s no difference in meaning. The “st” is the genitive ending, like apostrophe-S. I’m British and I usually use “while” except when… I dunno, sometimes “whilst” sounds better? It does sound a teeny bit stuffy, though. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whilst-vs-while/351396/4 "2006-04-05T13:07:10Z")
\ For the longest time I thought this was pronounced like _whist_ (the card game), only with an _l_. “_Whillst_?” I thought. “Nasty [tinny](http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/TheWoodySketch) sort of word.” \ Does it find any favor in Canada? Did it use to? ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whilst-vs-while/351396/5 "2006-04-05T13:20:23Z")
I think we did this recently, and came to the conclusion that some of us who use it day to day see a slight difference between “while” and “whilst”. Another Doper ( **TheLoadedDog** , I think) gave this example: “Whilst you may talk on the telephone while you drive, I do not”. ---
**Author:** ![Hemlock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Hemlock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hemlock)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whilst-vs-while/351396/6 "2006-04-05T13:54:23Z")
There’s no difference in meaning. Unlike, say, ‘who’ and ‘whom’. ‘Whilst’ is becoming archaic. Most people I know who use it are trying too hard to sound correct - eg, they also have a horror of split infinitives. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whilst-vs-while/351396/7 "2006-04-05T14:33:50Z")
There is a similar comparison between “amid” vs. “amidst”, and “among” vs. “amongst”. You could perhaps add “between” vs. (archaic) “betwixt”. As far as I can tell, there is no difference between these forms in modern English. At one time, at least for “amidst” and “amongst”, there was: M-W 1942 Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms: "1 ‘Among’ (or ‘amongst’), ‘amidst’ (or ‘amid’) agree in denoting surrounded or encompassed by. ‘Among’, however, implies a mingling or intermixture with distinct or separable objects; as, “A certain man … fell among thieves” (Luke x. 30); a minister should live among the people he serves. Hence it is regularly followed by a plural or a collective noun. ‘Amidst’ [n.b., preferred here to ‘amid’] literally means in the midst or middle of, hence that which surrounds may or may not consist of distinct or separable objects; [etc.] When both ‘among’ and ‘amidst’ are applicable to the same objects, ‘among’ regards them in their individual, ‘amidst’ in their collective, aspect. Thus Milton describes the seraph Abdiel as “among the faithless, faithful only he,” having in mind the other angels as individual rebels; but when he adds, “From amidst them forth he passed,” he is thinking of the angels rather as a collective body. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whilst-vs-while/351396/8 "2006-04-05T14:39:49Z")
> [@CJJ\*](#): > > There is a similar comparison between “amid” vs. “amidst”, and “among” vs. “amongst”. You could perhaps add “between” vs. (archaic) “betwixt”. > > As far as I can tell, there is no difference between these forms in modern English. At one time, at least for “amidst” and “amongst”, there was: > > M-W 1942 Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms: "1 ‘Among’ (or ‘amongst’), ‘amidst’ (or ‘amid’) agree in denoting surrounded or encompassed by. ‘Among’, however, implies a mingling or intermixture with distinct or separable objects; as, “A certain man … fell among thieves” (Luke x. 30); a minister should live among the people he serves. Hence it is regularly followed by a plural or a collective noun. ‘Amidst’ [n.b., preferred here to ‘amid’] literally means in the midst or middle of, hence that which surrounds may or may not consist of distinct or separable objects; [etc.] When both ‘among’ and ‘amidst’ are applicable to the same objects, ‘among’ regards them in their individual, ‘amidst’ in their collective, aspect. Thus Milton describes the seraph Abdiel as “among the faithless, faithful only he,” having in mind the other angels as individual rebels; but when he adds, “From amidst them forth he passed,” he is thinking of the angels rather as a collective body. Even here, it appears they only had preferred forms in 1942; this section to modern American ears only details the difference between among (in the midst of a group of individuals) vs. amid (in the midst of a collective mass).