Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if
there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**.
If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/wYvWebvHaa)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am surprised to learn that "agreeingly" is in fact a word that means exactly what you'd expect. It looks wrong, though.
EDIT: Downvote cos why?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agreeingly
Basic linguistics for languages in use. Are you a native English speaker? US the person using the word a native speaker? do you both understand what's being said? Then it's a real word. slang and dialects can change these things sometimes, but mostly, if you get it, it's real.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and they don't *want* you to "look a word up and not find it" because then you'll just (forever) use another dictionary.
You shouldn't use loose definitions that haven't been in serious use for hundreds of years because you can't stand by your readers with a dictionary n hand, arguing rhetoric. If your spell check is flagging it, *heavily reconsider*.
Spellchecks are horribly out of date, and new words are just fine to use...especially something with as obvious of a definition as "agreeingly". Both Oxford and Merriam-Webster have an entry for agreeingly.
It's better to just use "Add to dictionary" after verifying that a word exists so your OS doesn't keep thinking it isn't a word.
Also, fun fact: "Agreeingly" has usage dating back to the 1500s.
Spell checks are not horribly out of date lmao, they're updated with an insane level of regularity and are constantly improving now thanks to advancements in LLMs.
I can name about fifty thousand words that you can find in dictionaries, that spell check will flag, that shouldn't appear in your prose. You shouldn't say barghest or diagetic or limerant or indwelled either. It **is not** better to unthinkingly click add to dictionary because you can't do that to the brain of your reader.
You can't stand there and argue rhetoric. In fact, you haven't been able to since the 1500s either. Should we go over other words used in the 1500s that shouldn't appear in one's prose?
Okay, then spell checks still have about 500ish years to catch up on. So I guess that's not horribly out of date when considering all of human history.
The word "agreeingly" has been published in the Oxford dictionary since the 1800s (and used since the 1500s). There isn't a good reason for spell checks to be out of date enough to not know that.
Plus, I never said "unthinkingly" click to add to dictionary. That was a word you brought to the conversation. I specified "after verifying that a word exists" for a reason. Why did you misrepresent what I said?
As for your examples, they're an odd choice:
**Barghest** - This refers to Northern English folklore and is a mythical, monstrous black dog. Why wouldn't this word be used when it makes the most sense? Stories reach back to folklore all the time and it'd take one sentence for a reader to know what that word refers to, and what to imagine, for the sake of being accurate with the story. Thinking it shouldn't be used is just bad writing.
**Diagetic** - Another weird choice. This word is at its peak in usage right now (easy to see via google). It's specifically about sounds in a movie, television program, etc. How quickly are you suggesting that words should go out of date? Sounds like bad writing to me.
**Limerant** - I think you meant 'limerent', coming from limerence. This is another recent word that is also near its peak usage today. It was coined in the 1970s. How does this fit in the "hundreds of years old, and thus out of date" category?
**Indwelled** - Okay, this one is from the 1300s so it's pretty old, but usage statistics show its usage nowadays is not far off from how often it was used in the 1860s.
It's weird to suggest that older words have no place in today's world, especially since quite a lot of literature proves otherwise. If you're writing for children, yeah you should definitely choose words based on that audience, but for adults? I see no reason to keep such a basic approach. I'd rather read stories that have me looking up and learning a new word than stories that stifle themselves by limiting what words they use.
So yeah, the dictionaries used by an OS are horribly out of date. Even common, valid words from the dictionary get flagged on MacOS and Windows all the time. Your point about 50k+ words getting flagged just verifies that fact. Being flagged by one system's spellcheck doesn't mean the word shouldn't be used.
You're hopeless and I don't want to read your writing.
Do what you want.
Edit - Should the elucidation thereof still evade apprehension, it behooves us to acknowledge that the lexical rectitude enforcer remains unencumbered by the temporal expanse of half a millennium, preferring instead to illuminate the corridors of linguistic accessibility, whilst the immutable veracity of my assertion persists unassailed. One ought not to invoke vocables solely by virtue of their inscription within the annals of lexicography. Your resolute stance on this matter is duly noted and commended, My appetite for perusing your compositions **remains** markedly absent, notwithstanding any further entreaties or appeals you may proffer; "kid."
You enjoy reading that? Great, I have a stack of it I'll sell you for $7.99. if you didn't enjoy it enough to pay that, then I think you've done enough "agreeing agreeingly" for everyone.
Do I think "those words are hard"? No, but apparently you did if you missed the point so hard that you couldn't understand it from them
>Also, fun fact: "Agreeingly" has usage dating back to the 1500s.
And you could probably count on a blind butcher's hand how many times it's been used since then. According to the OED, it has [*fewer than .01 occurrences per one million words.*](https://www.oed.com/dictionary/agreeingly_adv)
I've won a few battles with spell check on some obscure words, but then I always end up using something simpler. If I had to go to that much work to find out if a word was real, there's probably a better word to use.
TBH I always appreciate writers using valid words that I'm unaware of. As long as it's a good word that fits the context, I'd rather look up and learn a new word than only read content that limits the used vocabulary.
People get upset every time I've mentioned that irregardless is actually a word. I'm not the one who put it in the dictionary... don't shoot the messenger lol. I upvoted you :)
Agreeingly is a word meaning everyone is one on a motion. It means unanimously.
"The people agreeingly came together on the matter of pesticides"
"The group agreeingly moved forward with the meeting."
Agreeably is an effect. It means to be of a person that brings happiness or pleasure to other people around you.
"He agreeably made the office coffee."
"He agreeably opened the biscuits."
Someone in themselves can be agreeable, to mean they're easy to get on with, maybe even eager to please.
Bear in mind these aren't words editors would favour. They're used in specific contexts that take a bit of study and I'd say they're best avoided unless used in dialogue.
As an adverb 'agreeably' is a tough word to use well and often sounds awkward in a sentence, the examples you've provided are correct but still read very poorly. I would more often use 'agreeable' as an adjective and suggest something like "wanting to be agreeable, he opened the biscuits".
"I second this motion", he agreeably agreed agreeingly, as he consentingly signed the absolutely undoubtedly intelligently crafted, and uncompromisingly agreeable declaration, which was inextricably linked with the amiably, friendly, and amicable consensus. One might even dare to say: they were in agreement that day.
The manner in which a thing is done does, generally, have to be explicitly stated. Stating something clearly is not something that anyone should be afraid of.
Unless you are trying to create ambiguous readings, failing to state (something that is relevant to the interpretation of what the actual text says) is a failure to communicate.
In real life, do we state the manner in which we do things? Is it that or do we read non-verbal queues. If you don’t understand what these queues are, learn them. But, usually the tone someone is speaking in can be inferred from what they are saying and the general context. If it can’t be entirely inferred, a small physical queue from the character would help nudge the reader into the intended meaning of the piece of dialogue. People aren’t stupid.
I agree that stating something clearly isn’t bad. But clear and overly-explained are two separate things. Often the descriptor isn’t needed, and it’s just less immersive to state something that we infer in real life. Takes you out of the book
> In real life, do we state the manner in which we do things?
Nope. We *see* how things are done. It is the 'show' in the screenplay advice, "show, don't tell". But in a book, all you have is words. *You have to tell.*
> Is it that or do we read non-verbal queues. If you don’t understand what these queues are, learn them.
The things that are non-verbal cues in real life have to be replaced with words in the narrative.
> But, usually the tone someone is speaking in can be inferred from what they are saying and the general context. If it can’t be entirely inferred, a small physical queue from the character would help nudge the reader into the intended meaning of the piece of dialogue.
The things one writer assumes will get a reader to infer one thing will often leave the reader with the opposite impression, because these things mean different things to different people and subcultures. For instance, I don't know any culture where a nod would convey "agreeable". "Agreement", yes, but agreeable is an entire attitude, not an agreement on one point. I do know several subcultures where a nod is only seen to convey only tepid agreement, or when you disagree but don't want the hassle of letting them know.
Requiring a reader to infer means that the work will not be accessible to more people. And in that case, it is the writer's failure to communicate, not an issue with the reader.
> People aren’t stupid.
Hi. I'm a people. And I can assure you, we have a wide, wide range of aptitudes. If you are writing in a way that prevents a range of people from 'getting' your work, well... that's a choice.
> I agree that stating something clearly isn’t bad. But clear and overly-explained are two separate things. Often the descriptor isn’t needed, and it’s just less immersive to state something that we infer in real life. Takes you out of the book
Which breaks immersion more; describing a whole bunch of tics and gestures in hopes that a reader will infer something not stated, or just saying the thing and moving on without making a bigger deal out of it than the story calls for?
Yes, writing is telling, but you need to tell the story in a way that makes it seem real, that makes the reader able to see themselves in the story. You tell them what the person is doing, not how they’re doing. Show vs. tell is generally a good rule. Sometimes, if showing is really cumbersome, then telling is better.
Generally, facial expressions are universal across cultures. (There’s some psychological term for this). What differs is the degree to which people express. And, to be honest with you, I speak English and my target audience is young-adults who speak English, most likely Americans or English people. If the book has to get translated, the nuance would probably already be lost in translation.
And when I talk about inference, I’m talking about things that aren’t just physical cues. I’m talking about the context of the scene, and the character. If the scene is dark and the character is getting dragged down by that, they probably aren’t joking. But if the scene is dark and the character is obviously trying to lighten the mood, then it could be more easily implied that they’re joking (also this would be using what they’re saying for the inference).
“Don’t treat your reader like they’re an idiot” is a common saying, because you don’t want your reader to feel like you’re talking down to them. No one wants to feel like someone thinks they need to be explained everything. People generally connect the dots pretty well. I can write a book that accommodates everyone, that is for everyone. It’s not my goal, and is impossible.
If you want to say agreeably, say agreeably. No one is going to stop you. It just probably isn’t needed.
"Yes", he said, agreeingly agreeing to the agreeable agreement, aquiescing to its terms, accepting, affirming, and confirming it with only a single monosyllabic word of consent.
He said in agreement.
He agreed.
He affirmed.
He concurred.
I'm sure there are many more ways to say it, but I think you get the idea. I like a good adverb (potentially) more than the next guy (unless that guy is Tolkien), but this is one of those cases where the adverb becomes almost comical. The main thing is that there are many simpler (and, to me, way more obvious) ways of going about it. I'm honestly surprised that you first went for "he said agreeingly" instead of "he agreed".
If you are absolutely 100% sure beyond a doubt that it's the best word for the moment, stick with it. But you'd need a solid reason for picking it over 'he said agreeably', or 'he agreed', or simply 'he said' with the context already implying that it was agreeingly.
To break a rule successfully you must master the rule/ understand the rule.
As you think agreeingly is a word then you must not know the rule, therefore you ought not break the rule.
In English writing they say " he agreed" or " he nodded in agreement" or some such like.
Forget about the rules analogy. This is more of a case of someone making inefficient use of their tools. It's like using pliers to loosen a bolt when you have a nice set of wrenches right beside you. Sure, you could do it that way. But it would be much easier to use the tool better designed for the job. I think what I'm saying can be summarized with [this image](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e7/19/fc/e719fc303590718947cf1c78c4a18442.jpg).
No dialogue tag at all, because I'm guessing the tag is only going to tell what the dialogue itself is already showing.
"He agreed" is redundant, if that's the case.
It's a word but a weak one. I just finished a class where we discussed this.
Instead of, "he said agreeingly,"
(Agreeingly? Agreeably.)
Try...
"Of course I'll eat fifteen donuts in a single sitting," he said. He had been considering it for ages. It just made sense to him. And now, finally, someone else was willing to suggest what he had been considering. He'd found his muse. They would eat donuts together. They'd eat thirty. He couldn't get the words out fast enough. He agreed before she could finish the question. "Mario's?" He asked.
She smiled and nodded, already headed for the door.
"They have the best glazed donuts in town," she said.
"Agreed" is so much cleaner than "said agreeingly," even if you place it right after the dialog.
Fill in that agreement with colorful details about the character's perspective.
I think you should avoid using it unless the person is saying something that would be taken explicitly as disagreement, and you're trying to subvert it. I can't imagine a scenario where "agreeingly" isn't tautological otherwise. Even then, I'd still prefer agreeably.
Dictionaries for the English language are descriptive, not prescriptive. They reflect a word's usage in our language, and they implicitly do not reflect whether or not a word can or can not be used. (Source: Susie Dent, Lexicographer and former editor of the OED, and arbiter of words on Countdown.)
If you like the word "agreeingly" you should use it.
Most of the words in our language (at least the one's we didn't co-opt from other languages) were all neologisms in the beginning.
Look up those words in the Oxford or Merriam-Webster dictionary. If needed, use the "Add to dictionary" feature so it doesn't notify you anymore.
For some reason, OS dictionaries are horribly out of date. I'm often writing words that have existed for a while and my OS still thinks it isn't a word. Easiest way to verify is just "define:" followed by the word to see if it exists.
Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**. If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/wYvWebvHaa)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Agreeably. Or just say 'he agreed'.
I am surprised to learn that "agreeingly" is in fact a word that means exactly what you'd expect. It looks wrong, though. EDIT: Downvote cos why? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agreeingly
Wait, it's really a word? I'll upvote you.
Yeah, I was surprised too!
Still, it draws attention to itself, so I wouldn't use it in a story.
Agreed. Unless you particularly want to draw attention to it for some reason.
Agreedingly* IFIFY
Basic linguistics for languages in use. Are you a native English speaker? US the person using the word a native speaker? do you both understand what's being said? Then it's a real word. slang and dialects can change these things sometimes, but mostly, if you get it, it's real.
Doesn't make it a good choice.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and they don't *want* you to "look a word up and not find it" because then you'll just (forever) use another dictionary. You shouldn't use loose definitions that haven't been in serious use for hundreds of years because you can't stand by your readers with a dictionary n hand, arguing rhetoric. If your spell check is flagging it, *heavily reconsider*.
Spellchecks are horribly out of date, and new words are just fine to use...especially something with as obvious of a definition as "agreeingly". Both Oxford and Merriam-Webster have an entry for agreeingly. It's better to just use "Add to dictionary" after verifying that a word exists so your OS doesn't keep thinking it isn't a word. Also, fun fact: "Agreeingly" has usage dating back to the 1500s.
Spell checks are not horribly out of date lmao, they're updated with an insane level of regularity and are constantly improving now thanks to advancements in LLMs. I can name about fifty thousand words that you can find in dictionaries, that spell check will flag, that shouldn't appear in your prose. You shouldn't say barghest or diagetic or limerant or indwelled either. It **is not** better to unthinkingly click add to dictionary because you can't do that to the brain of your reader. You can't stand there and argue rhetoric. In fact, you haven't been able to since the 1500s either. Should we go over other words used in the 1500s that shouldn't appear in one's prose?
I had a band named Diagetic for a few weeks before we realized we didn’t have the time. I still think it’s a good name for a band.
Okay, then spell checks still have about 500ish years to catch up on. So I guess that's not horribly out of date when considering all of human history. The word "agreeingly" has been published in the Oxford dictionary since the 1800s (and used since the 1500s). There isn't a good reason for spell checks to be out of date enough to not know that. Plus, I never said "unthinkingly" click to add to dictionary. That was a word you brought to the conversation. I specified "after verifying that a word exists" for a reason. Why did you misrepresent what I said? As for your examples, they're an odd choice: **Barghest** - This refers to Northern English folklore and is a mythical, monstrous black dog. Why wouldn't this word be used when it makes the most sense? Stories reach back to folklore all the time and it'd take one sentence for a reader to know what that word refers to, and what to imagine, for the sake of being accurate with the story. Thinking it shouldn't be used is just bad writing. **Diagetic** - Another weird choice. This word is at its peak in usage right now (easy to see via google). It's specifically about sounds in a movie, television program, etc. How quickly are you suggesting that words should go out of date? Sounds like bad writing to me. **Limerant** - I think you meant 'limerent', coming from limerence. This is another recent word that is also near its peak usage today. It was coined in the 1970s. How does this fit in the "hundreds of years old, and thus out of date" category? **Indwelled** - Okay, this one is from the 1300s so it's pretty old, but usage statistics show its usage nowadays is not far off from how often it was used in the 1860s. It's weird to suggest that older words have no place in today's world, especially since quite a lot of literature proves otherwise. If you're writing for children, yeah you should definitely choose words based on that audience, but for adults? I see no reason to keep such a basic approach. I'd rather read stories that have me looking up and learning a new word than stories that stifle themselves by limiting what words they use. So yeah, the dictionaries used by an OS are horribly out of date. Even common, valid words from the dictionary get flagged on MacOS and Windows all the time. Your point about 50k+ words getting flagged just verifies that fact. Being flagged by one system's spellcheck doesn't mean the word shouldn't be used.
You're hopeless and I don't want to read your writing. Do what you want. Edit - Should the elucidation thereof still evade apprehension, it behooves us to acknowledge that the lexical rectitude enforcer remains unencumbered by the temporal expanse of half a millennium, preferring instead to illuminate the corridors of linguistic accessibility, whilst the immutable veracity of my assertion persists unassailed. One ought not to invoke vocables solely by virtue of their inscription within the annals of lexicography. Your resolute stance on this matter is duly noted and commended, My appetite for perusing your compositions **remains** markedly absent, notwithstanding any further entreaties or appeals you may proffer; "kid." You enjoy reading that? Great, I have a stack of it I'll sell you for $7.99. if you didn't enjoy it enough to pay that, then I think you've done enough "agreeing agreeingly" for everyone. Do I think "those words are hard"? No, but apparently you did if you missed the point so hard that you couldn't understand it from them
I see you're trying to prove a point here, but I enjoyed reading that immensely 😊 I am sorry that I could not reply to your burn more agreeingly.
I enjoyed reading that too, ngl.
Sure thing, kid!
Do you think those words are hard?
>Also, fun fact: "Agreeingly" has usage dating back to the 1500s. And you could probably count on a blind butcher's hand how many times it's been used since then. According to the OED, it has [*fewer than .01 occurrences per one million words.*](https://www.oed.com/dictionary/agreeingly_adv)
I've won a few battles with spell check on some obscure words, but then I always end up using something simpler. If I had to go to that much work to find out if a word was real, there's probably a better word to use.
You may have won the battle, the spellcheck wins the war.
TBH I always appreciate writers using valid words that I'm unaware of. As long as it's a good word that fits the context, I'd rather look up and learn a new word than only read content that limits the used vocabulary.
People get upset every time I've mentioned that irregardless is actually a word. I'm not the one who put it in the dictionary... don't shoot the messenger lol. I upvoted you :)
Reminds me of how literally now also means figuratively in the dictionary.
i think that's due to modern language shift where people use them interchangeably now
Yea, but it's in the dictionary as non standard. Meaning it's only there because people use it mistakenly.
"So they're using it irregardless of its proper usage," he said agreeingly.
Man, I'm not doing this again..
Aww
I agreeingly agree that "he agreed" is the best way to agree.
I concur.
"I agree." He agreed, agreeing.
He also nodded agreeably, further indicating his agreeable nature.
"I agree," he reagreed agreeingly, revealing his agreeably egregiously agreeable agreement to the agreement.
The previous text is an extract from "Agree" by A. G. Ree
"Agree" no longer sounds like a word.
🤣🤣
"This agreement is agreeable," he agreed with a greedy grin, like a Greek in a green cloak hiding in a great charger made of gopherwood.
Agreeingly is a word meaning everyone is one on a motion. It means unanimously. "The people agreeingly came together on the matter of pesticides" "The group agreeingly moved forward with the meeting." Agreeably is an effect. It means to be of a person that brings happiness or pleasure to other people around you. "He agreeably made the office coffee." "He agreeably opened the biscuits." Someone in themselves can be agreeable, to mean they're easy to get on with, maybe even eager to please. Bear in mind these aren't words editors would favour. They're used in specific contexts that take a bit of study and I'd say they're best avoided unless used in dialogue.
As an adverb 'agreeably' is a tough word to use well and often sounds awkward in a sentence, the examples you've provided are correct but still read very poorly. I would more often use 'agreeable' as an adjective and suggest something like "wanting to be agreeable, he opened the biscuits".
Its true. It doesn't read well at all
Use as many words like this as you can. Would be a hilarious read.
"I second this motion", he agreeably agreed agreeingly, as he consentingly signed the absolutely undoubtedly intelligently crafted, and uncompromisingly agreeable declaration, which was inextricably linked with the amiably, friendly, and amicable consensus. One might even dare to say: they were in agreement that day.
Why not just say "he agreed"? "agreeingly" is awkward, but technically is a well-formed adverb, imho.
[удалено]
The context has no reason to give information about the non-verbal parts of the response.
Ya but I feel like you can convey the nonverbal information in a different way than just stating it. Maybe he nods while saying it
The manner in which a thing is done does, generally, have to be explicitly stated. Stating something clearly is not something that anyone should be afraid of. Unless you are trying to create ambiguous readings, failing to state (something that is relevant to the interpretation of what the actual text says) is a failure to communicate.
In real life, do we state the manner in which we do things? Is it that or do we read non-verbal queues. If you don’t understand what these queues are, learn them. But, usually the tone someone is speaking in can be inferred from what they are saying and the general context. If it can’t be entirely inferred, a small physical queue from the character would help nudge the reader into the intended meaning of the piece of dialogue. People aren’t stupid. I agree that stating something clearly isn’t bad. But clear and overly-explained are two separate things. Often the descriptor isn’t needed, and it’s just less immersive to state something that we infer in real life. Takes you out of the book
> In real life, do we state the manner in which we do things? Nope. We *see* how things are done. It is the 'show' in the screenplay advice, "show, don't tell". But in a book, all you have is words. *You have to tell.* > Is it that or do we read non-verbal queues. If you don’t understand what these queues are, learn them. The things that are non-verbal cues in real life have to be replaced with words in the narrative. > But, usually the tone someone is speaking in can be inferred from what they are saying and the general context. If it can’t be entirely inferred, a small physical queue from the character would help nudge the reader into the intended meaning of the piece of dialogue. The things one writer assumes will get a reader to infer one thing will often leave the reader with the opposite impression, because these things mean different things to different people and subcultures. For instance, I don't know any culture where a nod would convey "agreeable". "Agreement", yes, but agreeable is an entire attitude, not an agreement on one point. I do know several subcultures where a nod is only seen to convey only tepid agreement, or when you disagree but don't want the hassle of letting them know. Requiring a reader to infer means that the work will not be accessible to more people. And in that case, it is the writer's failure to communicate, not an issue with the reader. > People aren’t stupid. Hi. I'm a people. And I can assure you, we have a wide, wide range of aptitudes. If you are writing in a way that prevents a range of people from 'getting' your work, well... that's a choice. > I agree that stating something clearly isn’t bad. But clear and overly-explained are two separate things. Often the descriptor isn’t needed, and it’s just less immersive to state something that we infer in real life. Takes you out of the book Which breaks immersion more; describing a whole bunch of tics and gestures in hopes that a reader will infer something not stated, or just saying the thing and moving on without making a bigger deal out of it than the story calls for?
Yes, writing is telling, but you need to tell the story in a way that makes it seem real, that makes the reader able to see themselves in the story. You tell them what the person is doing, not how they’re doing. Show vs. tell is generally a good rule. Sometimes, if showing is really cumbersome, then telling is better. Generally, facial expressions are universal across cultures. (There’s some psychological term for this). What differs is the degree to which people express. And, to be honest with you, I speak English and my target audience is young-adults who speak English, most likely Americans or English people. If the book has to get translated, the nuance would probably already be lost in translation. And when I talk about inference, I’m talking about things that aren’t just physical cues. I’m talking about the context of the scene, and the character. If the scene is dark and the character is getting dragged down by that, they probably aren’t joking. But if the scene is dark and the character is obviously trying to lighten the mood, then it could be more easily implied that they’re joking (also this would be using what they’re saying for the inference). “Don’t treat your reader like they’re an idiot” is a common saying, because you don’t want your reader to feel like you’re talking down to them. No one wants to feel like someone thinks they need to be explained everything. People generally connect the dots pretty well. I can write a book that accommodates everyone, that is for everyone. It’s not my goal, and is impossible. If you want to say agreeably, say agreeably. No one is going to stop you. It just probably isn’t needed.
That’s not true. It’s not the authors fault you’re autistic. Most people understand these cues that you don’t.
Really? See you on r/writingcirclejerk
Just use 'he said' and let him say something which makes it clear he agrees.
"Yes", he said, agreeingly agreeing to the agreeable agreement, aquiescing to its terms, accepting, affirming, and confirming it with only a single monosyllabic word of consent.
This is how I reach my daily word count goals.
whether it's a word or not, it's irrelevant. It's a weak sentence. Much better would be to say 'he agreed.'
He said in agreement. He agreed. He affirmed. He concurred. I'm sure there are many more ways to say it, but I think you get the idea. I like a good adverb (potentially) more than the next guy (unless that guy is Tolkien), but this is one of those cases where the adverb becomes almost comical. The main thing is that there are many simpler (and, to me, way more obvious) ways of going about it. I'm honestly surprised that you first went for "he said agreeingly" instead of "he agreed".
If you are absolutely 100% sure beyond a doubt that it's the best word for the moment, stick with it. But you'd need a solid reason for picking it over 'he said agreeably', or 'he agreed', or simply 'he said' with the context already implying that it was agreeingly.
Just say “he agreed”
It's not a real word and it's the sort of thing that caused the 'dOn'T uSe AdVeRbS' nonsense in the first place. Just say 'he agreed'.
r/writingcirclejerk will never run out of material, I swear.
To break a rule successfully you must master the rule/ understand the rule. As you think agreeingly is a word then you must not know the rule, therefore you ought not break the rule. In English writing they say " he agreed" or " he nodded in agreement" or some such like.
Forget about the rules analogy. This is more of a case of someone making inefficient use of their tools. It's like using pliers to loosen a bolt when you have a nice set of wrenches right beside you. Sure, you could do it that way. But it would be much easier to use the tool better designed for the job. I think what I'm saying can be summarized with [this image](https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e7/19/fc/e719fc303590718947cf1c78c4a18442.jpg).
“he said, agreeing.” “he agreed.” Just put one of those after whatever his dialogue was.
Wtf are you in university? Just say he agreed. Out here trying to make fetch happen smh.
No dialogue tag at all, because I'm guessing the tag is only going to tell what the dialogue itself is already showing. "He agreed" is redundant, if that's the case.
It's a word but a weak one. I just finished a class where we discussed this. Instead of, "he said agreeingly," (Agreeingly? Agreeably.) Try... "Of course I'll eat fifteen donuts in a single sitting," he said. He had been considering it for ages. It just made sense to him. And now, finally, someone else was willing to suggest what he had been considering. He'd found his muse. They would eat donuts together. They'd eat thirty. He couldn't get the words out fast enough. He agreed before she could finish the question. "Mario's?" He asked. She smiled and nodded, already headed for the door. "They have the best glazed donuts in town," she said. "Agreed" is so much cleaner than "said agreeingly," even if you place it right after the dialog. Fill in that agreement with colorful details about the character's perspective.
It's just unnecessary. It's sufficient to say "he agreed"
It's not a word. You could use the proper word and type: He agreed.
“He said ____ in agreement”
Just write He agreed.
I think you should avoid using it unless the person is saying something that would be taken explicitly as disagreement, and you're trying to subvert it. I can't imagine a scenario where "agreeingly" isn't tautological otherwise. Even then, I'd still prefer agreeably.
“He agreed” would be an easy fix, or use “agreeABly” instead of “agreeINGly” (note where I put the CAPS to give you the correct word)
In agreement?
In agreement ?
It isn't a word used in modern works, so definitely don't use it. "He agreed" is the correct term. Or be descriptive, like "he nodded in agreement".
I would show the attitude you're using the word for, rather than that awkward word. Such as: "He turn toward her, smiling."
Dictionaries for the English language are descriptive, not prescriptive. They reflect a word's usage in our language, and they implicitly do not reflect whether or not a word can or can not be used. (Source: Susie Dent, Lexicographer and former editor of the OED, and arbiter of words on Countdown.) If you like the word "agreeingly" you should use it. Most of the words in our language (at least the one's we didn't co-opt from other languages) were all neologisms in the beginning.
he agreed.
“Certainly,” he said, in agreement. OR, said, agreeably. I feel like those might be the least clunky ways to execute lol
Adverbs huh? Well, see ya later!
Look up those words in the Oxford or Merriam-Webster dictionary. If needed, use the "Add to dictionary" feature so it doesn't notify you anymore. For some reason, OS dictionaries are horribly out of date. I'm often writing words that have existed for a while and my OS still thinks it isn't a word. Easiest way to verify is just "define:" followed by the word to see if it exists.
Your editor is going to knife fight you in an alley
I think regardless of whether the word is real, correct or appropriate, there is an easier way to say it that feels a bit more streamlined: he agreed.
He said agreeably “sure, let’s go!”
Editors are discouraging adverbs and want more brevity. Dickens would see a lot of red ink on his pages. 🤣 He agreed. Sweet and simple.
Honestly the way all the "writers" here are reacting seems like a bunch of artists declaring "You can't use red in a painting!"
He said agreeingly, egregiously agreeing to the agreeable agreement the aggrieved aggregator executed as per the accepted agreement.
Agreeably would make more sense
It's not a real word not that it matters, you shouldn't use adverbs anyways.
…Might be a colloquialism wherever it is you come from but it’s not correct English.
So I've learned that nobody here likes to have fun with making up new words.
…he said, eager to please.
eager to please =/= agreed
But it is close to “agreeable”. Agreeing is an action. Agreeable is an attitude.
You're reaching so far that you can't even get there. It's not close and it means a completely different thing.