'Amongst' and 'amidst'

It's not wrong to use "amongst" and "amidst" in place of "among" and "amid." But from a plain language point of view, it's probably a bad idea. Consider:

“He is amongst the best executives in our company’s history.”

“You are amongst friends.”

“We’ll keep working hard amidst all the chaos."

Me, I have a knee-jerk reaction to these words. That reaction is chop, chop, chop. It’s an editor thing. I just delete the “st.” Always. I don’t think about it.

Of course, that’s only possible when I’m editing. When I come across these words in the wild, I don’t have the same power. I can’t change text someone else published, and I can’t edit the voices coming out of my TV or live human beings. Yet the reaction is pretty ingrained, so I cringe a little and silently delete the “st” in my mind. “Amongst” and “amidst” just sound wrong to me, and for good reason.

The editing style I use most in my work, Associated Press style, says that “amid” should be used instead of “amidst” and  “among” should be used instead of “amongst.” AP doesn’t give a reason. But their longtime preference for plain language as well as shorter spellings (space on the page was at a premium in AP’s formative days) probably explain it.

Rounding out the top two most influential guides in publishing, the Chicago Manual of Style feels the same way: In its entry covering “amid” and “among,” the guide is clear: “Avoid ‘amidst’ and ‘amongst,’ especially in American English.”

Does that mean “amongst” and “amidst” are wrong? No. They’re only wrong for writers and editors aiming to adhere to one of those two editing styles. Everyone else can use them if they choose, though maybe they should think twice about it.

Dictionaries list “amongst” as a variant form of “among,” noting that it’s less common in American English than British. “Amidst,” too, is considered a variant form, though Merriam-Webster’s doesn’t say this one is more popular in British English.

By “variant form,” the dictionary means these words are correct, but nonstandard. In other words, “among” and “amid” are more natural for speakers here in the U.S. When you’re trying to communicate, simple language is often better because it doesn’t distract from the message the way frilly words do.

“Amongst” strikes many people, including Bryan Garner, author of Garner’s Modern English Usage, as pretentious.

Merriam-Webster’s disagrees with Garner: “Our evidence doesn’t confirm that view.” They cite examples of nonpretentious “amongst” uses like this one from an old TV Guide: “Amongst the evidence were verbal slams from such network luminaries …” and this one from Cruising World: “Pelican is a wild town where one year before there had been a shootout of sorts amongst some fishermen.”

Those excerpts are held up as proof that “amongst” is not pretentious. But I’m not sure they prove Merriam’s point. They both sound kind of fussy to me.

“Amidst” doesn’t draw as much criticism, perhaps because it seems less deliberately fancy-pants than “amongst” does.  In fact, I’d argue that “amidst” sometimes seems like the most natural choice. To me, “amidst all the chaos” sounds better than “amid all the chaos,” but you may disagree.

The worst thing about “amongst” and “amidst” isn’t the risk of sounding highbrow. It’s the risk of sounding lowbrow — like someone using big words to try to sound smart and, as a result, sounding not smart. Plain language conveying good information and ideas is always better than fancy, fussy words masking a lack of substance. So “amongst” and “amidst” can work against effective communication.

Tags: , ,

This entry was posted on Monday, February 9th, 2026 at 5:39 pm and is filed under Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.