![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
roadrunner1896 asked me a really difficult question that I felt needed the attention of other native English speakers and writers/word geeks. This is basically the comment I left her (with some edits I've been doing more research/thinking):Can you tell me the difference between "fast" and "quick"?
I don't think there is much of a difference between "fast" and "quick" except for usage. Like you would say: "He completed the course in a fast time," but not a "quick time" (at least I wouldn't say that). Or you'd say, "He completed the course quickly," but not "fastly" (because "fastly" isn't a word, though "fast" is an adverb).
Let's go to definitions:
fast moving or able to move, operate, function, or take effect quickly; quick; swift; rapid
quick done, proceeding, or occurring with promptness or rapidity, as an action, process
Pretty much the same thing. But when you get into idioms (and these are just a few examples):
fast characterized by unrestrained conduct or lack of moral conventions, esp. in sexual relations; wanton; loose
ex. Vala was fast with how she immediately progressed to undressing Daniel.
fast firm in adherence; loyal; devoted
ex. Harry and Ron were fast friends which is why Ron always wanted to come back.
quick easily provoked or excited
ex. Touch Daniel's artifacts and you'll find out that he can be quick tempered.
quick prompt to understand, learn, etc.; of ready intelligence:
ex. Hermione is a quick student, the cleverest witch of her age.
"Fast" and "quick" aren't interchangeable in those examples or for those meanings. (Though I think some people will mistakenly use "quick" in that first example of "Vala was fast".) And before anyone points it out, "a quick student" is different from "a fast learner." "A quick student" is implying something about the student herself, whereas "a fast learner" describes the speed at which one learns.
I don't think the difference can be articulated in any these-are-the-solid-and-steadfast-rules way because the English language is so deliciously mercurial, so it's probably something you'll have to pick up more through usage (sadly). Just know that while the words are synonyms, they can't arbitrarily replace each other.
Any one else have any other thoughts on fast v. quick or how the difference can be conveyed to someone who speaks English as a second language?
All definitions from dictionary.com
- Mood:
curious
Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Designed by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chasethestars
chasethestars
Comments
I don't really think there is a difference when discussing their uses as adjectives or adverbs. They're both describing a relatively speedy pace of something. Kind of like "large" and "big," or "red" and "rouge" (notice, not "rogue").
I'm also going to point out that I find it interesting that a German speaker asked this question, considering English is, what, 70% German? That's not intended as a criticism at all, merely an observation. I'm not sure how it would be a criticism, but I figured I'd head that off.
English is 70% German? Why did I have so much trouble learning it in High School then?
And no, I was only interested in the speed meaning of the words.
Thanks for helping Alli make me smarter.
To sum that up, what with the Germanic peoples invading what we call today the British Isles (those Angles and the Saxons, hence Anglo-Saxon), and the Celts who lived there, Old English (from which modern English is derived) is primarily rooted in German. Or at least old German. I've noticed that I can "read" some German because the words are really similar to English.
The problem people run into with English is that it takes nice, somewhat sensible rules (at least, rules that apply the Latin languages, because that's what I've studied) and throws them out the window. I don't know if German has "gendered nouns" as I like to call them, but Latin languages do (i.e., in French "le" vs. "la" as articles preceding nouns—"le monde," the world is male, "la chaise," the chair is female).
(do you know
(actually, this is probably more of an answer than you wanted, but languages fascinate me, so I babble.)
I actually found out that I can understand people who speak the very northern dialect of German "Platt" much better since I got myself into the English language. And I knew there was a connection between the languages. Just the 70% seemed a bit high a number for me.
We do have genders. But for us the earth (die Erde) is female while the chair (der Stuhl) is male. Now that is interesting. No wonder French and Germans don't get along with all that gender confusion.
Yeah, I know
Oh, no. Thanks. I find it interesting, too.
Oh good I'm glad you know Nicole. She's lovely. :)
Even if it confuses me a bit at times.
And yeah, she is lovely. I haven have her feed on my lj. We had a lot of corny (hahaha) fun when she was still active on LJ.
I think part of the issue with grammar is that German is not a Latinate language, yet early grammarians tried to apply Latin grammar rules to English. So they spent a lot of time trying to make up reasons and exceptions for why English deviates from the Latin rules, when they should have been making up "rules" that describe what English speakers actually do. I'm a fan of transformational-generative grammar style over traditional. But I really don't know enough about linguistics and language history to be making any definitive statements.
In a situation where you could use either "fast" or "quick," I think there's a very slight connotation of concentration on a completed action with "fast" and of concentration on the action in progress with quick. I have no support for this whatsoever. But: If I say "can't you do that any faster?" it means "can't you get that finished any sooner?" whereas if I say "can't you do that more quickly?" it means gosh, you must be really inept because you're taking so much time to do whatever it is.
Likewise, quick "moving fast or doing something in a short time" and quick "the soft, tender flesh below the growing part of a fingernail or toenail," both come from the same word meaning "alive, animated, alert."
Interestingly, the definitions used above (from the Oxford American Dictionary on my computer) imply the opposite distinction from what I gave above; here "fast" applies to an object that moves quickly whereas "quick" has to do with the completion of an action in a short time.
So if I try to remember that, I will most likely do it right next time I have to pick one of the two?
Thanks for helping out.
No problem—this was fun!
The general connotation I have of quick is relating to response time, while fast has more of a feeling of a description of speed over time. A fast car that wins races may or may not be quick off the mark. Someone witty who comes up with a riposte right away? "Oh, she's quick!"—she doesn't have a fast response. "Quick! Grab me that tool!" means "Hop to it, now."
Fast I use more as a general descriptive adjective: That car/horse/boat/plane/runner/swimmer is fast. The latest lap was the fastest time yet.
ex. Vala was fast with how she immediately progressed to undressing Daniel.
Hee. Now I'm in the gutter. *g*
A lot of the time, English synonyms come from different linguistic roots, since English has a Germanic base with a heavy Latinate overlay (plus random borrowings from tons of other languages). In the case of "fast" vs. "quick," since both words have Germanic roots, I think it's even harder to put your finger on the difference.
I happen to speak Spanish also, and I have heard Spanish speakers who learn English describe it as a funny, redundant sort of language because it has so many words that mean almost the same thing. Of course, that makes it a great language for writers!